Elaine T. Yandrisevits has been named a Partner of the law firm of Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. According to Mike Mills, an AMM partner and a member the firm’s executive committee, “Since joining AMM in 2018, Elaine has made indelible contributions to our Trusts and Estates practice group, our firm, and our larger community. She is not only a very skilled lawyer, but a great colleague. We’re proud to have her as a partner at AMM.”

Elaine concentrates her practice on estate planning, trusts and estate administration and Orphans' Court matters with a focus on special needs trust planning and guardianships. She is a frequent speaker on estate planning, estate administration, and special needs planning for continuing legal education and community organizations.
Elaine Yandrisevits can be reached at eyandrisevits@ammlaw.com or 215.230.7500 ext. 160.

Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP is a full-service law firm located in Doylestown, PA. At AMM, we pride ourselves on developing deep relationships with our clients by taking time to understand their goals in order to provide responsive, practical legal advice and aggressive advocacy.

The European Commission published the long-awaited Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (the “EU Directive”) on February 23, 2022. It has been suggested that text found in the EU Directive “risks making the law ineffective” by implying that companies can fulfil their obligations by simply adding clauses in their contracts with suppliers and verifying compliance with “suitable industry initiatives or independent third-party verification”. The criticism is that the “contractual assurances” and verification required by Items 2(b) and 4 of Article 7, and Items 3(c) and 5 of Article 8 allow companies to shift their responsibilities on to their suppliers and to knowingly get away with harm by conducting ineffective audits or participating in voluntary industry schemes that have failed in the past.

The argument that companies can find an easy safe harbor within the EU Directive is misguided. Such condemnation places undue emphasis on the first two elements to achieve the negation of civil liability under Article 22 and ignores the third factor. A company must prove not only that (i) it used appropriate contract clauses (under to-be-provided Commission guidance), and (ii) it verified compliance, but must also prove (iii) it was reasonable to expect the action taken, including the verification process, “would be adequate to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimize the extent of the adverse impact.” The last element is unfairly discounted by those that fear delivery of a safe harbor to industry influences. In addition, due account is not given to Article 22’s additional text that insists company efforts (or absence of efforts) to remediate any discovered damage and the extent of pre-harm support and collaboration to address adverse impacts in its value chains (or absence of support and collaboration) is also to be considered in determining liability.

Articles 4 to 11, 25 and 26 of the EU Directive impose due diligence obligations on subject companies and address the duty of care required of their directors in setting up and overseeing due diligence. The EU Directive has numerous “Whereas” clauses expressing a desire to incorporate the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines which require shared responsibility between buyers and suppliers. It should not be read as suggesting companies avoid liability by simply demanding conventional representations and warranties from a first-tier supplier without shared responsibility for thorough retrospective and prospective investigations to identify, prevent and end adverse impact. Any company that believes “contract assurances” without a detailed and regularly reviewed corporate strategy to address human rights, climate change and environmental consequences using contracts as one of multiple tools is destined to be found liable for damages.

Perhaps Article 22 with respect to a company’s potential civil liability could be clearer with respect to this point if it included a reference to Articles 4,5 and 6 in lieu of the existing limited reference to the obligations laid down in Articles 7(Preventing potential adverse impacts) and Article 8 (Bringing actual adverse impacts to an end). But Article 12 (Model contract clauses) of the EU Directive includes a promise that the Commission will provide guidance for model contract clauses and Article 13 (Guidelines) states the Commission, in consultation with Member states, stakeholders, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Environment Agency, and appropriate international bodies may issue guidelines for specific sectors or specific adverse impacts. The to-be-developed model contract clauses should reflect the characteristics and obligations found in Version 2 of the Model Contract Clauses (the “MCCs”) drafted by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s Working Group found here Center for Human Rights. The MCCs include provisions which require:
● a joint responsibility by buyer and seller to engage in human rights due diligence, in line with the UNGPs and the OECD Guidance;
● a commitment by buyer to engage in responsible purchasing practices that will support supplier’s obligations to avoid adverse human rights impacts; and
● in the event of an adverse impact, a joint commitment that: (a) the parties will prioritize victim-centered human rights remediation above conventional contract remedies (that compensate the non-breaching party, not victims); and (b) each party’s participation in remediation shall be proportionate to each party’s causation of or contribution to the adverse impact.

The EU Directive and the right contract clauses and due diligence guidance can change the way supply chains in global markets have worked for centuries. Finally, a real tool to address modern slavery and the environmental destruction of entire communities.

Susan Maslow, a Partner and Co-founder of the law firm of Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP will be a speaker at the April 20th DiCarlo-Court of International Trade CLE program at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law explaining the Model Contract Clauses that the American Bar Association Working Group has developed over the last 5 years and the growing body of global legislation requiring contract clauses to explicitly address modern slavery and human rights impacts in supply chains. Ms Maslow serves as Co-Chair of the Corporate Social Responsiblity Law Commitee of the ABA Business Law Section. 

For over 30 years, Ms. Maslow has concentrated her practice primarily in general corporate transactional work and finance documentation in the areas of Business Transactions, Business Law, Private Finance, Real Estate, Contracts, and Non-Profit Law. She has enjoyed assisting entrepreneurial individuals and privately-held companies in their efforts to structure and implement a great variety of business transactions, including stock and asset acquisitions, banking negotiations, mergers, secured and unsecured financing, real estate and business acquisitions and leases, capital arrangements for hospitals and other health care providers, distributorships, software services and license arrangements and business separations and dissolutions.  She is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar Associations.

Ms. Maslow can be reached at smaslow@ammlaw.com or 215.230.7500 ext. 119.

The American Bar Association's Working Group to Draft Model Contract Clauses to Protect Human Rights in International Supply Chains just published its 2019-2021 materials in the most recent issue of The Business Lawyer, Winter 2021-2022.  The article is entitled “Balancing Buyer and Supplier Responsibilities Model Contract Clauses to Protect Workers in International Supply Chains, Version 2.0”.   Susan Maslow, a Partner and Co-founder of the Bucks County Law Firm Antheil, Maslow & MacMinn, LLP, is Vice Chair of the Working Group.

For over 30 years, Ms. Maslow has concentrated her practice primarily in general corporate transactional work and finance documentation in the areas of Business Transactions, Business Law, Private Finance, Real Estate, Contracts, and Non-Profit Law. She has enjoyed assisting entrepreneurial individuals and privately-held companies in their efforts to structure and implement a great variety of business transactions, including stock and asset acquisitions, banking negotiations, mergers, secured and unsecured financing, real estate and business acquisitions and leases, capital arrangements for hospitals and other health care providers, distributorships, software services and license arrangements and business separations and dissolutions. She received her law degree from Temple University cum laude in 1983 after graduating from Rutgers University (B.A. 1978). She is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar Associations.

Ms. Maslow can be reached at smaslow@ammlaw.com or 215.230.7500 ext. 119.