Intellectual Property
Pre-Emptively Filing a Trademark Application Over a Viral Catchphrase, Not Very Demure
On August 5, 2024, the life of TikTok content creator Jools Lebron changed after she posted a video that went viral. In the video, Lebron uses the phrase “very demure, very mindful, very cutesy.” That TikTok has since been viewed over 23 million times. Lebron has gone on to appear on Jimmy Kimmel Live and snagged endorsements with Zillow, Verizon and K18 hair. However, Lebron’s joy was dampened after she discovered that an individual named Jefferson A. Bates filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the wordmark “very demure .. very mindful ..” Bates’ application was filed on August 20, 2024, for advertising, marketing and promotional services related to all industries for the purpose of facilitating networking and socializing opportunities for business purposes. Since then, a few other trademark applications involving the words “demure” and “mindful” have popped up. But what even is the implication of these trademark applications to Lebron’s growing popularity and association with the catchphrase “very demure?” Can she continue to use the phrase in her videos or for the sale of merchandise? Under the Lanham Act, the standard test of trademark ownership is a priority of use in the marketplace. This means that ownership of a trademark is acquired by use in the ordinary course of trade, for example, by selling merchandise with the mark. On the other hand, trademark registration creates a legal presumption of ownership and provides notice of such ownership to the public. A trademark registration is obtained by submitting an application to the USPTO for the registration of the trademark. Such an application may be based upon actual use in federally regulated commerce. However, it is quite common to submit a trademark application as a way to reserve trademark rights prior to, but in anticipation of, actual use of the mark, as long as a declaration of bona fide intent-to-use in federally regulated commerce is submitted with the application, although an applicant under the intent-to-use category, will ultimately be required to submit a declaration of actual use before registration is granted. Bates’ trademark application alone does not reserve or guarantee his ownership of the “very demure .. very mindful ..” mark. Registering a mark involves a review by an examining attorney from the USPTO, and the process can take up to 18 months. During the review process, the examining attorney reviews the application to make sure it meets all legal requirements for registration. In fact, the USPTO may even reject the application for various legal reasons. For example, if the application conflicts with a mark that has already been registered or that is pending registration, the USPTO will issue an office action. An office action is a letter from the USPTO informing an applicant of the issues with a trademark application. An office action must be resolved before registration can be granted. After the review process, the trademark is published in the Trademark Official Gazette. At this point, any member of the public can oppose the registration of the trademark within 30 days of the publication. Alternatively, a letter of protest may be submitted with the USPTO. Even though filing a federal trademark application could provide Bates with some protection, trademark rights are automatically acquired through use of the mark in the marketplace. Thus, any protection that Bates may have received from his application may be subject to the rights of earlier users of the mark in the marketplace. However, can Lebron’s iconic use of the phrase in her TikTok videos be considered prior use in commerce? In decided cases, the Trademark Board has explained that mere advertising without rendering services under a mark could, in some circumstances, constitute use sufficient to prove priority. Every case is different, and the decision of the Trademark Board depends on the specifics at hand. Lebron can certainly continue to make videos using the viral catchphrase, but the clock may have started ticking on a race to the marketplace. Navigating the trademark application process or opposing the registration of a trademark can be confusing. If you are concerned about understanding how trademark rights can protect your business and brand name, we recommend consulting with an intellectual property attorney to discuss your options.
September 9, 2024
Mergers and Acquisitions
In M&A, a Seller’s Greatest Asset Is Their Engagement in the Deal
Every business owner understands the importance of employee engagement. Keep your team motivated and energized, and you’ll maximize profit, productivity, retention, and customer satisfaction. When the time comes to sell your business, you'll need to cultivate that same level of engagement within yourself. You’re the one in the driver’s seat; no one else can steer the process for you. If you aren’t totally invested and enthusiastic about the deal, you risk missing out on the best possible sale price or letting the transaction fall apart. Keep in mind that during a merger, acquisition, or other business transaction, a seller takes on two jobs: selling a company and running a company. Neither job is easy. Both require full engagement, attention, and leadership acumen. I like to say that during an M&A transaction, you operate your business from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and you sell your business from 5 p.m. to midnight! During the transaction, the business owner needs to make themselves readily available to evaluate buyers, negotiate terms, produce documents, answer questions, and actively engage in other elements of the transaction. As a seller, the owner must also sell their business — convincing the other party of their vision, of the company’s valuation, and why the organization is an excellent buy. At the same time, the owner is still involved in the day-to-day operations of the business. We’re talking about governing organization-wide initiatives, developing strategies, making decisions, communicating to internal and external stakeholders, and everything else leaders do on a daily basis. In addition to these full-time responsibilities, the owner is typically hard at work on the transition — readying employees for the changes ahead, locking down key contracts, keeping vendors and business partners updated, and so on. If that sounds like a lot to handle, it’s because it is. It’s like undergoing an extended federal investigation while pushing your business as aggressively as a used car salesman would. Sellers need to prepare financially, emotionally, and psychologically for the difficult road ahead. They need to figure out their goals and objectives early and stick to them resolutely. Fortunately, sellers don’t need to manage it all alone. Business attorneys, investment bankers, valuation professionals, and other M&A advisors can provide much-needed support and sanity checks. That said, we can’t get the deal done without your direction and continual involvement. Again, the operative term is engagement. I’ve worked with clients who lacked engagement and damaged their deals as a result. You need to consider decisions, read every document, and follow through all the way. If your attorney asks you for your business contracts, they don’t want to hear “here’s most of them.” You need to provide all of them, not 80%, not 90%. “Good enough” doesn’t cut it. The buyer who’s going to pay you millions of dollars isn’t going to stand for “good enough” or “most of what I could find;” they need everything, or they need to know what you can’t find and why. On the flip side, there’s such a thing as getting too engaged in the transaction. Micromanaging is a form of sabotage. Trust the members of your team to do their jobs. Insisting that you need something done by Friday has no impact on your attorney’s ability to do it. Deadlines should be based in reality. Moreover, the attorney may have a good reason for taking their time. Sometimes, it’s simply smarter to wait and see how things play out so you can make better-informed decisions. Remember that a business transaction is a dance, a push-and-pull between buyer and seller. If the only reason you’re rushing through it is to check a box, you could be losing perspective on the deal and giving up your leverage. Any effective arrangement between a business owner and an M&A advisor is a partnership. While healthy discussion is good, each partner fundamentally needs to do their part and stay in their lane. A lawyer shouldn’t be asked to provide guidance on net-working capital—that’s an investment banker’s job. By the same token, the banker’s input on legal matters shouldn’t supersede the attorney’s recommendations. And as the business owner, you’re ultimately the one calling the shots. It’s your business, your transaction, your future. Grab hold of the wheel and put your foot on the pedal. Originally posted 10/25/19, no content changes.
September 5, 2024
Family Law
Navigating the Division of Private Investments in a New Jersey Divorce: A Simplified Guide
Divorce can be a complex process, especially when dividing financial assets. The process can seem even more daunting for those who own private investments, such as shares in a closely held business or investment partnerships. If you're facing a divorce in New Jersey and have private investments, understanding how these assets are divided can help you navigate this challenging time with more confidently. Here's a straightforward guide to help you through the process. What Are Private Investments? Private investments are assets that are not traded on public exchanges. They can include: Shares in Private Companies: Owning stock in a company that is not publicly traded, is considered a private investment. Partnership Interests: Investments in business partnerships or joint ventures. Real Estate Ventures: Investments in real estate projects that are not part of a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT). How Are Private Investments Divided in a New Jersey Divorce? In New Jersey, divorce laws require that marital assets be divided fairly, which is known as "equitable distribution." This doesn’t always mean a 50/50 split but rather a fair division based on various factors. Here's a step-by-step look at how private investments are typically handled: Identify the Investments: The first step is to identify all private investments owned by either spouse. This involves compiling detailed information about each investment, including its value, ownership percentages, and any relevant agreements or documentation. Determine the Value: Valuing private investments can be more complicated than valuing publicly traded stocks. Since private investments are not publicly traded, they lack a clear market value. You might need to hire financial experts or appraisers specializing in valuing such assets. They will consider factors like the company's financial statements, revenue, profits, and market conditions to estimate a fair value. Assess the Marital Portion: Only the portion of the private investment acquired during the marriage is subject to division. If the investment was made before the marriage, its pre-marital value is generally considered separate property. However, any increase in value during the marriage is typically divided if the asset requires the active efforts of either spouse. This can be particularly complex if the investment has appreciated significantly over time. Consider the Type of Investment: Different types of private investments might require different approaches:Business Interests: If one spouse owns a business, determining its value and dividing ownership can be particularly intricate. The court may consider whether the business was started before or during the marriage and how much of the business’s value is attributable to the marital period. Partnerships: If you are a partner in a business, your share might be divided based on the partnership agreement or subscription agreement, which might outline how to handle such situations. Negotiate and Reach an Agreement: Once the value of private investments is determined, you and your spouse can negotiate how to divide these assets. This might involve selling the investment and splitting the proceeds, or one spouse might buy out the other’s share. Another option to consider may be a transfer of shares directly to your spouse (if permitted) or an offset against another marital asset. Negotiations should be guided by fairness and consider each party’s financial and non-financial contributions to the marital enterprise. Legal and Tax Considerations: Dividing private investments can have tax implications. It’s important to consult with tax professionals to understand the potential tax consequences of transferring ownership or selling investments. Legal advice can also ensure that all agreements comply with New Jersey divorce laws and are properly documented. Asset Protection and Estate Planning Considerations: It is also extremely important to consider how any division may impact your asset protection plan and/or your estate planning objectives. Seek Professional Guidance Given the complexity of valuing and dividing private investments, it’s advisable to work with professionals who have a deep understanding of these areas. Financial advisors, business valuators, and seasoned matrimonial attorneys can offer valuable guidance and help ensure that your interests are protected. Conclusion Dividing private investments during a divorce in New Jersey involves a careful assessment of their value, understanding which portions are subject to division, and navigating the complexities of asset division. While the process can be intricate, you can work towards a fair and equitable resolution with the right support and a clear understanding of your assets. If you’re facing a divorce and are unsure how to handle private investments, we strongly recommend consulting with a knowledgeable family law attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, as every case is unique and fact-sensitive. With the right expertise, you can manage this challenging aspect of divorce and move forward with greater clarity and confidence. If you would like to discuss your matter or have any questions, please contact Rawan Hmoud, Esq. by email at rhmoud@offitkurman.com or by phone at D: 347-589-8528. In addition to her more than 17 years of experience in family law, Ms. Hmoud is the Practice Group Leader of the Family Law North group at Offit Kurman, PA. She works with a team of matrimonial attorneys covering New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and our Asset Protection and Estates and Trusts teams.
September 5, 2024
Estates and Trusts
Writing Your Own Epilogue: How Estate Planning Can Shape Your Legacy
William Shakespeare said, “A good play needs no epilogue.” When a story is compellingly told, in other words, there is no need for commentary after the curtain falls. Like a play that is well written, a life that is well lived speaks for itself. But living well includes knowing that you have planned for what happens after you are gone. This foresight includes how easily your estate will be passed down to the people you care about. Have you written a will that names someone to settle your estate? If something were to happen to you, do you know who would receive your assets? If you have children, have you appointed a guardian to look after them and a trustee to manage their inheritance? If not, the commentary on your life could well include tales of confused intentions and mismanaged assets, of hurt feelings and squandered wealth. Fortunately, all it takes is a phone call to an estates and trusts attorney to make your epilogue your own. With your guidance, the attorney can prepare your will, durable power of attorney, and advance medical directive. These essential documents name a cast of characters who can take charge if you should die or become incapacitated. Your Last Will and Testament names a “personal representative,” or executor, who will administer your estate. Dying without a will, or “intestate,” would require someone to step into this role. The person they select could be an estranged sibling or disapproving parent, who will then have the legal authority to go through your home and distribute your possessions and other assets to your heirs. By preparing a will, you ensure that the right person is in charge of settling your affairs. Writing a will also enables you to leave your assets to the people you select. Shakespeare himself did this when he bequeathed his “second-best bed” to his wife. In addition to your spouse or partner and any children, you might consider including a charitable organization, such as an alma mater or house of worship, among your beneficiaries. Working with an attorney is an opportunity to coordinate assets like life insurance and retirement accounts with the provisions in your will. These “non-probate” assets are not controlled by your will and instead transfer directly to the named beneficiary upon your death. It’s essential, then, that these beneficiary designations work in tandem your will and are not at odds with it. Even a well-lived life can include periods of struggle. If you ever become incapacitated, a durable power of attorney can name someone you trust to manage your finances. The duties of your “attorney in fact,” as the person is called, could include paying your bills, filing your taxes, or even selling your house in order to move you into assisted living. An advance medical directive is like a power of attorney but relates to your health care. It enables you to state your wishes for managing an end-of-life illness and to name a trusted individual who will ensure that your wishes are carried out. If you lose capacity and don’t have an advance directive, the authority to make medical decisions on your behalf will fall to your next of kin. Surprisingly, this could be several people, like a group of siblings, who could have very different ideas about how to manage your care. By preparing an advance directive, you can instead name someone with your best interests at heart to take on this essential role. Of all the benefits of having an estate plan, perhaps the greatest is the reassurance of knowing that the actors you have chosen are prepared to step into their roles when the need arises. With that in mind, when is the best time to have your estate-planning documents drawn up? As Shakespeare said in the Merry Wives of Windsor, “Better three hours too soon than a minute too late.” Lee Carpenter is a Principal at the law firm of Offit Kurman, P.A., and can be reached at (410) 209-6426 or lee.carpenter@offitkurman.com. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be construed as legal advice.
September 3, 2024
Commercial Litigation
Gut Punch...No Regrets
Sometimes a “win” feels like, well, . . . not a win. Sometimes a “win” comes at such a significant cost that the diminished value of the victory forces one to question whether it was a win at all. The Battle of Bunker Hill is a notorious “pyrrhic victory” during which the British troops occupying Boston eventually overran the vastly outnumbered rag-tag assemblage of defending militiamen but not without suffering substantially greater casualties than expected. The battle, nominally a British victory, proved to be an encounter the British would much rather forget than tout as a win. Similarly, a prize fighter’s successful defense of his boxing title by technical knockout leaving him perceptively weak and vulnerable to challengers, perhaps even severely injured, might leave him questioning whether, in hindsight, the public beating taken in the ring was truly a “win” for which it was worth fighting. I recently experienced an unqualified “win” for a client followed by a sucker punch I didn’t see coming . . . a “gut punch” unexpectedly bringing me to my knees and requiring the equivalent of a “standing 8-count” to shake off and get my head right. While it didn’t come with bloodshed or a championship belt, it did come with loss of life and a serious cause for pause. The Set-Up I’d been contacted and engaged by a non-familial attorney-in-fact on behalf of a lovely 90-year-old, bed-ridden, “stage 4” diagnosed, short-timer. For these purposes, I’ll call her “Joy” -- because she certainly was! Joy was a pistol. Although end-stage, unable to leave her bed, and receiving hospice care when I met her, Joy was feisty. I certainly had no doubts about her mental capacity. She knew what she wanted and had no issue telling you! What she didn’t want was a guardian or conservator appointed for her – least of all her 30-year estranged family member (“Pat”) who, from thousands of miles away, had only begrudgingly made the trip to see Joy and, even then, chose to disrespect her by removing and requisitioning Joy’s dining room chandelier before bothering to say “hello!” Soon thereafter Pat had returned home and engaged local Virginia counsel to assist Pat in securing complete control over Joy as both guardian and conservator. Suit was filed and a Guardian ad litem (GAL) already appointed by the time I got the initial call. Joy was having none of it and was non-plussed. For her part, Joy, with the help of her attorney-in-fact, had engaged reputable counsel to redo her estate plan writing Pat (and Pat’s equally estranged sibling, who couldn’t be bothered to pay respects) completely out of her will. I know what you’re thinking at this point – was the non-family member taking advantage of Joy and now the object of all of her bounty? Nope. Joy kept it in the family but skipped a generation leaving everything she owned to the grandchildren she’d never been allowed to know. In what turned out to be her final days, Joy wanted nothing more to connect with and meet the now adult grandkids she’d never met, but my requests through counsel on her behalf went unanswered. The “Win” Having personally met with and preliminarily concluded Pat needed no guarding or conservation, I was easily able to convince Pat’s counsel that there was no need to rush to judgment and coordinate a cooperative approach to allowing an independent assessment by the court-appointed GAL – who, by the way, was equally easily convinced of Pat’s mental acuity and just as willing to minimize her involvement so as to avoid unnecessarily running up legal fees. I convinced Joy to allow me to share her new estate plan documents so Pat’s counsel could see and share with Pat that mom was not giving it all away to who knows who and clearly had a plan – a plan reflective of the non-existent relationship Joy had had with her children . . . a plan without Pat. With no basis for denying Joy her freedoms of choice, Pat’s counsel pursued a voluntary dismissal. With everyone doing the “right thing,” a lot of money and heartache was spared and I had successfully defended Joy’s interests without so much as having filed a single pleading or attended a single hearing. No formal discovery was needed; judicial economy was maximized. Joy was happy. Joy’s attorney-in-fact was happy. I was happy. Joy was at peace. Joy passed several days later. The “Gut Punch” With Joy’s passing, there was still work to be done, of course. In keeping with Joy’s wishes, Joy’s attorney-in-fact, now Executor under Joy’s will, made arrangements for the final disposition of Joy’s remains with no public service or ceremony. I reviewed the published eulogy with interest and a strange deference, considering I’d only twice met Joy in person and only known Joy for a few weeks. Count this one as a “win,” I thought. Hold this out as a case study on how every case should go, I concluded. I’d even begun composing the article in my head. That’s when I got the call. Joy’s other long-lost offspring had been given my number. It seems there’d been no love lost between Joy and himself over the years and he’d deferred to Pat to address mom’s final illness. With news of Joy’s death still fresh, he was calling to let me know that Pat had just taken her own life. There it was – his own self-described “1-2 punch combination” which had apparently left him feeling weak in the knees, was the punch to the gut I didn’t see coming. I sat dazed and speechless as he shared the unsolicited gruesome reality of Pat’s disposition as his story morphed into the impact on Pat’s situation on the grandkids – remember the grandkids? He transitioned effortlessly again to talk of wanting to be “fair to the kids” (appearing now to be indirectly referencing Joy’s estate and believing, based on apparently nothing in particular, that Pat’s kids would somehow be short-shrifted with Pat’s untimely demise). In that moment, I caught my breath and lifted myself off the mat with the revelation that he had been written out of the will and the grandkids were to receive everything. “So that’s it, then, huh.” “Yes.” Conversation over. After an awkward silence, he hung up. The Aftermath I’m not sure which had hit harder, news of Pat having taken her own life or the impact of her doing so on the sibling and children she’d left behind. I suppose that in my line of work I ought to be grateful I’ve not faced more such situations. Quite candidly, I’ll concede I’m not sure this would still be my line of work! There was no championship belt for my performance, nor was one deserved. Still, a win’s a win, right? I take solace in knowing that I served my client’s interests cost-effectively, efficiently, and professionally. I successfully protected her legal rights and helped her die with dignity and at peace. The tragic aftermath left in her wake was not of my doing, but rather the apparent consequences of lifetimes of regret about which I know little more than hinted at here and with which I had no involvement. I think it’s important to recognize that our wins and losses as litigators are life-altering events for our clients and their “adversaries” (aka family members, in my specific line of work). I think the struggle comes from the juxtaposed need to be independent-thinking, dispassionate, third-party trained professionals and the inherent value in appreciating the emotional toll and impact the circumstances have on not only our clients but also those caught up in outwardly expanding ripples left in litigation’s wake. My takeaways? If nothing else, I learned I could take a punch. I still what I do . . . for now, at least. Personally, I suggest calling your mom; hug your kids before it’s too late. Professionally, in a personal services context, caring still matters. It’s important to remember that people generally don’t care what you know unless they know that you care, but if they don’t care that you care, you don’t need them.
August 30, 2024
Business
I’m a Potential M&A Buyer; Should I Focus on Buying Stocks (Equities) or Buying Assets?
When an M&A buyer is looking into a target company, they’re faced with the decision whether to buy stocks (the equities) or acquire assets. But what’s the difference? A stock purchase involves the purchase of the selling company’s stock only. Simply put: the buyer acquires all of the outstanding stock of the target company directly from the target company’s stockholders, including the assets, rights, and liabilities. The buyer then steps in the shoes of the selling stockholders (switches places). Stock purchases are generally straightforward transactions. Both parties sign a Stock Purchase Agreement (a sales agreement used to transfer and assign ownership in a corporation) and any other related documents that outline the terms of the deal, and the sellers then transfer their stock to the buyer. It seems simple enough, right? For the most part. There are risks, such as unknown or undisclosed liabilities of the target company. Again, when you purchase the stock, you become the stockholder; thus, nothing at the company level changes (save perhaps change of control issues). Operations remain intact as do all risks and liabilities. In addition, stock sales generally have favorable tax treatment for sellers. But what if you don’t want to buy everything and/or you want to limit your risk exposure? You might then be more interested in an asset purchase. An asset purchase is an agreement between a buyer and seller to acquire a company’s assets. This means: the buyer only acquires the assets, rights, and liabilities it identifies and agrees to acquire and assume. Assets can be both tangible, such as offices and equipment, and intangible, such an intellectual property and corporate name. Asset purchases are a good option if you’re looking for more flexibility and don’t want to pay for unwanted assets. Further to that point, it means less risk of assuming unknown or undisclosed liabilities. Asset purchase transactions are generally more favorable to a buyer and at times less favorable to a seller. Some buyers may be deterred by asset acquisitions because they’re more complex than stock purchases. The buyer has to spend time identifying the assets it wishes to acquire/assume. By doing so, the buyer may potentially overlook an important asset required to run the business it’s acquiring. Asset purchases have more formalities and documents since they require a separate transfer for each of the identified assets and liabilities of the target company. They may also require more third-party consent since the contracts assumed by the buyer are likely to contain anti-assignment clauses (which prevents either party the ability to assign tasks to a third party without the agreement of the non-assigning party). Whether you’re considering a stock purchase or an asset purchase, it’s always best to discuss it with an M&A attorney first. Selecting the form of the transaction is a key consideration when targeting the purchase of a business. There are many variables to consider as to why a transaction is set as a stock purchase versus an asset purchase. Originally posted on 9/9/2020, no content changes.
August 29, 2024
Family Law
New Jersey vs. California: A Divorce Law Comparison Through JLo and Ben's Separation
Recent media coverage has been swirling with rumors surrounding Jennifer Lopez (JLo) and Ben Affleck’s separation. On August 20, 2024, it was reported that JLo filed for divorce in California, where they both primarily reside, after just two years of marriage. While the separation was not unexpected, it came as a surprise that JLo and Ben did not have a prenuptial agreement prior to walking down the aisle in July 2022. Without a prenuptial agreement, the earnings, profits, and assets acquired during the marriage are subject to division. In determining how marital property should be divided, courts will consider a variety of factors, which can differ depending on the state where the divorce is filed. While their divorce is being filed in California, exploring how New Jersey would handle a similar situation offers an interesting perspective on the differences in divorce law across states. Unlike California, which is a community property state where marital assets are generally divided 50/50, New Jersey follows an "equitable distribution" model, meaning that marital property is divided in a manner deemed fair based on the circumstances — not necessarily equally. Equitable Distribution in New Jersey If this matter were pending in New Jersey, the allocation of marital assets between spouses would be governed by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1, regardless of ownership. Unlike California, New Jersey is an equitable distribution state, meaning that marital property is not necessarily divided equally but, in a manner, deemed fair based on the circumstances. In conducting an equitable distribution analysis, New Jersey courts follow a three-step process: Identification: The court first identifies the specific property and liabilities of each spouse that are subject to distribution. Valuation: The court then determines the value of this property. Distribution: Finally, the court analyzes and decides how to distribute the property fairly. At Step 3, the court has broad discretion to determine the most equitable way to distribute marital assets, guided by the factors outlined in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1. Among the 16 factors considered, the most important include: The length of the marriage. The economic circumstances of both parties. Each party’s financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage. Additional factors such as the age and health of both parties, the standard of living established during the marriage, and the tax consequences of proposed distributions. Considerations for High-Profile Divorces For high-profile clients like JLo and Ben, a New Jersey court might consider a variety of assets when determining the distribution of their assets and liabilities. This list includes, but is not limited to: The earnings from films in which either party starred or was involved as a director/producer during the marriage. For Ben, this includes films such as Air and Hypnotic, This Is Me… Now: A Love Story, Small Things Like These, Kiss The Future, The Greatest Love Story Never Told, The Instigators, and The Accountant 2, while JLo’s films include Shotgun Wedding, The Mother, This Is Me… Now: A Love Story, and Atlas[1]. The court would also take into account their Beverly Hills home, Promotional contracts, streaming dividends, and royalties earned during the marriage. In certain circumstances, the appreciation of separate property may be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. However, given the short duration of JLo and Ben’s marriage, it is uncertain whether a New Jersey court would divide any increase in the value of their separate property or premarital assets. Typically, prenuptial agreements address this issue directly and provide protection against such outcomes. How New Jersey Differs from Other States It is important to note that each state’s approach to divorce can differ significantly. For instance, New York, like New Jersey, is an equitable distribution state but has its own unique guidelines and considerations that could lead to different outcomes. These variations emphasize the importance of understanding the nuances of divorce law in your jurisdiction. Protect Your Interests: Consult with a Family Law Attorney High-profile cases like this often involve complex financial portfolios and unique challenges that require careful planning and attention. If you’re concerned about protecting your assets or understanding how your property might be divided in a divorce, we strongly recommend consulting with a knowledgeable family law attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, as every case is unique and fact-specific. If you would like to discuss your matter or have any questions, please contact us by email at emily.ingall@offitkurman.com and rhmoud@offitkurman.com or by phone at 929-476-0046 or 347-589-8528. [1] This list may not be all-encompassing and may not include unreleased projects.
August 28, 2024
Business
From the Field to the M&A Negotiating Table, Every Successful Team Shares The Same Dynamics
They say there’s no “I” in “team.” Tellingly, for the parties in merger or acquisition, it’s also impossible to spell “team” without an “M” or an “A.” But I’d like to introduce you to a different set of letters. Even though you can’t find them in the word itself, every team should contain three “Cs”: cohesion, collaboration, and culture. Over the course of my career as a business attorney and advisor, I’ve seen many transactions succeed—and witnessed many more fall apart. Every deal that’s gone through could not have happened if not for a cohesive, collaborative, culturally connected team. Speaking as a sports fan, I could say the same about a squad like the Ravens, the Bulls, or the Bruins. Whether we’re talking about a sports team or a corporate team, the Three Cs are paramount for optimal results: Cohesion is the team’s capacity to stick together, through the good times and the difficult moments. It’s the fundamental element every group needs to take on risk and uncertainty, survive failure, and doggedly pursue its goal. Without cohesion, there is no team. Collaboration is how the team works together as a unit, maximizing each team member’s strengths to become something more than the sum of their individual abilities. Collaboration ensures the team is operating at its full capacity. It’s how team members keep each other accountable, engaged, and in the game—be it a real game or a metaphorical one. Culture is everything the team cares about and stands for—the values, principles, beliefs, assumptions, and personalities that make the team unique. A team’s culture determines how and why the team does what it does. Culture eclipses everything else; it’s how Joe Namath led the Jets to triumph over the Colts, the so-called “greatest football team in history,” in Super Bowl III. The Three Cs are essential ingredients of all successful teams, but they aren’t the only qualities that matter. Many teams with extraordinary M&A records have been together for a long time—sometimes years. Time not only imparts experience, but builds team confidence and predictability. Diversity matters as well. An M&A advisory team should be comprised of individuals from different disciplines, such as leadership, accounting, law, and investments. Many successful sellers and buyers build teams from their networks: they tap their closest colleagues and associates for support; hire attorneys, bankers, and other M&A consultants; and then bring in trusted advisors from their organizations’ boards of directors, executive suits, and finance departments. Finally, even the smartest, most experienced and diverse teams need to watch out for dysfunction. Everyone on the team should share a single goal: deal consummation. Internal dysfunction can impact everything from timing to cost structures. With that in mind, effective M&A teams work on resolving conflicts early, build open lines of communication, and save their competitive energy for the playing field—or negotiating table. Originally posted on 1/25/2019, no content changes.
August 22, 2024
FTC Non-Compete Rule
Texas Court Blocks Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Ban
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will not be able to enforce its proposed rule banning non-competes per the latest ruling from a federal district court in Texas. What does this mean for businesses? For now, it’s business as usual. Companies can continue using non-compete agreements with their employees, provided they comply with applicable state and local laws. Best practices regarding non-compete agreements Companies should still exercise caution, however. The FTC may appeal the Ryan decision or there could be other legal or regulatory changes that could impact the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Future legislation or regulatory reform around the use of employee non-competes may be especially likely, given the recent and widely publicized scrutiny. Employers should review their existing non-compete agreements with employment counsel to ensure they comply with current laws and regulations in the states in which they operate and have employees. Attorneys experienced with non-competes and other restrictive covenants can provide you with valuable insights and alternative strategies to protect your interests. Being prepared to adapt your policies in response to any changes will help safeguard your business. Background Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 3:24-cv-00986, (N.D. Tex.) was one of several lawsuits filed to challenge the FTC’s proposed rule banning non-competes. This rule, set to take effect September 4, 2024, would have banned the use of future non-compete agreements and nullified most existing ones. In a victory for employers, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling in the Ryan case on August 20, 2024, blocking the FTC from enforcing its proposed non-compete rule.
August 21, 2024
Mergers and Acquisitions
Four Reasons Sellers Have a Natural Disadvantage in M&A Transactions
“The roulette table pays nobody except him that keeps it. Nevertheless, a passion for gaming is common, though a passion for keeping roulette tables is unknown.” So wrote George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright and London School of Economics co-founder, over a century ago. Were Shaw alive today, he would make a shrewd mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisor. In an M&A transaction, the keeper of the roulette table is the buyer: the organization, group, or individual interested in purchasing a company. Sellers are at an inherent disadvantage because they’re engaging on the other party’s terms. They’re sitting across from someone who sets the rules, who holds the chips, who has bet—and won—numerous times before. To attempt to outsmart or overpower the buyer is to play against the house: you’re almost certain to lose—and wind up in a worse position than where you started. If this sounds dramatic, that’s because it is. While no deal is a pure gamble, there’s always some level of risk and uncertainty involved. And if a seller doesn’t adequately prepare and check their expectations, they could be putting millions of dollars and countless hours on the line. Consider some of the basic advantages buyers have over sellers during an M&A transaction: 1. The Buyer Tends to Have More Resources A business owner may have a hot commodity on the market, but a buyer has money. Guess who has better leverage? Moreover, capital is just one of the acquiring party’s many resources. Buyers tend to work with specialized teams of investors, bankers, accountants, and valuation professionals. Sellers may lack the means or knowledge to access outside expertise and build equally formidable rosters. 2. The Buyer Brings More Knowledge and Experience Most business owners will only sell a company once, if ever, over the course of their lifetimes. Many buyers, by contrast, make deals for a living. There’s a good chance your prospective buyer has negotiated dozens of transactions before. They probably understand M&A activity in your industry better than you do. They may have grounds to challenge your assumptions about your company’s value and can back up their assertions with detailed data. 3. The Buyer Has More Time and Energy to Spend Sellers have a fundamental limitation in terms of capacity—they need to balance the pressures and demands of deal-making with ongoing business operations. Again, for buyers, the transaction is the job. If the transaction is already underway, they can dedicate their full time and attention to it. As a result, they’re less likely than sellers to experience burnout and better equipped to vigorously defend their position as negotiations drag on. 4. The Buyer Is More Prepared to Walk Away Business owners are deeply attached to the companies they’ve built. When a deal starts to materialize, it represents the culmination of years of hard work and usually follows a series of serious, passionate conversations and tough decisions. But while a seller’s emotional investment in the company—and the transaction—is only natural, the buyer is wise to keep some distance. Think about the different meanings a closed deal has for either party: for the seller, it’s the next stage of life; for the buyer, it’s another opportunity that may or may not work out. Originally posted 9/12/2019, no content changes.
August 15, 2024
Family Law
Back to School! Now What?
As summer comes to a close and children prepare to return to school, many divorced or separated parents find themselves facing the need to adjust their custody schedules. The shift from the more relaxed, flexible summer arrangements to the structured routine of the school year can be challenging. Understanding how custody schedules can change during this transition and planning accordingly can help ensure a smooth adjustment for parents and children. What is the best way to address these changes? Below are a few tips to facilitate a smooth transition back into the school year. Communicate Early and Often: Open communication between parents is not just important; it’s essential. Discuss potential custody changes well before the school year begins. Regular check-ins can help address any concerns and ensure both parents are on the same page, providing a sense of reassurance and keeping everyone well-informed. Create a Detailed Plan: A detailed custody plan can prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. The plan should outline the daily schedule, transportation arrangements, responsibilities for extracurricular activities, and any other relevant details. Be Flexible and Cooperative: Flexibility and cooperation are not just helpful but key to successful co-parenting. Be willing to adjust as needed and consider each other's work schedules, commitments, and the child's needs. This approach empowers you to control the situation and work together for the best outcome for your child. Prioritize the Child's Best Interests: Always keep the child's best interests at the forefront of any decisions. Stability, consistency, and a supportive environment are crucial for the child's well-being and academic success. This responsibility and care for your child's needs should guide all your decisions. Seek Mediation or Legal Assistance if Necessary: If parents cannot agree on custody schedule changes, seeking mediation or legal assistance may be necessary. A mediator or family law attorney can help facilitate discussions and find a resolution for everyone involved. Adjusting custody schedules when children return to school can be a complex process. Still, parents can navigate this transition smoothly with careful planning, open communication, and a focus on the child's best interests. By working together and being flexible, parents can ensure their children have the stability and support they need to thrive academically and emotionally. If you need assistance modifying a custody schedule, consulting with an experienced family law attorney can provide valuable guidance and help protect your rights as a parent.
August 15, 2024
Family Law
Traveling Abroad with Children During a Divorce: What You Need to Know
Understanding the legal requirements is one of the first and most critical steps in planning an international trip with your children during a divorce. Custody and Visitation Agreements: Review your custody and visitation agreements carefully. These documents will outline the rights of both parents regarding the children's travel. If your agreement restricts travel or requires the other parent's consent, you must follow these terms to avoid legal complications. Obtaining Consent: In most cases, you'll need the other parent's consent to travel abroad with your children. This consent should be in writing and include trip details, such as dates, destinations, and contact information. Some countries require this written consent when entering or leaving the country. Court Orders: If you cannot obtain the other parent's consent, you may need to seek a court order allowing you to travel. The court will consider whether the trip is in the children's best interest and whether it disrupts the other parent's visitation rights. Passports: Ensure that your children's passports are up to date. Both parents must usually sign a child's passport application unless one parent has sole legal custody. If your ex-spouse refuses to cooperate, you may need to go to court to obtain a passport. The Hague Convention: If you're traveling to a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, be aware of the legal protections this treaty provides. It helps prevent one parent from wrongfully retaining a child in a foreign country. Be very cautious if a parent wants to travel to a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Once the legal matters are settled, focus on planning the logistics of your trip. Itinerary and Contact Information: Share your complete travel itinerary, including flight information, accommodation details, and contact numbers, with the other parent. This transparency helps build trust and ensures both parents know the children's whereabouts. Emergency Contacts: Provide the other parent with emergency contact information, including local contacts in the destination country, the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, and the children's healthcare providers. Healthcare Considerations: Ensure you have all necessary medical documents, including prescriptions, insurance information, and vaccination records. It's wise to have travel insurance that covers your children for the trip. Traveling during a divorce can sometimes lead to conflicts, especially if communication between you and your ex-spouse is strained. Conflict Resolution: Approach any disputes calmly and rationally. If a disagreement arises over travel plans, consider mediation to resolve the issue without escalating tensions. Respect Boundaries: Respect the other parent's boundaries and rights. Make sure to discuss them with your ex-spouse before making any last-minute changes to the travel itinerary. Legal Recourse: If conflicts cannot be resolved amicably, it may be necessary to seek legal advice or intervention. Always prioritize the best interests of your children in any legal action. Traveling abroad with your children during a divorce requires careful planning and consideration. Adhering to legal requirements, addressing your children's emotional needs, and maintaining open communication with the other parent can ensure the trip is a positive experience for everyone involved.
August 13, 2024
Family Law
How to Value a Startup Business in a Divorce
Startups differ from mature businesses in that they are typically in the early stages of development, often with unpredictable revenue streams, high growth potential, and significant risk. This makes traditional valuation methods, which rely heavily on historical financial data, less effective. There are key aspects to consider when valuing a startup, which includes: Stage of Development: Is the startup in its seed stage, early stage, or growth stage? Revenue and Earnings: Startups may have little to no revenue or earnings, which affects the valuation approach. Business Model: Understanding the business model is critical as it determines the potential for future profitability. There are several methods to value a startup in a divorce, each with its own set of assumptions and applicability: Income Approach (Discounted Cash Flow—DCF): This approach involves projecting the startup's future cash flows and discounting them to their present value. However, due to startups' speculative nature, this method can be challenging and may require adjustments to account for higher risks. Market Approach: This method involves comparing the startup to similar businesses that have been recently sold. In the context of a startup, this could mean looking at other startups in the same industry and stage of development. However, finding comparable companies can be difficult, and the market approach often requires significant adjustments. Asset-Based Approach: This approach focuses on the value of the startup's assets, including intellectual property, equipment, and other tangible or intangible assets. For startups, this might undervalue the business, especially if the company's value is tied more to future potential than current assets. Venture Capital Method: Investors often use this method to value startups. It involves estimating the startup's exit value (the amount for which the startup could be sold in the future) and working backward to determine the present value. This method can be helpful but relies heavily on assumptions about future performance. Cost to Duplicate: This method calculates the cost of reviving the startup from scratch. While this may not reflect the market value, it can provide a baseline for valuation. When valuing a startup in a divorce, several personal and business factors must be considered: Ownership Structure: If the startup has multiple co-founders, the ownership percentage of the spouse involved in the divorce needs to be clearly defined. Role of the Spouse: The spouse's involvement in the startup (whether as a co-founder, employee, or passive investor) can affect the valuation and how the business is treated in the divorce. Legal Agreements: Any pre-existing agreements, such as prenuptial or postnuptial, can influence how the startup is valued and divided. Impact on Business Operations: The divorce may affect the startup's operations, especially if both spouses are involved. The potential implications for business continuity should be considered in the valuation. Given the complexities involved in valuing a startup, hiring a professional business valuator with experience in startups and divorce cases is often advisable. A qualified expert can provide a more accurate and unbiased valuation, which ensures a fair settlement. Once the startup's value has been determined, the next step is negotiating how that value will be divided. This can involve various options, such as: One spouse buys out the other's interest in the business. Selling the business and dividing the proceeds. Offsetting the value of the startup with other marital assets. Valuing a startup in a divorce is a complex process that requires a thorough understanding of the business and the personal dynamics involved. Each valuation method has pros and cons, and the most appropriate approach depends on the specific circumstances of the startup and the divorce. Engaging a professional valuator and carefully considering all factors can help ensure the process is fair and equitable for both parties. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a valuation that reflects the startup's true worth, considering the unique challenges it presents in the context of a divorce.
August 13, 2024
Labor and Employment
Navigating the FTC’s New Non-Compete Rule: Steps to Prepare by September 4, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a new rule (FTC Rule) that invalidates most existing non-compete agreements for employees at for-profit businesses, except for those agreements for "senior executives" signed before September 4, 2024 (Effective Date). This FTC Rule fundamentally alters the longstanding practice of using non-compete clauses to safeguard an employer's interests. Overview of the FTC’s New Non-Compete Rule and Its Implications Under the new rule, non-compete agreements will only remain enforceable for senior executives—defined as those earning more than $151,164 annually and holding significant policy-making roles, such as president or CEO—and will remain enforceable if signed before the Effective Date. After September 4, 2024, employers will be prohibited from imposing non-compete agreements on new hires, even if they are senior executives. Employers are also required to inform both current and former employees bound by non-compete agreements that these agreements will not be enforced. The FTC has provided model language for this notice, available on its website in multiple languages. Employers should use this notice carefully and avoid issuing it to senior executives who the FTC Rule does not impact. Key points to consider: The term “worker” is broadly defined and includes employees, independent contractors, interns, volunteers, apprentices, and even sole proprietors. The FTC’s jurisdiction generally does not cover non-profit organizations, banks, savings and loan institutions, federal credit unions, common carriers, and air carriers, so the rule may not apply to these sectors. The rule does not address non-compete agreements that prevent employees from soliciting customers or other employees unless these agreements are overly broad and interfere with a worker’s ability to seek or accept new employment. Agreements designed to protect trade secrets and confidential information, such as non-disclosure agreements, remain enforceable. The FTC Rule does not apply to non-compete agreements related to the bona fide sale of a business entity and does not affect any pending enforcement actions pertaining to non-competes established before the Effective Date. The rule applies to post-employment non-compete agreements and does not impact agreements that limit competitive activities during employment. The FTC Rule overrides conflicting state laws but does not supersede state laws that provide greater protections, such as California’s comprehensive ban on non-competes for all employees, including senior executives. Current Legal Challenges to the FTC Rule It is no surprise that several federal lawsuits have been filed to challenge the enforcement of the FTC Rule. In one case, ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their claims against the FTC and denied their request for a preliminary injunction to halt the rule’s enforcement. Consequently, it is reasonable to anticipate that the ATS court may ultimately support the FTC’s position. In contrast, in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a limited preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the FTC Rule against the plaintiffs and intervenors involved in that case. The Ryan court is expected to decide by August 30, 2024, whether to grant a nationwide permanent injunction, just before the FTC Rule is set to take effect. Additionally, on June 21, 2024, Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission was filed in the Middle District of Florida before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. The plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction against the FTC Rule as it applies to them and an order to vacate it entirely under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Corrigan is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 14, 2024. Recommended Action for Businesses Before the FTC Rule Takes Effect Businesses should be prepared to act by the Effective Date. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the FTC Rule, no nationwide injunction has been issued, so employers should proactively: Strengthen other restrictive covenants (e.g., non-solicitation clauses) and develop strategies to address potential risks associated with the rule. Consider how the rule might impact valuations in mergers or acquisitions due to the potential for increased competition. (Note that the FTC Rule does not apply to non-compete clauses related to the bona fide sale of a business, a person's ownership interest in a business, or substantially all of a business's operating assets.) Evaluate options for updating or introducing agreements for senior executives before the Effective Date. Review and analyze the impact of the FTC Rule on existing non-compete agreements. Plan for issuing the required notices to affected employees and former employees. Offit Kurman has a dedicated practice group focused on issues related to employee mobility, including restrictive covenants and trade secrets. Our attorneys are uniquely positioned to guide you through these challenges, helping you weigh the risks specific to your business and make informed decisions that align with your business objectives. The information contained in this document is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. In some states, this is considered advertising.
August 13, 2024
Estates and Trusts
Corporate Transparency Act Reporting for Covered Entities Owned by Trusts
We are now six months into the new compliance regime instituted by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and practitioners should be aware of the reporting obligations to assist clients with required disclosures. This article limits its focus to trusts. Specifically, estate planners should be able to advise their clients as to which parties to a trust need to report under the CTA when a trust owns business interests. Reporting Requirements Effective January 1, 2024, the CTA requires that “reporting companies”[1] disclose to the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) certain information about the company including, but not limited to, its beneficial owners. Trusts themselves generally are not considered reporting companies because the CTA only applies to entities created by filing an organizational document with a state authority such as a secretary of state; however, when a trust owns interests in a reporting company, all parties associated with the trust may be considered beneficial owners of the reporting company. The CTA defines a beneficial owner as any individual who either: (1) exercises substantial control over a reporting company, or (2) owns or controls at least 25 percent of a reporting company’s ownership interests.[2] Individuals can substantially control or own a reporting company through trust arrangements. Substantial control is broadly defined[3], and there is no limit to the number of individuals associated with a trust who may need to be reported for exercising substantial control, and thus considered a “beneficial owner.” Given the far-reaching meaning of substantial control, any number of individuals that may constitute a beneficial owner with respect to a trust, including the trustee, beneficiary, grantor, or other individuals such as trust protectors, distribution trustees or advisors, investment trustees or advisors, members of the trust protector committee, holders of a power of appointment, or other power holders, whether directly or indirectly through contracts, arrangements, understandings, relationships, or otherwise. If a trust owns or controls at least 25 percent of a reporting company’s ownership interests or exercises substantial control over a reporting company, then the parties to the trust that meet the following conditions are considered beneficial owners and must provide beneficial ownership information to FinCEN: Any party to the trust who: Has authority to vote 25 percent or more of the interests of the reporting company. Has authority to dispose of trust assets. Has authority to remove and replace trustees or direct investments. Is the sole permissible recipient of trust income and principal. Has the right to demand a distribution. Has the right to withdraw substantially all of the trust assets. Has the right to otherwise control the trust’s activities. Has the right to revoke the trust or withdraw trust assets. Has the right to swap assets with the trust and reacquire assets from the trust. Once it is determined who is a beneficial owner, such parties must furnish to the reporting company their full legal name, date of birth, residential address, and an identification number from a driver’s license, passport, or other state-issued identification along with a copy of the identification document. Any time this information changes, the reporting must be updated. Corporate Trustees If the beneficial owner is a legal entity such as a corporate trustee, the reporting company should determine whether any of the corporate trustee’s individual beneficial owners indirectly own or control at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company through their ownership interests in the corporate trustee. The following examples are provided by FinCEN: If an individual owns 60 percent of the corporate trustee of a trust, and that trust holds 50 percent of a reporting company’s ownership interests, then the individual owns or controls 30 percent (60 percent × 50 percent = 30 percent) of the reporting company’s ownership interests and is, therefore, a beneficial owner of the reporting company. If the same trust only holds 30 percent of the reporting company’s ownership interests, the same individual corporate trustee owner only owns or controls 18 percent (60 percent × 30 percent = 18 percent) of the reporting company, and thus is not a beneficial owner of the reporting company by virtue of ownership or control of ownership interests. The reporting company may, but is not required to, report the name of the corporate trustee in lieu of information about an individual beneficial owner only if all of the following three conditions are met: The corporate trustee is an entity that is exempt from the reporting requirements; The individual beneficial owner owns or controls at least 25 percent of ownership interests in the reporting company only by virtue of ownership interests in the corporate trustee; and The individual beneficial owner does not exercise substantial control over the reporting company. It may also be necessary to consider whether any owners of, or individuals employed or engaged by, the corporate trustee exercise substantial control over a reporting company. The factors for determining substantial control by an individual connected with a corporate trustee are the same as for any beneficial owner. Exemptions from the Definition of Beneficial Owner When any of the following individuals qualifies for an exception, the reporting company does not have to report that individual in its beneficial ownership information report to FinCEN. Minors (Parent or legal guardian of the minor must report instead) Nominees, intermediaries, custodians, or agents Remainder beneficiaries (Once the individual inherits the interest, this exception no longer applies, and the individual may qualify as a beneficial owner) Creditors Penalties for Noncompliance While attorneys and beneficial owners are not directly responsible for filing reports with FinCEN—the onus falls on the reporting company itself—attorneys should be prepared to advise their clients whether a trust falls within the purview of the CTA and which parties associated with a trust must provide beneficial ownership information. Penalties for failing to comply with the CTA may be steep. Parties to a trust who are considered beneficial owners must provide the reporting company with complete and accurate beneficial ownership information. If an individual willfully fails to do so, an enforcement action may be brought against such party because someone who willfully causes a reporting company’s failure to submit complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN is in violation of the CTA. Violations can result in fines of $500 per day, up to $10,000 (both adjusted for inflation), and imprisonment for up to two years. Civil and criminal liability may be avoided if an individual who submitted an original, erroneous report did not knowingly submit inaccurate information and submits an updated report correcting the inaccurate information within ninety days. Conclusion The beneficial owner information reporting analysis is complex and must be done on a case-by-case basis. A practitioner must review the extensive CTA information published on FinCEN’s website. There is no doubt that clients with trusts and trust-owned businesses will have questions about CTA compliance. Reprinted with permission from the Summer 2024 edition of The Pennsylvania Bar Association's Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section newsletter. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. [1] Reporting companies—defined as any company with twenty or fewer employees formed by filing with the Secretary of State or equivalent official—created or registered prior to January 1, 2024, have until January 1, 2025 to file an initial report; reporting companies created or registered after January 1, 2024 and before January 1, 2025, will have ninety days after creation or registration to file a report. Entities created on or after January 1, 2025 will have 30 days to submit the reports to FinCEN. The CTA exempts around two dozen categories of entities, including companies that are publicly-traded; have more than twenty full-time US employees; filed a previous year’s tax return showing more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales; have an operating presence at a physical US office location; operate in a regulated industry, such as banking, utilities, or insurance, that already imposes similar reporting requirements; or are subsidiaries of exempt organizations. The exemptions, which generally include larger companies already subject to regulation, underline the primary purpose of the CTA: to combat money laundering and other illicit activities conducted via small, private, and anonymous shell companies. [2] There are other nuances to this rule if no single owner owns more than 25%. [3] An individual or trust exercises substantial control over a reporting company if the individual or trust meets any of four general criteria: (1) the individual is a senior officer; (2) the individual or trust has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors of the reporting company; (3) the individual or trust is an important decision-maker; or (4) the individual or trust has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company.
August 12, 2024
Business
For Attorneys and Clients, the Internet Is the Great Equalizer
Not long ago, hiring an attorney was a lot like visiting a doctor. If you needed legal help, you would drive to your local law office. The building’s windows or signage would be emblazoned with two words: “Law Office,” often lacking identifying names or law firm branding. You would check in with a receptionist, pour yourself a cup of coffee, and wait in the lobby for the next available appointment. When the attorney was ready to see you, he—and it was almost always a he—would call you into his office, you would explain your situation, and the attorney would either offer advice, schedule a follow-up, or refer you to a colleague with specialized knowledge. As quaint as that may sound, it still reflects reality in some small towns. Moreover, the image of the local law office—a community’s elemental, all-purpose legal resource—continues to shape lawyers’ practices everywhere. Many modern-day firms cling to the notion that clients are a given and that presence alone will generate business. They think of themselves as essential services first and brands second. But where healthcare industry regulations effectively preclude any marketing effort on the part of a doctor’s office, the legal industry is relatively unhindered. And the technological developments brought by the 21st century—namely, the rise of the internet and social media—give attorneys and firms unprecedented opportunities to compete for clients’ business. The internet and social media have democratized the field both for people seeking legal assistance and those providing it. To borrow from an old adage, God may have made lawyers, but Google made them equal. Today, someone looking for a mergers and acquisitions attorney, for example, can simply type “m&a attorney” into their search bar and immediately browse listings of practices and firms in their area, along with guides on choosing the best lawyer for the job. One doesn’t need to rely on connections or blind faith to access a qualified legal advisor. It is, therefore, essential for lawyers to proactively market their firms and differentiate themselves online. If you don’t use the internet and social media to attract clients’ and prospects’ attention, a competitor will. At the same time, attorneys must contend with self-service, on-demand legal providers, such as LegalZoom, who ostensibly offer greater convenience at a lower cost. Fortunately, it’s possible for any attorney and any firm to stand out, establish credibility, and build trust with clients and prospects. All it takes is commitment, strategic planning, and a few hours per week. First, you need to develop marketing content related to your practice and interests. Content serves multiple purposes, from education to branding to lead generation and networking. Indeed, it’s at the core of nearly every marketing strategy. Blog posts, articles, videos, podcasts, and infographics are all great ways to drive traffic, cultivate an audience, and start conversations. For attorneys and firms, the type of content matters less than its consistency and authenticity. Next, find ways to distribute that content and amplify its reach online. This is where social media comes into play. LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks provide means to connect with a target market, share information and links, and forge relationships with influencers—i.e., people well-positioned to broadcast your message to larger audiences. (Keep in mind that social media is one channel of many; email newsletters, for instance, remain as effective a form of content distribution as ever.) In addition to content creation and distribution, firms and attorneys can employ a number of digital marketing tactics to outrank their competitors. Through search engine optimization (SEO), you can boost your website and content’s visibility for visitors searching for specific keywords. Online advertising and paid search (e.g., via Google AdWords) also make a difference—and a small investment can go a long way. To succeed, these initiatives must complement and flow from a group’s overall business strategy. At my firm, for instance, our content development and distribution platform is part of a larger, ongoing effort to create relationships with and provide value to business owners. The internet and social media don’t replace in-person meetings and handshakes, but technology does empower us to more fully and consistently connect with the right clients. It’s the difference between passively assuming the role of generalized “law office” and actively leading with the singular skills, knowledge, and perspective you and your team bring. And digital marketing is critical for attracting not only clients and prospects but recent law school graduates and lateral hires as well. Attorneys pay attention to your firm’s marketing efforts, and if those efforts don’t support their practices and goals, they’ll look for positions elsewhere. In an era of choice, the onus is on us to guide people toward the best decisions for themselves, their families, and their organizations. In that respect, at least, the legal business hasn’t changed. Originally posted 4/5/2020, no content changes
August 8, 2024
Family Law
Protecting Your New Home During Divorce: What You Need to Know
When you are separated and going through a divorce, whether in New Jersey or almost anywhere in the United States, you need to be mindful of any assets you acquire prior to a divorce decree being signed by a judge and the entry of an accompanying Order disposing of all marital property. In New Jersey, property acquired after separation is generally considered non-marital. However, it could be considered marital if the source of funds used to acquire the real estate were marital property (i.e., saved/acquired during the marriage). For example, if you are separated and use funds from a credit union account that accrued during the marriage for a down payment, that condominium would be considered marital property and subject to equitable distribution. This means your spouse could have a claim to the condominium, and any earnings and losses from the investment may also be considered marital and subject to equitable distribution. Using the tracing method, you can determine the origination of the down payment. To safeguard a post-separation acquisition is not considered marital property, it is best to use only funds earned after separation. Alternatively, if you need to use funds that are part of the marital estate, consult with your counsel and obtain consent from the other party or the Court to use such funds as a credit against your share of equitable distribution before making the purchase. It is important to keep all documentation to trace and demonstrate the source of funds used for the purchase, thereby protecting your post-separation property from any claims by your spouse. Every case is unique. The information above is generally applicable, but it is important to consult with a seasoned family law attorney in the state in which you live. By taking these precautions, you can better safeguard your post-separation acquisitions and ensure a fair distribution of marital assets during the divorce process.
August 7, 2024
Labor and Employment
Federal Court Denies ATS Tree Services' Bid to Delay FTC Rule Implementation
On July 23, 2024, U.S. District Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge, serving the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rejected ATS Tree Services LLC’s request to delay the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule, set to take effect on September 4, 2024. ATS also sought a preliminary injunction against the rule. Still, Judge Hodge also denied this request, concluding that ATS had not shown that the rule would cause irreparable harm or that it could establish a likelihood of success on the merits. This decision followed shortly after U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC from enforcing the rule against Ryan, LLC, a tax preparation company, and certain intervenors. Judge Hodge’s denial of ATS's motion was based on a determination that ATS had failed to prove it would suffer irreparable harm because of the rule. The court found that ATS’s claims of irreparable harm—such as nonrecoverable compliance costs and the potential loss of contractual benefits— were based upon either a choice or a “speculative risk,” which did not rise to the level of irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. The court cited Third Circuit precedent, stating that nonrecoverable compliance costs, such as monetary losses or business expenses, do not constitute irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. Additionally, the court held that ATS offered no binding precedent to support its argument that the loss of contractual rights is an irreparable harm, reiterating that such determinations must be on a case-by-case basis. Even if ATS could establish irreparable harm, the court found that it had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Hodge’s opinion included a detailed analysis of the FTC’s authority to issue substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition. The court confirmed that the FTC has such authority, noting that Section 6 of the FTC Act does not limit the FTC to procedural rules alone. The use of the term "prevent" in Section 5 of the Act supports the FTC's ability to make rules to prevent harm before it occurs rather than merely remedying it. The court also referenced prior circuit court decisions and Congressional actions, such as the Magnuson-Moss Act, which affirmed the FTC’s rulemaking authority. The court also addressed ATS’s other challenges to the rule. It upheld the FTC’s authority to broadly regulate non-compete clauses as unfair methods of competition, rejected claims that regulation of non-competes is solely a state matter, and found that the Major Questions Doctrine does not apply to the rule. Additionally, the court dismissed ATS’s nondelegation challenge, affirming that Congress had provided a clear guiding principle for the FTC’s rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. Given these findings, the court did not need to evaluate the balance of equities or public interest considerations. This ruling is significant for several reasons. It contrasts with the earlier decision in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, where Judge Brown granted a preliminary injunction, suggesting the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits. The Texas court has indicated it will decide on the enforceability of the FTC rule by August 30, 2024. While Judge Hodge’s decision represents a victory for the FTC, it may be temporary. The Texas court’s preliminary injunction in Ryan LLC hinted at potential future invalidation of the rule based on arguments that the FTC lacked statutory authority or that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). If the Texas court rules against the FTC, it might vacate the rule entirely or issue a permanent injunction, though the specifics are yet to be determined. In the meantime, businesses should continue to assess and document their use of non-competes and explore alternative protections like non-disclosure agreements, invention protection, non-solicits, training repayment programs, garden leaves, and non-competes related to business sales. The FTC’s guidance suggests that if properly structured, these alternatives should comply with the new rule. Additionally, state legislation and actions by other federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), may further influence the legal landscape regarding non-competes.
August 7, 2024
Business
Five Phases of a Deal from a Sell-Side Perspective
M&A can be complex. For most sellers, it is a one-time event and likely their most significant financial transaction in life. Given the complexity and the stakes, many sellers can be confused as to what is essential and where to focus. I understand. To help, I created the below infographic as a cheat sheet for sellers to organize the various advisors involved, the different phases of their transaction, and what the seller should be focused on. Most importantly, sellers need to keep their eyes on their business during the sale transaction. As obvious as it sounds, a seller has not sold his/her business until the deal closes (and the money hits their account!). Deals can be exhausting, and deal fatigue can set in. Plus, buyers can lure sellers into a sense of combination that is not yet legally transacted. Don’t make this mistake. If the deal does not close (for whatever reason), the seller needs to be able to move forward with the business. Don’t lose sight of your prize. Further, sellers should weigh the transaction details through two lenses. First, the seller needs to understand the purchase price and how the price will be paid. Second, the seller needs to understand trailing liabilities. This is a big item as most sellers do not need to worry about personal liability for their business during the operational phase. However, most buyers make a seller guarantee all aspects of their business in a transaction. Again, M&A can be complex. Make certain to hire good advisors to provide practical advice. ANATOMY OF THE DEAL 5 Phases of a Deal from a SELL-SIDE PERSPECTIVE: The Players and Their Involvement Pre- Transaction Planning Phase Rule: Find and eliminate skeletons; create multiple options Phase I: Letter of Intent Phase Rule: Know what you want and get it in writing as the LOI may be your high water mark Phase II: Due Diligence Phase Rule: Disclosure is your friend Phase III: Contracts Phase Rule: Confirm Business terms and Phase IV: Closing Phase Rule: Time is your enemy Phase V: Post Closing Phase Rule: Remember to dot the I’s and cross the t’s to meet all conditions Post-Transaction Planning Phase Rule: Enjoy your new status in life; make sure you’ve considered life without the business Sell Side M&A: Three Rules of Thumb for the Transaction Rule #1: You haven’t sold your business until you’ve sold your business Rule #2: Get your money upfront (as soon and as much as possible) Rule #3: Reduce and eliminate your trailing liabilities Originally posted 3/26/2021, no content changes
August 1, 2024
Labor and Employment
OK at Work: How Will the Newest Supreme Court Decision Affect Your Business?
On this week's OK at Work, Sarah Sawyer and Russell Berger discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision eliminating the substantial deference that federal courts previously gave to the decisions of administrative agencies and what it could mean for business owners, executives, and in-house counsel. Listen to learn more.
July 30, 2024
Family Law
My Spouse Had an Affair. What Rights Do I Have?
A question divorce attorneys are frequently asked is, “how will my spouse’s affair impact my divorce?” There are a few things to consider when dealing with adultery in divorce proceedings. Grounds for Divorce. As of October 2023, adultery is no longer grounds for divorce in Maryland. In fact, Maryland has abolished its fault-based grounds for divorce and now only recognizes three no-fault grounds: 6-month separation, irreconcilable differences, and mutual consent. Alimony. A judge will evaluate several factors when considering whether or not to award a party alimony, including the duration and amount. One of the factors is the circumstances leading to the divorce. This is where adultery comes into play. If your spouse had an affair, and financial support is necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living or to become self-supporting, proving adultery could be an important factor in your alimony case. Property Division. Similar to alimony, property division is a factor-based inquiry where fault, including adultery, is considered. The court will analyze a multitude of factors when determining how to divide marital property, so it is important to address each factor that is relevant to your claim, including your spouse’s affair. Custody. Contrary to what most believe, adultery does not weigh heavily on a court’s decision about custody of minor children. It is often the case that someone can be a poor spouse but a good parent. However, suppose the adulterer is making poor judgment decisions about the children due to their extramarital affair (for example, taking the children to bars or leaving them unattended to spend time with a paramour). In that case, a court may weigh this behavior when determining parental fitness. It is hard enough to face the reality of dissolving a marriage, but finding out your spouse is having an affair will make an already difficult situation almost impossible. The emotional aspect of adultery is one of the biggest hurdles to a successful, amicable divorce. That is why it is important to have an experienced, skilled attorney who can objectively evaluate each fact related to your case to help you achieve a favorable outcome.
July 29, 2024
Franchise Law
Franchise Sales Likely to Get New Level of Regulation Over Third-Party Sellers
A bill passed by the California Senate on May 22, 2024, Senate Bill No. 919 (“Bill 919”), will address a gap in the regulation of franchise sales – namely, a lack of transparency regarding the role and background of independent franchisee recruiters, often known as “franchise brokers.” This bill, which has the rare support of both the International Franchise Association (the “IFA”) and franchisee advocate groups such as the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (“AAFD”), now heads to the California General Assembly for approval. It appears to have a strong chance to become law this year and to influence franchise sales regulation nationally. Historically, franchise laws have focused on requiring affirmative disclosures by franchisors so that franchisee prospects can obtain information about the franchise system to better understand the business opportunity that they are evaluating. While the vast majority of franchise registration states require franchisors to submit information about their third-party brokers in franchise seller disclosure forms, those provisions pre-dated the growth of franchise seller networks such as FranNet, FranChoice and The Entrepreneur’s Source (among many others). Such intermediary companies, which usually identify themselves as consultants to prospective franchisees, are a major source of new franchisees to many growing systems and play an important role in franchise sales. Because those companies have many franchises in their “inventory” (sometimes hundreds) and therefore only occasional contact with each franchisor, they don’t fit the model of a broker regularly engaged in selling for a relatively small group of brands who the franchisor would recognize as its regularly used franchise seller. To date, only two states (New York and Washington), have historically required brokers to register themselves as franchise sellers. If passed, Bill 919 would require third-party franchise sellers, including the large networks with dozens of individual representatives, to register with the State of California. The fee for a franchise seller filing an initial registration application is $250, with a $150 annual renewal fee and $50 fee to amend a registration upon a material change to the application information. More notably, Bill 919 adds a requirement for third-party franchise sellers to provide a disclosure document to prospective franchise buyers. The broker would be required to disclose some of the categories of information that franchisors must supply in their Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”). Specifically, brokers must submit a Uniform Third-Party Franchise Seller Disclosure Form and a Uniform Third-Party Franchise Seller Disclosure Document (“FSDD”) along with their registration application. In addition to registering the FSDD with the state, franchise sellers must also present this document to a prospective franchisee prior to engaging with them about a franchise opportunity. The FSDD must include the following information: A cover page containing standardized and general language that is not specific to a particular broker and will include, at a minimum, the following information: A description of the types of franchise sellers A seller’s role in the sales process The services a seller might provide Methods of compensation for a seller’s services Examples of questions a prospective franchisee might ask a seller General information about the specific seller’s legal and trade names, state and year of formation, principal address, owners and key personnel, and contact information The franchise seller’s professional experience during the last five years Administrative, civil, or criminal actions against the seller within the last five years alleging fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or similar violations (which aligns with the types of matters disclosed in Item 3 of a franchisor’s FDD) The industries a seller represents and the number of brands within each industry A description of services provided by the seller How the seller is actually compensated, including how the amount of compensation is calculated Whether a broker network/organization or franchise sales organization may receive additional consideration The name and contact information for every franchisee that the seller sold a franchise to anywhere in the United States during the last calendar year, including the number of units sold to each franchisee With respect to enforcement, Bill 919 creates a cause of action that allows franchisees to sue for damages and rescission if the seller violates the law with respect to a franchise sale. Additionally, the California commissioner can issue a stop order prohibiting a franchise seller from offering or selling franchises in the state if it finds that a seller has failed to comply with any applicable provisions of law or rules issued by the commissioner. The new rules and penalties have the same scope as a franchise sale under the California Franchise Investment Laws. So, they will apply to franchise sellers who are based in California, but also to anyone “consulting with” a prospective franchisee who is a resident of or has a principal place of business in California, or if the franchised business will be in California. Any franchise broker that wishes to sell franchises that will be located in California, or to prospects located in California, will need to register. The bill exempts California licensed real estate brokers and securities brokers-dealers. Since none of the mandatory disclosure items are limited to California sellers or California franchisees, Bill 919 also may be a template for the regulation of franchise sellers on a nationwide level, particularly in those other states that require pre-sale registration of franchise offerings. If passed, Bill 919 will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
July 29, 2024
Mergers and Acquisitions
Delaware Passes Amendments to Delaware’s Corporate Law to Override Judicial Precedents and Simplify Corporate Governance in M&A Transactions.
Changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) were signed into law last week by Governor John Carney. SB313 will now take effect on August 1, 2024, and will apply retroactively to all agreements (including merger agreements) made by a Delaware corporation and all agreements and instruments approved by the board of directors of a Delaware corporation, except for the agreements and board action in pending litigation on or prior to August 1, 2024. These changes were in response to several Delaware Chancery Court (“Court”) rulings affecting stockholder agreements, merger agreements and corporate governance requirements applicable to merger transactions. The amendments propose a legislative override over recent decisions to implement changes that allow for greater freedom of contract for stockholder and merger agreements and the elimination of technical, seemingly non-material governance requirements applicable to merger transactions. A new DGCL § 122(18) permits corporations to convey the rights to consent and approval of corporate action to persons through stockholder agreements unless such conveyance is specifically prohibited by the corporation’s certificate of incorporation. This amendment nullifies the recent decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co. where the Court found a stockholder agreement requiring the majority stockholder’s approval for certain corporate actions “an impermissible internal governance restriction” in violation of DGCL § 141. Addressing the Court’s finding of a violation of DGCL § 251(b) when the board approved a draft version of the merger agreement in Sjunde Ap-Fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., the new DGCL § 147, eliminates the requirement for board approval of the ‘final form’ of agreement if, at the time of approval, all of the material terms are determinable through information and materials presented to or known by the board, and second, the new DGCL § 268(b) clarifies that disclosure schedules and the like are not required to be a part of the merger agreement for board approval pursuant to DGCL § 251(b). Doubling up on the results of Activision, in response to the Court’s finding of a violation of DGCL § 251(c) where the corporation had included a brief summary of the merger agreement in the proxy statement sent with a separate notice to the stockholders that did not include a brief summary of the merger agreement, a new DGCL § 232(g) allows a corporation to satisfy the stockholder notice requirement for a merger agreement when such agreements and brief summaries are “enclosed with the stockholder notice or annexed or appended to the notice.” A third byproduct of the Activision decision, a new DGCL § 268(a) allows a board to approve and file a certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation of a merger following the effectiveness of the merger if the surviving entity will be wholly-owned and controlled by the buyer and all of the shares of capital stock of the constituent corporation issued and outstanding immediately before the effective time of the merger are converted into or exchanged for cash, property, rights or securities (other than stock of the surviving corporation). In Crispo v. Musk, the Court denied a stockholder plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing where the plaintiff sued for ‘lost stockholder premium’ damages despite a provision in the merger agreement that specified that the buyer would be liable for ‘lost stockholder premium’ in the event buyer breached the merger agreement. DGCL § 261(a)(1) specifically allow parties to a merger agreement to include provisions requiring the payment of penalties and ‘lost stockholder premiums’ in the event the merger is not consummated and allow parties to enforce these payment provisions. New DGCL § 261(a)(2) confirms that the stockholders of a constituent party to a merger agreement may irrevocably appoint one or more persons to serve as a representative of all stockholders and delegate to such person the exclusive authority to enforce the rights of all stockholders under such agreement, after consummation of the transaction as an agent of the stockholders of the constituent corporation whose shares are canceled and converted in the merger into the right to receive cash or other property, and to enter into a binding settlement on behalf of all shareholders, a principal of corporate law. Seemingly, this amendment codifies stockholder representative authority articulated by the Court in Aveta Inc. v. Cavallieri, where the Court found that the stockholders were bound to the results of a post-closing adjustment and subsequent arbitration decision when the stockholders appointed a stockholder representative to represent the stockholders and the representative utilized facts ascertainable outside the merger agreement to derive post-closing adjustments on behalf of all stockholders using a calculation method clearly and expressly set forth in the merger agreement and subsequently pursued the final determination through the use of a neutral arbitrator.
July 25, 2024
Mergers and Acquisitions
Fine Wine, Cheese and M&A?
What do wine and cheese have to do with M&A? Well, unlike fine wine and good cheese, M&A transactions don’t age well (I heard this analogy recently at a TAB Board meeting). M&A transactions are driven by timing considerations, both internal and external. Market conditions continually change and having your transaction consummated when the market is most receptive is paramount. Missing the mark can have heavy consequences on items such as taxation or valuation. Likewise, internal commitment and momentum make for efficient transactions. Deals require continual, steady movement forward; transactions without momentum waffle and struggle to gain pace. Some timing can be controlled by the parties. For example, responding to inquiries and questions as quickly as possible. Letting emails sit, even for a day, can have major impacts given that most M&A transactions have many parties involved. Slow-moving parties can trigger rippling impacts that may lead to unintended consequences. M&A transactions do not adhere to a 9 am to 5 pm workday. I always advise clients, especially sell-side clients, that they should work their business 9 am to 5 pm and sell their businesses 5 pm to midnight (and of course weekends). Like a marathon runner, M&A deals need to find the pace and stick to that pace to finish the race strong! Originally posted 1/22/21, no content changes.
July 24, 2024
Environmental and Sustainability
Businesses May Face Challenges in Reauthorization of Wetlands Approvals After NJDEP Decision
Businesses in New Jersey seeking reauthorization of wetlands approvals may now be required to go through the more intensive individual permit process following a unique decision involving a wetlands permit issued to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). While this decision is somewhat unique as it involves a state agency as the permittee, it likely will limit the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) authority to reauthorize previously approved structures, activities, and features. In the latest development of this ongoing legal saga, In the Matter of Reauthorization of The Freshwater Wetlands General Permit #1 and Permit Modifications, Docket No. A-2758-21 (App. Div. June 7, 2024), the Appellate Division vacated the issuance of a Freshwater Wetlands General Permit by the NJDEP to the NJDOT. This permit was intended for the rehabilitation of a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) to store dredged materials from multiple waterways. (A CDF is a structure planned and designed to receive sediments dredged from a waterway. Its primary function is to safely contain these materials, preventing contamination from reentering the waterway. In New Jersey, CDFs are critical in environmental management and sediment control.) The Permitting of the CDF and Subsequent Challenges The CDF at issue here was initially authorized in 1983 for the storage of dredged material from a single waterway. In 2018, NJDEP issued several permits to NJDOT in connection with the dredging of three waterways: Westecunk Creek, Parkers Run, and Cedar Run. This included a General Permit #1 authorizing the rehabilitation of the CDF. By way of background, a General Permit #1 allows the repair or replacement of a previously authorized, serviceable structure that lawfully existed before July 1, 1988, in freshwater wetlands. Eligibility for a General Permit #1 requires that: “(1) [t]he previously authorized structure... has not been and will not be put to any use other than as specified in any permit authorizing its original construction” and “(2) [t]he activities do not expand, widen, or deepen the previously authorized feature, and do not deviate from any plans of the original activity,” except for certain “minor deviations.” N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.1(a). In 2021, based on challenges from local residents and environmental groups, the Appellate Division remanded the issuance of the General Permit to NJDEP for further consideration. After additional review, NJDEP reauthorized the General Permit in 2022. The present appeal arises from further challenges to this 2022 approval by local residents and environmental groups. The Appellate Division’s Rejection of the General Permit In a rare rejection of the deference owed to the NJDEP, the Appellate Division determined that NJDEP could not issue a General Permit #1 for the CDF due to differences between the initially authorized CDF activities and the currently proposed CDF activities under the new permit. Specifically, the Appellate Division found that the original 1983 permit only authorized the CDF to store dredged spoils from Westecunk Creek. In contrast, the General Permit allowed the CDF to store materials from three waterways. Therefore, the General Permit violated the requirement of N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.1(a)(1), which prohibits “any use other than” what was originally authorized. Additionally, the Appellate Division concluded that the General Permit improperly “expanded” the CDF in violation of N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.1(a)(2) because it authorized storage of nearly five times the originally permitted material. The Appellate Division also made noteworthy determinations regarding the continuity of the CDF’s operations despite the facility remaining dormant for many years, which could benefit developers and businesses in other contexts. Wetlands Approvals: Implications of Recent Appellate Division and Chevron Decisions As noted above, this unique decision may make it harder for businesses and developers to obtain reauthorization of wetlands approvals without pursuing an individual permit. When pursuing any development or rehabilitation projects, it is critical to consult with experienced professionals and legal counsel to develop a permitting strategy. As a final matter, this decision was rendered before the United States Supreme Court overturned the long-established Chevron deference, which also limited an agency’s ability to interpret its own regulations. As a result, while it was not informed by the reversal of Chevron deference, the Appellate Divisions rejection of the determination of NJDEP here may be a harbinger of a shift in treatment of NJDEP decisions by the New Jersey courts.
July 24, 2024
Intellectual Property
Protecting Your Most Important Asset: Why Trademark Registration Matters
What would you do with an asset with an almost infinite lifespan that symbolizes your company to your customers? And if that asset was your company’s most valuable asset? You’d protect it, of course. If you run a business of any type, you have such an asset: a trademark, often referred to as a brand name. The question is, are you protecting it? Trademarks reportedly account for about one-third of the stock market value of companies in the S&P 500. If your company is not protecting one of its most important assets, it is putting that asset at risk. The first step in protecting a trademark is registering it with the U.S. Trademark Office. This legal process is best handled by lawyers and involves some costs. In many cases, the cost to register in the U.S. is under $5,000, although it can exceed that amount. Renewal costs are generally under $2,500, with renewal needed every ten years. Given the nearly unlimited lifespan of a trademark, these costs are well worth it when considering the benefits of registration. Banks Will Take Trademarks as Collateral for Loans Some banks, such as IDB, will accept a security interest in a company’s trademarks as collateral for a loan. In today’s business landscape, where many businesses operate virtually and lack significant physical assets, having an asset that a bank can lend against can be crucial for a company’s growth. However, without a registered trademark, a bank may be unwilling to lend against it. At best, the bank may impose higher lending costs if it is willing to lend against unregistered trademarks. Parties Doing Business with a Company Want Assurance that the Company’s Brand is Protected Investors considering investing in a company will want to see that it has taken steps to protect its trademarks. As part of their due diligence efforts, they will ask for the details of trademark applications or registrations. If there are no applications or registrations, providing a transparent and honest explanation is necessary. Potential partners, such as licensees or franchisees, will also want to see that the company has taken steps to protect its trademarks if they invest money to do business with the company, whether by opening a franchised store or manufacturing and selling licensed goods; these partners will want assurance that the company has protected their mutual investment. Trademarks are Crucial to a Company’s Value As noted, a significant portion of a company’s value can be attributed to its brand. Companies with strong brands deliver better value to their shareholders.[1] The value of those assets is critical in business valuations, mergers, or acquisitions, providing leverage and opportunities for future sales and expansion. If you are considering selling your business and retiring, trademark registration can significantly increase its value. Given this potential boost, isn’t the cost of registration worth it? Trademark Registrations May Prevent Others from Registering the Same or a Similar Mark Trademark registrations are listed in the Federal Trademark Office’s online database, which is publicly available and searchable. Anyone searching for a similar trademark should find any registrations that your company owns. Upon discovering your company’s registration, third parties may drop or change their plans. Additionally, when the Trademark Office examines applications filed by others, it will refuse the registration of the same or similar marks for the same or related goods and services. However, if your mark is not registered, the Trademark Office will not block the registration of the same or a similar mark. The Trademark Office only reviews its records during the examination process. It does not search the marketplace, which can result in a competitor registering a similar mark. While it is possible to challenge such a registration, doing so can be costly in terms of time and money. It is far better to prevent this situation by ensuring your mark is registered in the first place. While the Trademark Office will block potentially infringing third-party applications, it does not take action to stop third parties from infringing your company’s trademark. The responsibility to enforce trademark rights falls on the trademark owner. Further, once your company’s mark is registered, you gain nationwide rights that can be enforced against subsequent users. Without a registration, your rights are limited to the geographic area in which your company operates. One other thing. Forming a company with the state is not the same as registering a trademark. The state does not check to see if your name will infringe on anyone else’s name when you form a company. Having a Trademark Registration Makes Enforcement Easier on Online Platforms If someone uses your mark without authorization on social media or an online shopping platform, having a trademark registration makes it easier to enforce your company’s rights and have the online platform take action to stop the infringement. A registration allows the platform to verify your rights, which they cannot do if your company has no trademark registration. Additionally, a trademark registration grants your company access to online protection mechanisms, such as Amazon’s Brand Registry. In cybersquatting cases, which still occur, having a trademark registration simplifies proving your case and recovering the domain name in question. However, a trademark registration does not automatically entitle your company to the corresponding domain name. Legal Benefits of Registration Having a trademark registration provides certain legal advantages. For example, lawsuits for infringement of federal trademark registrations can be filed in federal court. In such cases, registration entitles the trademark owner to a legal presumption of ownership, the right to use the mark, and the mark’s validity (validity presumption applies only to registrations on the Principal Register). These presumptions can streamline court proceedings and reduce legal expenses. Without registration, your company must prove ownership, usage rights, and protection eligibility in every enforcement action, resulting in increased costs. Additionally, marks registered on the Principal Register can achieve incontestable status after five years of registration, provided an appropriate filing is made with the Trademark Office. Incontestable status means the registration can only be challenged on specific, limited grounds. Furthermore, registered marks can use the ® symbol to indicate they are registered. This can prevent third parties from adopting similar marks and, more importantly, prevent infringers from arguing in a lawsuit that your company waived its right to damages by not using the ® symbol. Using the ® symbol helps ensure you do not inadvertently leave money on the table. Foreign Trademark Registrations A U.S. trademark registration does not afford trademark protection outside the U.S.; trademark rights must be protected country by country. However, a U.S. trademark registration can serve as the basis for trademark filings abroad and enable your company to benefit from certain international treaties that may reduce the cost of filing in other countries. Recording Registrations with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) A trademark registration on the Principal Register can be recorded with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). However, there is a fee for this service. Recording your registration with CBP allows them to monitor goods coming into the country. If CBP identifies goods with an infringing or counterfeit mark, they will stop their importation and seize the items. While CBP may request verification that the goods are not legitimate, once that confirmation is provided, CBP will manage the seizure process. Conclusion Trademark registration offers several cost-saving benefits. Legal presumptions and the status of incontestable registrations can reduce court costs. Additionally, registered marks make it easier to enforce rights online. A U.S. trademark registration can also reduce the costs of filing for registrations in other countries and can be recorded with CBP to assist in enforcing your rights. Beyond these cost-reducing benefits, trademarks are high-value assets that can serve as collateral for loans and that investors and business partners will want to see. Therefore, trademarks should be protected with the same diligence as any other asset. Failing to protect this asset can result in its loss and a subsequent loss in value for the company — an outcome no company would or should permit. [1] See The top 100 most valuable global brands 2013 (marketingweek.com).
July 24, 2024
Business
Figure These Two Things Out Before You Sell Your Business
Your business is in good shape and you’re feeling ready to sell. You have your key value drivers in place: skilled employees, strong sales numbers, a pattern of consistent growth. You’ve assembled an advisory team, conducted a thorough sweep of your organizational records, and eliminated the proverbial skeletons in your closet. You’ve also performed the deep, difficult work of preparing yourself emotionally and psychologically for the journey ahead. Time to hit the gas—right? Perhaps, not quite yet. Yes, all of the above are fundamental success factors and important steps to take before engaging in a merger, acquisition, or another type of business transaction. But they’re only the basics. Polishing every surface and tightening every screw won’t make a difference if the business isn’t built on a rock-solid foundation. To adequately prepare for M&A, business owners need to proactively strategize and fortify their organizations for potential curveballs. As a seller, you need to think ten steps ahead of a buyer. You need to know what they want before they want it. It pays to err on the side of paranoia. Here are two critical questions every seller must answer before stepping into the market: 1. Is the Business Structured Correctly? One factor sellers frequently ignore is business entity structure. The way your business is structured today may not be the ideal structure during an M&A transaction. Say your company is operating as an S corporation. You have detailed records of your finances and meetings, a strong leadership team in place, and—best of all—lower taxes than you’d have if the company was structured differently. You may think this shows prudent business management—and in most cases, it would. In M&A, however, S corps at times fare poorly. That’s because certain buyers like to acquire LLC interests—not S corporation stock. The same vehicle that may shield you from high tax payments may create obstacles for a buyer during a sale. In an environment less robust than the current market, it even could cause a potential buyer to pass on the deal. Thus, as an S corporation owner, you may need to do an “F-reorganization,” a tax-free structuring technique that changes your business so that you’re selling LLC interests. A corporate restructure may improve your chances of closing the eventual sale. If you do have to restructure, you’ll need to do so in the pre-transaction phase. 2. Are Employees in It for The Long Run? Your people are the lifeblood of your business. Without them, your organization wouldn’t be worth what it is, nor would it be well-equipped for continued success in the future. Most sellers realize this, and yet a fair number neglect to lock down their key employees until well into the transaction. These business owners compartmentalize the deal and their day-to-day business operations separately. What they don’t realize is one domain frequently spills over into the other. A rocky M&A negotiation damages employee morale, and vice versa. By the time a transaction is nearly consummated, an ill-prepared business may have missed projections or dropped in value due to unexpected employee departures. Always stay focused on your employee engagement and retention rates—before and during the transaction. Figure out how you’ll incent your people to cooperate and continue performing at their best while the deal is pending, and to stay with the new ownership after you’ve closed. Put plans into place early, well in advance of courting a buyer. The longer you wait, the less effective your efforts will be. For sellers, employee retention and business structure are two vital pre-transaction considerations. But they’re only a couple of many. If you’re thinking about selling your business, you need to prepare for anything and everything that could go wrong. Familiarize yourself with Murphy’s law, and start strategizing as soon as possible. Forethought and planning today can save you serious time, money, and frustration tomorrow. Originally posted 12/20/2019, no content changes
July 18, 2024
Labor and Employment
California Labor & Employment Update: PAGA Reform
On July 1, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 92 and Assembly Bill 2288, amending The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The amendments are effective June 19, 2024, but do not affect civil actions that were filed or cases where the required notice to the employer and the Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) was submitted prior to June 19, 2024. The amendment was a compromise reached among Governor Newsom, business leaders and the unions to remove a measure to repeal PAGA from the November ballot. PAGA has been tough on businesses in California. While the amendments are helpful, businesses still need to be vigilant to avoid the penalties under PAGA. PAGA was enacted in California in 2004, allowing employees to file lawsuits against employers for violations of the labor code on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the state of California. The law essentially deputizes employees to act as private attorneys general and to pursue civil penalties for violations that would typically only be enforceable by state labor agencies. If an employee believes there has been a violation of the California Labor Code by their employer, the employee can then file a claim under PAGA. Claims can include a broad range of violations ranging from overtime to meal and rest breaks. Part of the penalties recovered are distributed to the state, with affected employees and their legal representation receiving the remainder. The following summarizes the most significant changes to PAGA: Individual Plaintiffs Must Have Suffered a Violation for Each Claim Made in their Complaint. There are several changes to PAGA, but the most significant for businesses is that a plaintiff be able to prove that they were subject to the specific PAGA violations upon which their complaint is based. Previously, a plaintiff, with one violation, could allege that the employer violated every section of the Labor Code. For example, if the plaintiff only suffered meal period violations, they cannot now bring an action for unpaid overtime. While this should limit some PAGA litigation and penalties, it will probably result in multi-plaintiff lawsuits, with employee plaintiffs alleging that they suffered differing violations. Ability to Cure Once a Labor and Workforce Development Agency Notice if Received. The amendments expand when employers can cure violations when they receive the LWDA notice to avoid PAGA litigation. However, it is unclear in the new legislation exactly how much is needed to cure the violation and make the employee whole. What this provision does do is make it more important for employees to immediately contact counsel once they receive an LWDA notice to be able to audit their practices and attempt to cure them where allowed. Early evaluation conference. The bill would also authorize an employer who employed at least 100 employees and who has been served with a summons and complaint asserting a claim under PAGA to file a request and participate in an early evaluation conference and to request a stay of court proceedings. The employer has the ability to cure violations by using this procedure. The requirements are very specific and must occur shortly after the service of any action on the employer. As a result, employers should take care to avail themselves of this new procedure because if the employer cures the violations as set forth in the procedures for the Early Evaluation Conference, the penalties are capped at $15 per employee. Penalty Reductions. One of the most difficult elements of PAGA are the penalties. The new legislation: (a) revises the penalty structure and reduces it in certain situations; (b) encourages compliance with labor laws by capping penalties on employers who quickly take steps to fix policies and practices and make workers whole after receiving a PAGA notice, as well as on employers that act responsibly to take steps proactively to comply with the labor code before even receiving a PAGA notice; (c) creates new, higher penalties on employers who act maliciously, fraudulently or oppressively in violating labor laws; and (d) ensures that more of the penalty money goes to employees by increasing the amount allocated to employees from 25% to 35%. Some examples of reduced penalties are as follows: Penalty Cap Reductions for Employers Who Take “All Reasonable Steps” to Comply with the Labor Code. Penalties are reduced by 15% or 30% if a person accused of a violation has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions alleged to have been violated in the required notice provided by the aggrieved employee. Reasonable steps may include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (1) The employer conducted periodic payroll audits and took action in response to the results of the audit. (2) The employer disseminated lawful written policies. (3) The employer trained supervisors on applicable Labor Code and wage order compliance or took appropriate corrective action with regard to supervisors. The amendments to PAGA state that whether the employer’s conduct was reasonable shall be evaluated by the totality of the circumstances and take into consideration the size and resources available to the employer and the nature, severity and duration of the alleged violations. The amendments further provide that the existence of a violation, despite the steps taken, is insufficient to establish that an employer failed to take all reasonable steps. Employers with Weekly Pay Periods. The amendments reduce penalties for employers with weekly pay periods by one-half, effectively calculating penalties as if the employer had bi-weekly pay periods. PAGA has significantly impacted labor law enforcement in the state, and these new reform measures will hopefully streamline the law even further. Employers should work with legal counsel to fully understand the details of this reform and any action that should be taken at this time. Given the new penalty structure, employers need to act quickly once they receive notice of a potential PAGA action. Quick action can help to reduce and/or eliminate some of the penalties.
July 17, 2024
Estates and Trusts
Estate Planning for Young Professional Athletes: A Comprehensive Guide
The Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn recently buzzed with the first round of the NBA draft — a gathering of young, exceptionally talented players hoping to be drafted to a professional team, the pinnacle and the reward for years of hard work and dedication. As young athletes, their focus rightly revolves around training, competition, and achieving a peak performance. However, it's also important for them to consider their financial future, particularly given the short average duration of an athletic career —only 3.5 to 5.6 years, according to The Bleacher Report. As a result, it is imperative that young athletes start off on the right foot immediately to protect their hard-earned assets, their potentially brief career, and their loved ones. While so many assume that the topic of estate planning is for an older demographic, beginning early can provide peace of mind and secure the athlete’s hard-earned wealth for the future. Why Should Young Athletes Consider an Estate Plan? Financial Security: While athletes can earn significant income early in their careers, the average professional athlete only earns between $362,000 - $680,000 per season, according to the Motley Fool. Proper estate planning is key to ensuring that the young athlete’s assets, whether substantial or not, are managed and protected, providing a stable and secure financial future beyond their career. Uncertainty of Career Length: The length of a professional athlete’s career is highly unpredictable. Injuries, even minor ones, can abruptly end a career or lead to being sidelined, benched, traded, or marginalized. Additionally, the physical demands of professional athlete’s training schedules and physical demands can diminish athletic abilities over time. An estate plan serves as a safety net in case of unexpected events. Family Protection: Many athletes come from families that have collectively pooled their resources to provide the support that propelled the young athlete to the professional arena. When athletes succeed, they often want to protect those who have supported them. The athlete is often relied upon to ensure financial security for themselves and their larger family of origin. An estate plan ensures that the athlete and their family are protected, especially if their career ends earlier than expected. The “Plays” of an Athlete’s Estate Plan Last Will and Testament: A Will is a legal document that outlines how assets will be distributed after death. It names beneficiaries, designates guardians for minor children, and appoints an executor to carry out the athlete’s wishes. Trusts: Often referred to as a Will “substitute,” Trusts offer more privacy, control, and flexibility over the athlete’s asset distribution than a Will. Trusts also help minimize estate taxes, protect assets from creditors and other predatory actors, and provide for loved ones in a structured manner. Power of Attorney: This document grants the athlete’s trusted advisor the authority to make financial decisions on the athlete’s behalf, especially during busy times like pre-season training. If the athlete becomes incapacitated, even temporarily, the Power of Attorney allows another trusted person to make financial decisions on their behalf. It's crucial for the athlete to choose someone who understands their unique financial situation and has their best interests at heart. Healthcare Proxy: Similar to a Power of Attorney, a Healthcare Proxy appoints a person to make medical decisions on behalf of the athlete if the athlete is unable to do so themselves. This ensures that the athlete’s healthcare wishes are respected when they are unable to make decisions themselves. Beneficiary Designations: Often overlooked, beneficiary designations on accounts direct who inherits the asset upon the athlete’s death. It is imperative that the athlete review and update beneficiary designations on life insurance policies, retirement accounts from their respective league, and other financial instruments regularly to ensure they align with the athlete’s Will, Trust, and overall estate plan. The Young Athlete’s Next Move: Assess Your Assets: The young athlete should start simple: list all their assets, including property, investments, intellectual property, and personal items. Set Goals: Determine the goals for the estate plan. What is most important? There is no one right answer: every athlete has different priorities, whether it be financial security for the family, a charitable cause, or minimizing taxes. Regardless of the goal, it can be achieved with the right plan. Consult Professionals: Avoid cautionary tales of athletes who engaged unqualified “professionals” (here’s looking at you, Tim Duncan.) Working with an experienced estate planning attorney, a competent financial advisor, and a skilled accountant will ensure a comprehensive estate plan structured and tailored to the young athlete’s needs. Regular Reviews: The life circumstances of young athletes change frequently. Being traded to a team in a new state with different estate planning rules, experiencing drastic income fluctuations, and evolving interpersonal relationships mean the estate plan must pivot to remain relevant. Regular reviews ensure the plan continues to reflect current circumstances. Estate planning can seem daunting, especially for young athletes just starting their careers. However, taking the time to plan now can provide significant benefits in the future. By securing their financial future, protecting their assets, and ensuring their loved ones are cared for, young athletes can focus on what they do best on the field, the court, or the ice.
July 12, 2024
Business
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference in Landmark Loper Bright Decision
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. As expected, following oral argument, the Court overruled the Chevron deference doctrine in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The doctrine stems from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), establishing a two-step analysis for judicial review of statutory interpretation. Under Chevron, if a court concluded that a statute was silent or ambiguous, it had to defer to an agency’s permissible construction of the statute. Now, under Loper Bright, courts must “exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” Supreme Court Review: Chevron Doctrine's Applicability to Cases Post-Loper Bright In Loper Bright, two sets of fishing companies challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service requiring vessels operating in the Atlantic herring market to pay for a government-certified observer during their fishing trips. Applying Chevron, the district court in each case rejected the companies’ challenge to the observer rule and granted summary judgment to the government. Panels of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and First Circuit affirmed these decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases on the limited question of whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified. Supreme Court's Interpretation of APA in Loper Bright The Loper Bright decision is premised on what the majority believes is a plain text reading of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs judicial challenges to agency actions. The Court specifically determined that the APA, which was not considered in Chevron, reflects the traditional understanding of the judiciary's role. This role requires courts to independently interpret the meaning of laws. The Court dismissed the notion of a “presumption” of agency expertise, explaining that resolving unclear laws falls within the court’s jurisdiction, not the agencies. Put another way, while courts may use an agency’s interpretation to help “inform their inquiry,” they cannot dictate how courts interpret the law. The Loper Bright Court also rejected the idea that Chevron promotes consistency, highlighting inconsistencies in its application. Furthermore, it concluded that adherence to Chevron is not mandated by stare decisis. Chevron had proven “unworkable” because determining whether a statute is ambiguous is an indeterminate exercise. Consequently, the Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s decisions. Supreme Court Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts and the Majority Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.
July 12, 2024
Page 16 of 35
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
