Labor and Employment
Delaware Non-Compete Update
As you may know, I provide employment law advice to our teams here at Offit Kurman, assisting our clients in company sales. In that capacity, and because I also draft restrictive covenants for businesses, I try to update my business clients on the latest news regarding non-competition clauses. The Delaware Court of Chancery recently gave us some good information regarding limits that buyers may place on sellers in terms of competing with the sold business. Many deals across the United States are written in accordance with Delaware law, so it has a wide-ranging impact. Recently the Court of Chancery clarified that non-competes which try to prevent a seller from competing with a buyer’s pre-existing business are not enforceable. Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022). Such promises are only enforceable to the extent that they protect the buyer’s interest in the assets or company purchased in the deal. Even more interesting because of its larger potential effect on employment agreement non-competes is the Court’s holding that a seller’s promise in a purchase agreement not to challenge the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant means nothing. It is up to the Court to determine the reasonableness of the terms according to Delaware law. If your company wants a binding agreement, it is worthless to have a party promise that the non-compete is reasonable. I’d argue that this decision extends to employment agreement non-competes because the Court made the ruling based on public policy, which applies to all areas of law. Consult a Delaware lawyer with up-to-date non-compete knowledge to draft your sales and employment agreements. The Court continues to move in favor of allowing free competition.
November 4, 2022
Business
FinCEN Issues Final Rule for Beneficial Ownership Reporting under Corporate Transparency Act
On September 30, 2022, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within the U.S. Department of Treasury issued final regulations under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that will require most small domestic and foreign business entities which are registered to do business in the United States to disclose the identity of their beneficial owners. The rule will take effect on January 1, 2024. These regulations, which finalized proposed regulations issued under the CTA in December 2021, resulted from years of debate in Congress over the best measures to develop a database of beneficial owners of business entities in order to combat terrorism, money laundering and other financial crimes. With the adoption of these regulations, the United States joins many other developed countries throughout the world in providing a means for the federal government, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, to ascertain the identity of individuals who possess ultimate control over so-called “shell companies” that heretofore were not required to disclose their owners and therefore be better equipped to combat illicit activities conducted through such entities. The regulations require all “reporting companies,” as discussed below, to report identifying information concerning itself and any individual who either (i) exercises “substantial control,” as discussed below, over the reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of the reporting company. In addition, all reporting companies formed after January 1, 2024, must disclose the identity of the individual or individuals who directly filed the document that creates the entity, or in the case of a foreign reporting company, the document that first registers the entity to do business in the United States, and the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another (including attorneys, corporate service companies, etc.)(each such individual referred to as a “company applicant”). Reporting Company A reporting company is any entity (i) that is formed under the laws of any state or Indian tribe in the United States or any entity that is formed under the laws of any foreign jurisdiction that has qualified (registered) to do business in any jurisdiction in the United States, and which is formed or qualified by the filing of a document with the secretary of state or equivalent filing office in the jurisdiction of formation or qualification, and (ii) is not one of 23 specified categories of exempt entities that are already subject to beneficial ownership reporting requirements to FinCEN. Accordingly, all corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships and business trusts, among other entities, fall within the definition of a reporting company, while general partnerships, sole proprietorships and other trusts do not. Exempt entities include, among others, (i) most regulated financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and broker-dealers, (ii) companies required to file reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, (iii) tax-exempt entities, (iv) subsidiaries of exempt entities, and (v) “large operating companies”. This latter category of an exempted entity consists of any entity that has a physical presence in the United States, employs more than 20 full-time equivalent employees and has annual gross receipts in excess of $5 million. Beneficial Owners The regulations require each reporting company to report to FinCEN certain information with respect to each individual that qualifies as a direct or indirect beneficial owner of such reporting company, as described below. The determination of who constitutes a beneficial owner derives from either of two independent tests, a substantial control test or an ownership test. The regulations define “substantial control” over the entity to mean any of the following: (i) service as a senior officer; (ii) possessing authority to remove or appoint any senior officer or majority of the board of directors or equivalent body; (iii) having the ability to direct, determine or have substantial influence over important decisions to be made by the reporting company; or (iv) having some other form of substantial control over the reporting company. Substantial control can be exercised in a number of ways, including through a position held with the reporting company, through a position held with the parent or other controlling entity of the reporting company, through contractual or other arrangements, through nominee relationships, or through other financial relationships with the reporting company. The ownership test requires that the individual own, directly or indirectly, at least 25% of the ownership interests of the reporting company. Such ownership may be obtained through direct or indirect ownership of equity interests in the company, through a profits interest, or through convertible instruments such as options, warrants or convertible debt instruments, as well as through trusts or other contractual arrangements. In calculating the percentage of ownership, the regulations require that the number of ownership interests owned by such individual be compared to the total outstanding ownership interests of the company and that any convertible, or exercisable interests in securities owned by the individual be considered to be fully converted or exercised on a per share basis. The regulations make it clear that there can be more than one beneficial owner of each reporting company. Information to be Reported and Filing Deadline Each reporting company formed on or after January 1, 2024, must file an initial report with FinCEN within 30 days of receipt of official notice of formation or qualification from the applicable jurisdiction of formation or qualification. Each reporting company in existence or qualified prior to January 1, 2024, must file an initial report no later than January 1, 2025. The initial report must contain the following information: Legal name of the entity and any d/b/a names Full business address Jurisdiction of formation or qualification for foreign entities Tax Identification Number Beneficial Owner information, including for each individual:Full legal name of the individual Residence address of the individual Unique identifying number for the individual as provided by a governmental agency, such as a driver’s license number, passport number or other identification card number, in each case together with an image of the document where such number exists. In addition, reporting companies must file an updated report with FinCEN containing revised information within 30 days of (i) any changes to the information or (ii) the company becoming aware or having reason to know of any incorrect information previously reported. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2024, the initial report must also include information for each company applicant similar to that required of beneficial owners, although a business address may be reported in place of a residence address for such individuals. While a reporting company must file a report to show any corrected information for any company applicant named in the initial report, it is not required to report updated information with respect to company applicants. When a reporting company files an initial report, it may apply for a FinCEN identifying number that it may use for filing any updating reports. In the future, FinCEN will be releasing FAQs that detail questions and answers regarding specific situations as they arise and the forms for the initial and updated reports. In addition, FinCEN will be subsequently releasing separate sets of regulations dealing with what parties will have access to the database of beneficial ownership information and revisions to the existing Customer Due Diligence regulations for financial institutions to better harmonize the existing requirements with those under the final Beneficial Ownership Reporting regulations. Offit Kurman has a team of attorneys who are familiar with the CTA and the final regulations. We will continue to monitor the roll-out of the additional regulations and other FinCEN guidance and will be happy to answer any questions that you may have in this regard.
November 3, 2022
Construction
Pennsylvania State Design Professional Boards Adopt New Regulations and Rules for Digital Signatures & Seals
On October 20, 2022, The Pennsylvania State Architects Board, The State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, and The State Board of Landscape Architects adopted new rules and regulations governing signatures and seals. The final form of regulation approved by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) provides new guidelines and requirements applicable to licensed design professionals in Pennsylvania. Generally, state law governs the use and application of a design professional’s seal on work performed by the licensed design professional or under immediate supervision or responsible control. The changes to the regulations are to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The overall intent of the new regulation of Digital Signatures and Seals is to assure the public, including clients and authorities having jurisdiction, that work product (drawings, plans, and specifications) were prepared by or under the personal supervision of the Registered Architect, Professional Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor, or the Registered Landscape Architect. The regulations generally require mechanisms to allow the design professional, client, or code official to detect modifications by requiring standards for electronic authentication. The desire is to decrease the incidence of forged or fraudulent sealed documents by unlicensed design professionals. Because the regulation of licensed design professionals and the use of seals on technical drawings, plans, and specifications is regulated at the State rather than federal level Architects, Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects must carefully consult each State design professional Board in order to ensure compliance with the existing licensing laws and regulations. Impact for Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects The new regulations in Pennsylvania generally recognize three separate mechanisms for affixing a signature and seal to final or complete technical drawings, plans, or specifications issued to a client or to a governmental agency for final review. The three methods are as follows: Physical placement of a seal and handwritten signature in permanent ink; Digital placement of a seal and a handwritten signature in permanent ink; and Digital placement of a seal and a digital signature; The second and third categories related to digital sealing with a manual signature and digital sealing with an electronic seal will now require some additional verification and authentication requirements. To this end, if the licensed design professional is affixing a digital seal or digital seal and signature, the electronic document is required to have an electronic authentication process attached to the digital document. Thus, under Pennsylvania law, if any data within the digital technical drawing, plan, or specification, which has a digital signature or seal affixed, the digital signature or seal will be invalidated and voided. The practical implication for licensed design professionals practicing in Pennsylvania is that if an Architect, Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor, or Registered Landscape Architect is affixing a digital signature or seal, they will be required to utilize software that will void or invalidate the signature or seal if an alteration is made to a technical drawing, plan, or specification. I have worked on the digital signature and seal regulations in connection with the various Licensure Boards since the summer of 2013. The regulations will take effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, which is anticipated to occur within the next month. If you have questions regarding the new Digital Signature and Seal regulations, please reach out at 717-980-3140 or apotter@offitkurman.com.
November 2, 2022
Labor and Employment
New York City’s Pay Transparency Law Takes Effect November 1, 2022
In what is becoming a growing trend among local and state legislative bodies – New York City passed the Pay Transparency Law (the “Law”), otherwise known as Local Law 32 of 2022. The Law was passed in an effort to improve wage transparency, balance the bargaining power between applicants and employers and narrow the wage gap. The Law requires covered employers to list minimum and maximum potential salary amounts in job postings. What You Need to Know: Effective Date: The Law, which amended the NYC Human Rights Law and was enacted on January 15, 2022, was initially scheduled to take effect on May 15, 2022 – but was later amended to take effect on November 1, 2022. Required Information/Disclosures: Employers must state the minimum and maximum salary range for the advertised position that the employer, “in good faith,” believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the position. Open-ended salary ranges (i.e., “a maximum of $50,000” or “15/hour and up”) are not acceptable. Salary ranges should be posted for each opportunity where advertisements cover multiple positions. “Salary” refers to base annual or hourly wage. It does NOT include: (a) health, life or other insurance, (b) paid or unpaid time off, sick or vacation days or employer-funded pension plans, (c) severance pay, (d) overtime, (e) commissions, tips, bonuses, stock or the value of employer-provided meals or lodging. Covered Employers: All employers with four (4) or more employees or at least one domestic worker. Not all employees must work at the same location, as long as at least one employee works in NYC. Owners and individual employers count toward the four (4) employee minimum, as do independent contractors, part-time employees, paid interns and domestic workers. Temporary employment agencies are exempted from the Law. The Commission defines temporary agencies as businesses that recruit and hire their own employees and assign those employees to perform work at or perform services for other organizations or businesses. Covered Postings: Any advertisement for a job, promotion or transfer opportunity for a job that would be performed in NYC. An “advertisement” is any written description of an available job, promotion or transfer opportunity –regardless of how disseminated. Importantly, the Law applies not only to public advertisements but also to any internally advertised job, promotion and transfer opportunities. And the Law applies equally to temporary and part-time positions as it does to “permanent” and full-time positions. Employers are not required to post for a position they seek to fill. Geographic Scope: Positions that can or will be performed, in whole or in part, in New York City, whether from an office, in the field, or remotely from the employee’s home. Violations and Enforcement: Violation of the Law is considered an unlawful discriminatory practice. The NYC Commission on Human Rights has the authority to enforce the Law. There will be no penalty for first-time violations if the employer corrects the violation within 30 days. However, an employer’s submission of proof that the violation was corrected “shall be deemed an admission of liability for all purposes.” Future violations will subject an employer to monetary damages and civil penalties of up to $250,000. We Can Help: Should you have any questions regarding NYC’s Pay Transparency Law or any other employment matter – please feel free to reach out to Offit Kurman’s Employment Group.
November 1, 2022
Family Law
Dividing Stocks in Divorce
If your spouse has stocks, they will need to be identified as marital or non-marital, valued and divided or offset with another marital asset. Public stock is simple to value. Once a valuation date is determined, the answer lies in the market’s figures. Assuming the stock is all marital, and the parties agree to divide it equally, I recommend the parties work with an accountant or representative from the financial institution to ensure the division is as equal as possible considering the cost basis, so one party is not left with a major tax liability. Restricted stock units (RSU) can be a bit trickier because there is no market price to look up. RSUs are a common incentive for employees in private companies. They are granted to employees to incentivize them to grow with the business. RSUs do not have a value when they are granted; instead, they have a vesting schedule. Once they vest, they have value. The vesting schedule is important in your divorce and your jurisdiction. For instance, if the RSUs were granted before the marriage and vested after the marriage, there is some marital component, and you may need an expert to trace the amount. What comes up more often is when the RSUs are granted during the marriage but do not vest until after the marriage. Some states consider the unvested RSUs marital, and some do not. RSUs are also taxed, so that will need to be considered when dividing or negotiating RSUs. There are several ways to divide stocks in a divorce. The spouse who has the stock may keep them in exchange for another marital asset or offsetting the marital estate somehow. The parties may decide to divide the public stock. The parties may agree to equally divide the net value of the stock if, as and when it vests. Some parties agree to sell and divide the stock prior to divorcing for tax purposes. There are many other ways to slice the stock pie, but the best option will vary in different divorce cases. Bottom line is that stocks can become complex, and you need an attorney who knows to ask the right questions, gather the right documents, and reach out to a competent accountant when necessary.
October 31, 2022
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy 101 for Mortgage Lenders
In the summer of 2022, First Guarantee Mortgage Company filed for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. Mortgage market analysts forecast a string of mortgage companies to file for bankruptcy in the months or years ahead. Hence, this is an excellent time to remind mortgage lenders and those that might be impacted by their bankruptcy proceedings of the limitations that the Bankruptcy Code places on sales of consumer credit transactions and the cloud hanging over the mortgage lenders’ metaphorical heads after the decision denying confirmation of the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Ditech Holding Corporation and its Affiliated Debtors (the “Second Amended Plan”) In re Ditech Holding Corp., 606 B.R. 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). The vast majority of Chapter 11 cases involve early sales of all assets to a strategic or financial buyer free and clear of liens, encumbrances and interests under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. With a 363 sale, a distressed company can expeditiously and effectively separate the debtor’s past troubles from its future success without going through the process of proposing a Chapter 11 plan and meeting all prerequisites to confirm a plan. The benefit for a potential buyer is that a 363 sale can “cleanse” the assets and eliminate or, at least, minimize successor liability claims. In the context of a mortgage lender bankruptcy, this benefit is somewhat limited. In 2005, Congress added Section 363(o) to the provisions governing asset sales outside of a Chapter 11 plan. Under that section, (a) if a person purchases (i) any interest in a consumer credit transaction that is subject to the Truth in Lending Act or (ii) any interest in a consumer credit contract (as defined in section 433.1 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations (January 1, 2004), as amended from time to time), and (b) if that interest is purchased through a sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, then, notwithstanding the “free and clear” language in section 363(f), such person remains subject to all claims and defenses assertible by the consumer that is related to such consumer credit contracts and transactions to the same extent as such person would be subject to such claims and defenses had the person acquired the interest pursuant to a sale not under section 363. The reasoning behind the amendment is illustrated with a statement by Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY-D). We have a new problem with these predatory lenders . . . In recent months, several large subprime lenders have obtained orders from bankruptcy courts, providing for the sale of their loans or the servicing rights associated with them under section 363 of the bankruptcy code. Consumers who have attempted to challenge these loans or their servicing obligations based on violations of fair lending laws have been told by the purchasers of these loans they were sold free and clear of any consumer claims and defenses. The fact that innocent borrowers can be left in the lurch is flat-out wrong. 147 CONG. REC. 2018, at *2032 (March 8, 2001). Accordingly, the buyer of a mortgage lender business would inherit consumer claims and defenses to the same extent it would under applicable non-bankruptcy law. Then one may ask, “could a mortgage lender accomplish a free and clear sale through a full-blown confirmation process by incorporating the sale in the Chapter 11 plan?” Judge Garrity said, “maybe” with some caveats when Ditech Holding Corp. and its affiliated debtors (“Ditech”) were pursuing such a sale. Ditech operated as an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. Accordingly, the bulk of the assets to be transferred were consumer credit transactions. Ditech offered a variety of residential mortgage loans to consumers for its own portfolio and for government-sponsored enterprises, government agencies, third-party securitization trusts, and other credit owners. Ditech was comprised of three primary segments: (i) forward mortgage originations through Ditech Financial LLC (“DFL”); (ii) forward mortgage servicing through DFL; and (iii) reverse mortgage servicing through Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. The Consumer Creditors Committee appointed by the U.S. Trustee in the Ditech case objected to the confirmation of the Second Amended Plan because it did not comply with Section 363(o). Ditech countered that it was free to sell the consumer credit contracts free and clear of consumer claims and interests not expressly assumed by the buyers pursuant to Sections 1123(b)(4) and 1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. While the Court agreed that Section 1123 and Section 1141(c) provide an independent basis to accomplish free and clear sale, the plan did not meet the best interest test under Section 1129(a)(7). Judge Garrity held: To satisfy the best interest test, the Debtors must prove that the holders of Class 6 claims will “receive or retain property having a present value, as of the effective date of the plan, not less than the amount such holder would receive or retain if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7.” In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 138 B.R. at 761. It is undisputed that if the Debtors were liquidated under chapter 7, sections 363(f) and (o) would apply to a sale of the Consumer Creditor Agreements. The Court must apply those provisions in determining whether the Debtors have met their burden under section 1129(a)(7), notwithstanding that the Court has determined that sections 363(f) and (o) are not applicable to the Plan Sale Transactions, and nothing in the Code says otherwise. In a liquidation under Chapter 7, the liquidation analysis has to take into account the consumer claims because these claims: (i) fit the definition of “property,” (ii) have “value,” and (iii) although they are unliquidated, they are “neither speculative nor incapable of estimation.” Ditech’s liquidation analysis failed to do so. The takeaway is that mortgage lenders and buyers of mortgage lenders want to keep in mind that a free and clear sale might be attainable through a planned sale if the liquidation analysis factors in the limitations of Section 363(o). For further information, please feel free to reach out to Albena Petrakov.
October 31, 2022
Family Law
Can My Spouse Take My Business?
The law may differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally, businesses started during the marriage will be determined to be marital property to be divided upon divorce. If the business is a partnership or a corporation, ownership by title will be determined. Suppose a spouse owns 100% of the business because of the stock ownership or the partnership interest or because of other evidence of ownership. In that case, the Court will generally require that the business be valued, and then a determination will be made as to whether the spouse who does not have an interest in the business will receive a buyout or an offset from other assets. Business valuations are performed by experts. Often the parties will agree to use one business valuation expert as a neutral. However, in the spouses cannot agree on one valuation expert, there may be substantial variance in the opinions of the experts representing the interest of the parties. Those situations require the assistance of an attorney who has specific knowledge regarding business valuations and who has the ability to work with experts in the field. Often there is a determination of personal goodwill. In those cases, an expert may opine that the value of the business is, in whole or in part, attributable to the owner of the business. In that case, the personal goodwill will not be divided upon divorce. This determination can be hotly contested in a divorce situation. If the spouses each own an interest in a business, it is often partitioned in some way by a transfer of ownership between the spouses, with an offset for other assets or a buyout. When dealing with businesses that began prior to the marriage, the entire business is not necessarily marital. Once again, a business valuation may be hired to determine the value of the business at the time of the marriage and the current value of the business. The spouse who does not own an interest in the business may argue that the increase in value is marital and should be divided equitably or equally between the parties, depending upon the applicable statutes and case law.
October 28, 2022
Business
Executive Playbook: The Challenges of Hiring and Recruiting
On this month’s episode of the Executive Playbook, Mike Cammarata and Russell Berger discuss the practical challenges of making strategic hires and recruiting. Mike and Russell focus on the different leading indicators that should prompt business owners to move forward with a hire and then, once that decision is made, where to recruit and how best to interview. Listen in to learn more.
October 27, 2022
Intellectual Property
USPTO Shortens Time for Response to Office Actions
On December 3, 2022, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is making a big change to the requirements to respond to rejections or requirements for further information. Background: When a business files an application for trademark registration in the US, it is (eventually) examined, and the examining attorney will either approve the application or issue an Office Action. The Office Action is a letter that will either refuse to accept the application (because of a prior similar registration or other ground for refusal) or require amendments to a part of the application (such as the description of goods) before the application can be accepted. Throughout recorded history, the USPTO has given the applicant six months to respond to the Office Action. Big Change: For Office Actions issued on or after December 3, the USPTO will require a response within three months of the date of issue of the Office Action. It is possible to extend this time for an additional three months with payment of a fee. The fee will need to be paid before the 3-month deadline; it will not be automatic and cannot be paid after the fact. What this means for applicants: Your attorney handling the application will notify you when an Office Action issues and will let you know the deadline to respond or request the extension. It will be important to review the issues with your attorney and make a plan for responding without delay. Additional considerations: For now, this change only applies to Office Actions issued in pending applications. For Office Actions that might issue in response to a post-registration renewal or declaration of use, the same change will take effect on October 7, 2023. For more information about this rule change or any issues related to trademark protection or registration, please contact Laura Winston.
October 17, 2022
Estates and Trusts
Case Study on Estate Tax Reduction Strategies: Business and Investment
In the following case study for business owners, Offit Kurman attorneys Herbert Fineburg and Charles “Max” McCauley illustrate an estate and gift planning strategy for removing your business from your taxable federal estate. This tax planning also works for your stock portfolio. The presentation was delivered at the Philadelphia chapter of The Exit Planning Exchange’s monthly conference.
October 14, 2022
Business
Forwarding Email to Hotel Front Desk for Printing Waived Privilege!
Normally I write about recent and interesting tax cases in this blog, but every now and then, I come across a case so important I just have to share it here. Fourth Dimension Software v. Der Touristik Deutschland GMBh is such a case with an important cautionary tale. Fourth Dimension Software (“FDS”) is embroiled in a dispute with Der Touristik Deutschland GMBh (“DTD”) regarding DTD’s alleged overuse of a software license for software developed by FDS and licensed to DTD. Prior to the litigation, in preparation for a meeting with DTD in Berlin to discuss the licensing agreement, FDS’s former outside counsel emailed the president of DTD regarding certain issues for the meeting. As people sometimes do, FDS’s president wanted a hard copy of the email for his notes. Having no printer, FDS’s president forwarded the email to info.berlin@hilton.com with a note in the subject line “Please print one copy. I’m waiting at the front desk. Thanks.” How DTD got its hands on a copy of the email was not discussed. What was discussed was the waiver of the attorney-client privilege as a result of FDS’s president forwarding the email to the front desk of the Hilton in Berlin for printing. When the email came to light, FDS sought to exclude it as an attorney-client communication protected by the attorney-client privilege. As a reminder, the attorney-client privilege applies to any communication in which legal advice is sought or communicated, not just communications in the context of litigation. Because the parties were in federal court because they were from different states, and not because the case concerned a question of federal law, California law, not federal law, applied. Under California law, if a client discloses an attorney-client communication to unnecessary third parties, the client manifests an intent to waive the privilege. DTD successfully argued that was exactly what happened here. FDS pointed out that under California law, the privilege is not lost solely because the communication is by electronic means (e-mail) or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communications may have access to the content of the email. The Court dryly noted, “That statute does help FDS here.” The Court went on to point out the hotel desk clerk was an unnecessary third party to whom FDS’s president knowingly disclosed the communication. Though not mentioned in the court’s order, under the court’s analysis, merely forwarding the email to an unnecessary third party would have resulted in a waiver of the privilege as well. Other states’ laws may not be the same as California, but remember that forum selection clause in that contract you signed that said would only be brought in California? But why risk it? Think twice before forwarding that email to or from your lawyer. Like FDS, you may end up waiving the privilege.
October 14, 2022
Estates and Trusts
Empower Your Loved Ones with a ‘Power of Appointment’
Preparing an estate plan means having a say in what happens to your wealth after you are gone. Through a Last Will and Testament, you can name the important people in your life who will inherit your assets. You can also specify whether they should receive these assets immediately upon your death or over time through a trust. Looking even farther ahead, you can give your loved ones a “power of appointment,” enabling them to say where any remaining trust assets should go when they themselves are out of the picture. With a power of appointment at their disposal, your loved ones can direct their inheritance to subsequent generations wisely and effectively. Trusts — A Primer First, a little explanation. A trust is an arrangement under which money or other property is managed by one person, called the “trustee,” for the benefit of another person, called the “beneficiary.” Trusts can be especially useful if your loved ones include a young person, someone with special needs, or anyone who has trouble managing money. In placing their inheritance into a trust, you create a gatekeeper—the trustee. This person is a fiduciary who manages the trust assets and makes distributions only in your beneficiary’s best interests. With a power of appointment at their disposal, your loved ones can direct their inheritance to subsequent generations wisely and effectively. Some distributions could be discretionary. For example, the trustee could be authorized to cover expenses related to your loved one’s health, education, and support as the trustee deems advisable. This authority could be broadly defined to include things like paying for a wedding, buying a house, purchasing a business, or entering a trade or profession. Other distributions from the trust could be mandatory. A trust for a young person might say the beneficiary is entitled to withdraw half of the principal upon reaching the age of 25 and the balance when he or she turns 30. Some people like to include provisions that encourage the beneficiary to achieve certain life goals. The trust could state, for example, that the beneficiary is to receive a large distribution upon graduating from college. Trusts can also discourage harmful behavior by pausing distributions if the beneficiary falls prey to addiction or alcoholism—apart from payments for rehabilitative treatment. By including a “spendthrift clause” in the trust, you can prevent a creditor from placing on lien on the principal to satisfy your child’s unpaid debts. If your children are adopted, placing their inheritance into a trust can ward off possible intrusions from their birth family. Unscrupulous “friends” seeking a loan can also be kept at bay. Powers of Appointment In addition to protecting a loved one’s inheritance, a trust can say what happens upon the death of the beneficiary. Many trusts simply state that any remaining trust property goes to the beneficiary’s children in equal shares. With a power of appointment, however, you can give the beneficiary greater flexibility and control. A power of appointment is the legal right to designate the new owner of property. How can this be useful? Consider a beneficiary who has two children, one with special needs. The beneficiary could exercise the power by appointing half of the trust property in a special-needs trust for the disabled child and half to the other child, outright and free of any trust. In different circumstances, the beneficiary could effectively disinherit an estranged child. Or multiple children could be left different amounts of the trust property, based on their financial needs or how close they have been to the beneficiary. Under a “special power of appointment,” the potential appointees could be limited to a select group of people, such as the beneficiary’s spouse and children. Or the power could be “general,” meaning there are no restrictions on the beneficiary’s power to appoint (think unmarried partners, friends, or charities). Either way, the power could be exercised under the beneficiary’s own Will, which should specifically reference the power of appointment and name the new owners. A power of appointment has been called estate planning’s secret weapon. Consider including one in a trust for your loved ones. It will help them adjust your estate plan to their circumstances long after you are gone. To get started, call an Estates & Trusts lawyer for help.
October 11, 2022
Estates and Trusts
Historic Increase to Your Lifetime Exclusion from Federal Estate Taxes for 2023
Ironically, there is good news for some families due to rising inflation for gift and estate planning purposes. As a result of inflation adjustments built into federal estate tax laws, your lifetime exclusion from federal estate taxes is set to rise from $12.06 million per person in 2022 to almost $13 million in 2023. This is a total exclusion amount of almost $26 million per married couple [The inheritance tax rules, if any, for the state where you reside vary from state to state and are not discussed in this article]. Specifically, according to recent reports, in 2023 the estimated inflation adjustment will be $860,000, resulting in an aggregate exclusion amount of almost $13 million per person ($12,060,000 plus $860,000 = $12,920,000). This is a remarkable increase when compared to the 2022 inflation adjustment increase of $360,000, at that time the largest on record. By comparison, the inflation adjustment for 2016 was a mere $20,000. Additionally, the annual gift tax exclusion is set to rise from $16,000 per donee in 2022 to $17,000 per donee in 2023. This means you can gift up to $17,000 to an unlimited number of individual recipients without incurring gift tax consequences or reducing your estate tax lifetime exclusion. High-net-worth individuals will benefit from the inflation adjustments because they can move significant assets out of their taxable estates before the scheduled reduction of the exclusion amount on January 1, 2026, when the exclusion amount will drop by a staggering 50%. For example, in 2026, a married couple will go from being able to gift nearly $26 million free of federal estate tax to only being able to gift $12 million (adjusted for inflation) free of federal estate tax. Acting now to take advantage of the historically high exemption could save your family millions in federal estate taxes. Note: If you die before 2026, under the portability rules, your surviving spouse can carry over your unused exclusion to the surviving spouse’s federal estate tax return; otherwise, your exclusion is permanently lost. An individual who wants to take advantage of the current tax laws before they expire may loan their stock portfolio to an intentionally defective grantor trust for the benefit of the individual’s spouse or children in exchange for a promissory note that can be forgiven in 2025 — the eve of the tax law changes — using the exclusion amount before it disappears. Couples will typically consider a trust for a spouse to preserve access to the trust portfolio during the spouse’s lifetime as the trust beneficiary. In conclusion, if you expect that your taxable federal estate will be more than $6 million (adjusted for inflation) for a single individual or $12 million (adjusted for inflation) for a married couple, you should consider the federal estate tax benefits to your heirs by engaging in estate and gift tax planning. Please get in touch with Danielle Friedman or Herb Fineburg with any questions or additional estate planning techniques to reduce your taxable estate and preserve your lifetime exclusion.
October 10, 2022
Intellectual Property
Defamation: Five Key Questions for Any Potential Claim
Defamation has been in the news lately thanks to the Depp v Heard Trial. But what is defamation exactly? Has someone ever posted an untrue statement about you or your organization online? Untrue statements are published every day but not every untrue statement rises to the level of defamation. Consider the following elements of Defamation: What is defamation? A false, malicious communication of fact to a third-party causing injury to one’s reputation. In Virginia, defamation encompasses libel (written recorded statements) and slander (oral statements). Watch: Spider-Man: The Difference between slander and libel – YouTube What is required to prove defamation? Publication (the statement is seen or heard by a third party); A false statement tending to harm the reputation of another; & The requisite intent. (actual malice for public figures; negligence for nonpublic figures).Gaz, Inc. v. Harris, 325 S.E.2d 713, 725 (Va. 1985). What is a defamatory statement? The statement or communication must be more than an unpleasant statement. The subject of the statement must appear odious, infamous or ridiculous. A statement will not be actionable as defamation unless it has a “sting” injuring the subject’s reputation. However, defamation can be proven by inference, implication or insinuation. Can opinions constitute defamation? No – statements of pure opinion are not defamation. “The First Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia protect the right of every individual to express any opinion or idea, however ill-founded.” Tharpe v. Saunders, 737 S.E.2d 890, 893 (Va. 2013). Note – adding qualifiers such as “in my opinion” will not diffuse an otherwise defamatory statement. How can a statement be published? Any communication by any method to one or more persons who can understand its meaning. Newspaper articles, statements aloud to others, books, Twitter posts, Facebook statements, and other social media mediums. If you or your organization are the subject of a potentially defamatory statement or a defamation lawsuit is threatened against you or your organization, don’t make any decisions about how to proceed before talking with a trusted attorney in your area. Offit Kurman attorneys are available to advise on defamation and other issues. Reach out to Anders Sleight today to discuss your specific situation.
October 6, 2022
Labor and Employment
Monitoring Employee Email for Unionization Activity
We’re all noticing that increased unionization is the national trend. With new Democratic-appointed National Labor Relations Board members, the Board is no longer all Republican, and employers are closely watching the effects of this political shift in favor of unionization rights. On September 30, a panel of two Republican members and one Democratic member decided that T-Mobile US, Inc. broke the National Labor Relations Act by disciplining a customer service worker for sending a union-related email following a court battle appealing its initial decision. This reversed a 2020 decision by an all-Republican panel that T-Mobile had the right to discipline the worker for using its email for non-business-related purposes. The Board found that T-Mobile had broken labor law by “selectively and disparately” using company policies to silence the pro-union worker. However, this finding was specific to the facts of this case. Other employees had been permitted to use T-Mobile’s email for non-business purposes without being disciplined. Other employees sent mass emails about non-work issues such as hockey tickets, bowling parties, and “Nacho Day” in the cafeteria—but weren’t punished, said the decision. T-Mobile appeared to be targeting the worker who was promoting unionization. Employers may still restrict workers’ email use for non-work issues, including union organizing, as long as they don’t target union communications specifically. So, if employers want to prevent unionization emails on their servers, they need to monitor the servers for other uses and shut them down, too.
October 3, 2022
Bankruptcy
When Bad Things Happen To Good People: Good Faith Is Not Enough When Investing in (What Later Turns Out To Be) a Ponzi Scheme
What happens when a good faith investor learns it invested in a Ponzi scheme and is presented with a claim to return money it withdrew from its account and fights the good fight to protect its investment? On September 20, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Irving Picard, the S.I.P.C. appointed trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities L.L.C. (“B.L.M.I.S.”) and ruling that defendants J.A.B.A. Associates L.P. (“J.A.B.A.”) and the general partners of J.A.B.A.: Audrey Goodman, Bruce Goodman, Andrew Goodman, and the estate of James Goodman, were required to pay to the trustee the amount of $2,925,000 together with 4% pre-judgment interest. Considering that the litigation started in 2010 and went through three levels of the court system, the award of pre-judgment interest adds a material amount to the total due to the trustee. Who Are The Parties? J.A.B.A. is a former customer of Bernard L. Madoff who had no knowledge of his fraudulent conduct. Irving H. Picard, the trustee, sued it, alleging that it received voidable transfers from B.L.M.I.S. in the last two years of his operation, from December 11, 2006, to December 11, 2008. The initial claim filed on December 10, 2010, asserted against the defendants, was for $6,065,000 of withdrawals that J.A.B.A. allegedly received in the six-year period prior to the bankruptcy filing. However, in an earlier decision, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the trustee is limited to recovery of the Two-Year Transfers. See Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. L.L.C. (“Ida Fishman”), 773 F.3d 411, 423 (2d Cir. 2014). As set forth in the Second Circuit’s and the underlying district court’s decision, B.L.M.I.S. was a securities broker-dealer through which the infamous Bernard Madoff operated three business units: (1) a proprietary trading business; (2) a market-making business; and (3) an investment advisory business (the “I.A. Business”). B.L.M.I.S. collected funds from brokerage customers and purported to invest those funds on behalf of the customers, but it did not actually invest the money. Instead, it sent its customers fabricated statements using historical trading activity and returns that had never been generated and therefore were reflecting fictitious trades and gains. When customers sought to withdraw money from the accounts, B.L.M.I.S. satisfied those requests with the proceeds of other customers’ investments that were held in a commingled checking account. See, e.g., In re2 Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. L.L.C., 773 F.3d at 415. The scheme collapsed in 2008. Analysis The finding that the trustee was allowed to claw back the amount transferred out of the B.L.M.I.S. money is not surprising. It is well settled that when a corpus of customer property is insufficient to pay customer claims, a S.I.P.A. trustee may recover certain transfers by the debtor pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. 15 U.S.C. § 78fff-2(c)(3) and 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A). A trustee may avoid and recover transfers of fictitious profits where (1) a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, (2) was made within two years of the bankruptcy petition date, (3) and the transfer was made with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor. Adelphia Recovery Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A., Nos. 05-cv-9050, 03-MD-1529, 2011 WL 1419617, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2011), aff’d sub nom.Adelphia Recovery Tr. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 748 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2014). Defendants claimed that the S.I.P.C. trustee did not have the standing to pursue the claims and that the account out of which the money was transferred was held in the name of Madoff, not B.L.M.I.S. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found these arguments unpersuasive. The novelty here is the somewhat harsh determination concerning pre-judgment interest. The defendants sought to overturn the award of pre-judgment interest as an abuse of discretion because they were innocent victims of fraud and should not have been penalized for defending themselves in court. J.A.B.A. argued that (1) there was no statutory basis for an award of pre-judgment interest under 11 U.S.C. § 548; (2) pre-judgment interest was inappropriate where the defendants did nothing wrong; (3) the trustee was responsible for any delay; and (4) the district court’s award of 4 percent interest was excessive and punitive. The Court of Appeals found that the lack of explicit authorization in the Bankruptcy Code for an award of pre-judgment interest was not dispositive, and that pre-judgment interest had been awarded against other similarly situated six defendants in related S.I.P.A. litigation. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. 7 Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities L.L.C., No. 08–01789 (S.M.B.), 2018 W.L. 8 1442312, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. March 22, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 9 596 B.R. 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2019 aff’d, 976 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2020); Picard v. Nelson, 610 B.R. 197, 238 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); Picard v. BAM, L.P. , 624 B.R. 55, 65-66 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020). The court further held that wrongdoing by the Defendants was not a pre-requisite to an award of interest. While defendants certainly had a right to litigate their case, they benefited from other customers’ stolen property and had not returned it for over a decade. The Court of Appeals was satisfied that the district court appropriately balanced the equities and surveyed other cases where pre-judgment interest was awarded, ranging from 9 percent to 4 percent. S.I.P.C., 528 F. Supp. 3d at 246. Takeaway The moral of the story here is that when presented with a settlement offer, litigants and their lawyers must carefully analyze how interest impacts the litigation strategy and decide whether it is worth spending money and time pursuing appeals, not just based on existing case law, but the trend in which the law is moving and the reasons behind it. For further information, please feel free to reach out to Albena Petrakov.
September 30, 2022
Marriage on the Rocks
Marriage on the Rocks: Prepping for Your First Meeting with Your Lawyer
Rachel Mech and Emily Shank discuss how to prepare for your first meeting with your lawyer. Emily Shank, who is featured in this video, is no longer affiliated with Offit Kurman.
September 30, 2022
Business
Executive Playbook: Maryland Saves Program
On this month’s episode of the Executive Playbook, Mike Cammarata and Russell Berger discuss the new Maryland Saves program. Under this program, almost all employers in Maryland are required to either offer a retirement plan of their own or to provide their employees with access to the Maryland Saves program. While this program should not cost employers any out-of-pocket funds, it is an opportunity for employers to ensure that they are taking strategic steps to not only comply with the law but to provide meaningful benefits to employees. Listen in to learn more about the financial and legal opportunities Maryland Saves presents for business owners.
September 29, 2022
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nuggets: Be Prepared for Due Diligence, Before You Go to Market Part 4 – Employee vs. Contractor Classification
This is Part 4 of a series on steps business sellers should take to make sure their house is in order before going to market. One of the hot button issues that buyers examine when conducting due diligence is whether the seller has properly classified a worker as an independent contractor versus an employee. The contractor versus employee issue has always been a target of the Internal Revenue Service and United States Department of Labor. If a worker improperly classified as a contractor is in fact an employee, the consequence can be a finding that the employer owes back payroll taxes, interest and penalties. Some employers stretch their classifications of workers as independent contractors to avoid having to pay payroll tax and provide coverage under the employer’s employee benefit plans, thereby saving costs that would be incurred if the person was classified as an employee. Regardless of an employer’s past practice, potential buyers are certain to examine the issue and, if a buyer believes that there is the potential for misclassification, a specific indemnification by the seller of the buyer will be required. Prior to going to market, sellers should review any classification of workers as independent contractors. The factors looked at to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee, although not crystal clear, depend in large part on whether the employer controls the worker’s schedule, provides all of the resources the worker needs to work and restricts the worker from engaging in competition. Independent contractor relationships should be properly documented with contractor agreements. The factors that determine worker status should be reviewed as they apply to each contractor and, if necessary, the relationship between the worker and the company should be adjusted to either make clear that the factors weighing in favor of a contractor determination will be satisfied, or to shift the worker to an employee. By examining the contractor versus employee issue proactively, a seller can not only provide comfort to interested buyers that this issue has been dealt with, but also avoid potential payroll tax and other regulatory issues later.
September 28, 2022
Contractor's Corner
Legal Considerations When Running a FedEx Business Webinar
Sarah Sawyer hosted a webinar to discuss the Legal Considerations When Running a FedEx Business. A few aspects that were covered during the webinar are: Legal issues related to pay structures and incentives Wage deductions, the do and don’ts Business formation and structure concerns Asset protection considerations The webinar can be found here. Passcode: G17$0WjE
September 26, 2022
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nuggets: Be Prepared for Due Diligence, Before You Go to Market Part 3 – Privacy Policies
This is Part 3 of a series on steps business sellers should take to make sure their house is in order before going to market. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA, was enacted in 1996 as one of the first laws to protect the privacy of personal identifiable information. The increase in attempts by cybercriminals to obtain or hold hostage private information, whether through ransomware, phishing attacks or other efforts, has been in part the reason for spurts in the enactment of additional privacy laws to protect personal information. As a result of the greater susceptibility of personal information to attack and the increase in the number of laws designed to protect the information, privacy laws and policies have become one of the due diligence areas most focused on by buyers. To be prepared, sellers must first understand which privacy laws apply to them. In the United States, HIPAA, which is designed to protect healthcare information, is the most significant federal law. At present, there is no overall federal law protecting privacy information in general. However, several States have enacted their own privacy laws, including California, Virginia, Utah, Colorado and Connecticut, and more are on the way. It is important to determine whether these laws apply to your business. A State’s law may apply to your business even though you do not do business in that State. Among the most important overseas laws is the General Data Protection Regulation, known as GDPR, which regulates the information of residents of the European Union. Again, just because your business does not operate in the European Union does not mean that your business is not subject to the GDPR, as that law applies to businesses that collect and process information of European residents. The privacy laws establish policies and standards that must be followed to protect personal information. Once it is understood what laws are applicable to your business, the next step is to determine whether your business has in place the policies and standards that are required, including whether its online privacy policies and terms of use are sufficient. Making sure that your business is in compliance with privacy laws will not only go a long way to protect the personal information of persons who do business with you (your employees, customers and members of the public who visits your website or app), but will provide comfort to potential buyers that you have adequately dealt with this area of high risk. If you have any questions about this or any other M&A issue, please contact Glenn Solomon at gsolomon@offitkurman.com or 443-738-1522.
September 22, 2022
Labor and Employment
Preparing for Potential Union or Organizing Activity
U.S. labor unions are becoming increasingly popular among Americans after years of relative indifference by rank-and-file employees. Approval ratings for unions and unionization efforts are at the highest point since 1965, according to a recent Gallup survey. Organizing activity is bubbling up in unexpected areas like gaming and the broader technology industry and in global organizations like Starbucks and Amazon. This workplace trend created an unsettling development for all employers as they contemplate their relationships with employees heading into 2023. Offit Kurman’s Labor & Employment group offers an informative 60–90-minute virtual presentation for business owners, HR professionals and managers, providing information crucial to mitigating risk and avoiding unionization in their organizations. The presentation covers applicable labor laws and regulations governing union activity, compliance requirements, proactive strategies to identify organizing warning signs, best practices for union-related communications and how to address organizing activity before it gains steam. There is also ample time allotted for Q&A. The presentation is directed only to management-level employees, not rank-and-file employees. If you would like to schedule a presentation or receive more information, please feel free to reach out.
September 22, 2022
Contractor's Corner
Potential Changes to Federal Overtime Pay Laws Loom
Currently, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Motor Carrier Exemption, FedEx contractors do not have to pay drivers overtime when driving trucks over 10,000 pounds. That could change. The Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 14, 2022, and in the Senate on September 12, 2022, would repeal the FLSA Motor Carrier Exemption. The legislation will significantly change how contractors schedule employees and manage their fleet if passed. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently recommended eliminating the exemption to improve the supply chain, and the bipartisan bill has a coalition of support from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Institute for Safer Trucking, the Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers. The introduction by Senator Markey and Padilla of the Senate version of the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act gives this bill new life and continues to move the efforts of these groups forward. While these developments in no way guarantee the elimination of the Motor Carrier Exemption, it is a significant development that contractors need to be aware of and prepared to address. We will continue to provide you with updates as we receive them.
September 20, 2022
Marriage on the Rocks
Marriage on the Rocks: Prenups- The Good, the Bad, the Funny
Rachel Mech and Emily Shank talk prenups – the good, the bad, and the funny. Emily Shank, who is featured in this video, is no longer affiliated with Offit Kurman.
September 9, 2022
Contractor's Corner
Wage Deductions: When Can You Make Them?
While wage deductions can effectively recoup costs and losses from an employee, deductions from wages are heavily regulated, and contractors should proceed with caution when making these deductions. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing most contractors nationwide, wage deductions for items considered primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer may not reduce an employee’s pay rate below minimum wage. For example, if an employer has an agreement with an employee to deduct from the employee’s wages costs to cover any damage to an employer’s property or lost equipment, the employer’s deductions cannot bring the employee’s pay below minimum wage. Alternatively, wage deductions for items considered for the employee’s benefit and do not benefit the employer, such as a personal loan to the employee, the wage deduction can reduce the employee’s effective rate of pay below minimum wage. The same general rule applies to wage deductions and overtime compensation, not bringing the employee’s wage below time and a half. In addition to federal laws regulating wage deductions, many states have stricter rules governing what, when, and how employers may make deductions from employees’ wages. For instance, in New Jersey, employers may not require an employee to pay for their uniforms or deduct the cost of uniforms from an employee’s paycheck, and in California, employers are generally prohibited from making deductions from an employee’s wages for vehicle damage caused by an employee’s negligence. As a general rule of thumb, contractors should always get express permission from employees to make any deductions from their wages and pay close attention to their state’s laws on deductions to ensure they are not running afoul of these regulations. To merely include a deduction policy in the employee handbook without seeking permission and vetting what deductions are allowable in your state and the laws governing those deductions is wholly insufficient. Out of all of the many areas of employment law that employers must comply with, wage and hour laws have some of the steepest consequences for noncompliance. Contractors who fail to comply with wage and hour laws, such as wage deduction regulations, may have to pay double to treble damages, the employee’s attorney’s fees, and individual penalties for noncompliance. Accordingly, contractors must pay special attention to these laws before implementing any policies or procedures related to payroll deductions.
September 8, 2022
Labor and Employment
The Turning Tide: How Americans Currently View the Supreme Court
Not too shocking: about half of Americans’ ratings of the Supreme Court are now as negative as – and more politically polarized than – at any point in three decades. According to the Pew Research Center’s report published September 1, the share of Democrats or Democrat-leaning participants who say they have a favorable opinion of the Court has dropped from 67% in 2020 to 28% in August 2022. Almost half of the respondents indicated their belief that the Court has too much power. In contrast, Republican and Republican-leaning approval ratings were very similar to 2020 at over 70%. The justices were once proud to say that they are apolitical, citing the fact that many of their decisions are unanimous, 8-1, or 7-2. But the percentage of those opinions dropped from 49% in 2016 to 28% in 2022, according to the authoritative empirical SCOTUS blog. I have been to the Supreme Court twice: once in 2015 and once in 2019. Our 2015 opinion was unanimously decided, and in 2019, the Court declined to review the lower court’s decision. This indicates – from my very small sample – cohesive views. Pew’s survey was much larger. It polled 7,647 adults, including 5,681 registered voters, from Aug. 1-14, 2022, using a national, random sampling of residential addresses. What do you think? Has the 6-3 “conservative” majority been that divisive? And isn’t it sad that we now commonly refer to the “factions” as “conservative” and “liberal”?
September 7, 2022
Bankruptcy
Splintering Door Frames (Almost) as U.S. Marshals Enforce Order of the Bankruptcy Court
Last month, Jim Hoffman of Offit Kurman, P.A., Counsel to Cheryl E. Rose, a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, accompanied the U.S. Marshals and the Prince George’s County Police to the home of an uncooperative debtor to enforce a Bankruptcy Court order to seize his computers, computer equipment, books, records and other items that may assist Ms. Rose, as Trustee, to administer the Bankruptcy Estate (“Seizure Order”). Prior to that time, the Bankruptcy Court had the patience of Job – – month after month, the debtor broke promises to the Court and to the Trustee to cooperate when producing books and records for more than ten businesses that each own real estate. The debtor also liquidated and retained more than $150,000 of assets during the bankruptcy without Court approval. The Court issued orders to enforce contempt sanctions, but the debtor continued his obstructive behavior. Even a court-imposed detention with the Marshals for two days did not alter the debtor’s behavior. The Seizure Order drafted by Counsel was in the form of a Writ of Assistance. This relief is unusual and requires coordination among the Office of the U.S. Marshals, the Trustee, Counsel and others. The Marshals from the Greenbelt, MD, location were extraordinarily helpful. Ms. Rose coordinated the presence of a locksmith (to avoid splintering door frames), and the Marshals provided manpower and protection, although the debtor’s schedules stated that he had no firearms. The Marshals took no chances. Prior to the date of the seizure, the Marshals communicated with local police to determine whether outstanding warrants existed for the debtor. In fact, there was. So the Marshals, local police, a locksmith and Counsel appeared unannounced at the debtor’s residence worth more than $700,000. Counsel was told to stay far away as law enforcement approached the property. The Marshals called the debtor on two (2) different telephone lines and pounded on the door. No one answered. So the locksmith began drilling a lock behind a tactical shield, drilling – – later admitting it was not his best work under the eyes of so many spectators and the threat of gunfire. After the door was opened, law enforcement announced themselves. The debtor then appeared, claiming to be asleep (despite being fully dressed, television on). The local police arrested the debtor on a prior charge, and Counsel proceeded through the residence, gathering computers, thumb drives and 20 boxes of records. Counsel diligently searched looking for an external hard drive the debtor referenced at a hearing and for more thumb drives. Within the debtor’s nightstand, Mr. Hoffman found 20 rounds of ammunition – – right next to a thumb drive. After further searching, he located a handgun and two pellet guns. The Marshals called the local police again (they were processing the debtor on the prior charge). A policeman returned, took possession of the handgun and ammunition and then returned to the station to arrest, for a second time, the debtor on new charges. The debtor was a convicted felon and was not permitted to possess a weapon or ammunition. The Trustee and Counsel thank the Marshals, Prince George’s County police and others who bravely assisted in the enforcement of the Bankruptcy Court’s Seizure Order. Who said the practice of law was dull?
September 2, 2022
Real Estate
How do Shared Equity Agreements Work?
As discussed in the last edition of This Week in Real Estate, many homeowners are interested in shared equity agreements. Let’s discuss how those agreements work. Here are a few examples of shared equity agreements in action. Scenario 1: Securing a down payment Harry Homeowner wants to buy a home that costs $250,000. To avoid Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI), he needs to put down $50,000. He saved up $25,000 but is not sure how to get the rest. He hears about a shared equity investment company and finds out they will lend him the other $25,000. In exchange, they get an interest in his property and its future appreciation or depreciation. Harry’s agreement sets the term at 30 years. That means he won’t have to make a single repayment on the amount until he sells the home or thirty years have passed, whichever comes first. At the end of the agreement, Harry will repay the initial investment along with 35% of the property’s gain or loss over the span of the agreement. Note that the amount of the company’s interest in the gain is considerably more than the percentage of the initial investment. Repayment Fifteen years later, Harry is ready to sell his home. Depending on how the value of his home has changed, here’s what could happen. If Harry’s home has increased in value to $350,000, he will owe the investor the initial investment of $25,000 plus 35% of the $100,000 gain ($35,000). The total payment would be $60,000. If the value of Harry’s home stayed the same, he would owe the investor the initial investment of $25,000 and nothing more. What if Harry’s home value drops to $200,000?He’ll need to repay the difference between the initial investment ($25,000) and the investor’s percentage of the loss (35% of -$50,000=-$17,500). The total repayment amount would be $7,500. Scenario #2: Cashing out some home equity Ophelia Owner has a home worth $500,000. She still owes $300,000 on her mortgage and has $200,000 in home equity. She wants to cash out $50,000 and reaches out to an equity-sharing company to make it happen. Equity sharing agreement Ophelia agrees to sell $50,000 of her equity in exchange for a 25% stake in her home’s appreciation over the next ten years. Repayment When the 10-year term is up, it’s time for Ophelia to pay, here are three possible outcomes: If Ophelia’s home increases in value to $550,000, she will have to repay the initial $50,000 plus 25% of the $50,000 appreciation, for a total of $62,500. If she is not ready to sell her house, so she will have to pay out-of-pocket or refinance the debt. However, refinancing the debt will result in additional financing fees. And even if she sells her home, the $37,500 she gains from the appreciation won’t cover the full $50,000 repayment. This outcome could be problematic for some homeowners. Before making a shared equity agreement, check market trends and predictions to make sure you’ve got a good chance of gaining money instead of losing it. Next week, we will examine who would truly benefit from a share equity agreement.
September 1, 2022
Bankruptcy
Corporate Subchapter V Debtors Beware: Creditors May Object to Dischargeability of Fraud and Other Claims, at Least in Some Jurisdictions
On June 7, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“4th Circuit”) held that the discharge exceptions in Subchapter V of Chapter 11 (enacted as part of the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”)) apply to both individual debtors and corporate debtors. Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC (In re Cleary Packaging, LLC), 36 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2022). The 4th Circuit’s decision reversed the bankruptcy court’s “nicely crafted opinion,” which held that the exceptions to dischargeability incorporated into the Subchapter V provisions of Chapter 11 applied only to individual debtors. The 4th Circuit’s decision is a big deal in the bankruptcy world because it is the first decision to hold that corporate Chapter 11 debtors are subject to all discharge exceptions under Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In this case, the debt at issue was a $4.7 million judgment against the debtor for intentional interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relations. Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is the section relied upon by creditors objecting to certain types of debts, including for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and willful and malicious injury. That section refers to dischargeability exceptions of an “individual debtor.” Section 1192, which applies only in Subchapter V cases, excepts from discharge debts “of the kind specified in section 523(a).” In holding that the Section 1192 dischargeability exception applies equally to corporate debtors, the 4th Circuit found that Section 1192 referred to “kinds” of debts as opposed to “kinds” of debtors. This decision is controlling precedent only in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Bankruptcy courts in Idaho and Michigan have held that the discharge exceptions in Subchapter V apply only to individual debtors. It will take time before there are any potentially conflicting circuit decisions on this issue that could result in review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, this author understands that certain groups may lobby Congress for a legislative fix to the 4th Circuit’s decision, which some believe will lead to unintended consequences at odds with the legislative history of Subchapter V. What are the potential unintended consequences? In Cantwell-Cleary, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (“NABT”) filed a brief in support of appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, which the 4th Circuit denied. In that brief, the NABT argued that the purpose of the SBRA was to “streamline the bankruptcy process by which small business debtors reorganize and rehabilitate their financial affairs.” The NABT argued, among other things, that by allowing claims under § 523(a) to proceed against corporate, small business debtors, Subchapter V cases will no longer proceed in a timely, cost-effective manner, nor will it help these companies remain in business. This may be true. For example, in a hypothetical case in which a creditor has a $4.7 million claim (that is not subject to a discharge exception), the debtor could confirm a plan (over the objection of creditors) that pays unsecured creditors only $100,000 if the debtor’s assets are not worth more than $100,000 and if the debtor does not generate more than $100,000 in projected disposable income over the plan term. That debtor could obtain a fresh financial start. By contrast, if that $4.7 million claim is nondischargeable, the debtor will be burdened with collection efforts and may not actually be able to survive. Indeed, the creditor with a nondischargeable claim ends up with significant leverage against the Subchapter V debtor trying to negotiate a consensual plan. Only time will tell whether other courts will follow the 4th Circuit and/or whether someone can convince Congress to clarify whether the discharge exceptions in Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to corporate Subchapter V debtors. For information on this topic, contact Stephen Metz.
August 31, 2022
Labor and Employment
CDC Speaks Again: How Does it Affect Employees?
New COVID guidance from the CDC throws some of what we’ve learned about safe returns to work and prevention out the window. The CDC’s recommendation is now that anyone exposed to COVID is safe to be around others by wearing a well-fitted and high-quality mask for ten days. I’d suggest that the “well-fitting and high-quality mask” is a big factor. Employers should still require that employees inform them of exposure and intent to test and, at that time, let them know the new standard and that they may report in person. Keep a stock of KN95 or other tight-fitting masks on hand. Delaware still requires employers to provide masks, and these are readily available. All persons should still seek testing for active infection when they are symptomatic or if they have a known or suspected exposure to someone with COVID. Symptomatic or infected persons should isolate promptly, and infected persons should remain in isolation for at least five days (day 0 is the day of exposure) and wear a well-fitting and high-quality mask if they must be around others. Infected persons may end isolation after five days, only when they are without a fever for at least 24 hours without the use of medication and all other symptoms have improved. They should continue to wear a mask or respirator around others at home and in public through day 10. Don’t forget: employees at high risk for severe illness and those in contact with them (such as caregiving recipients and household members) may want to minimize risk if they learn they’ve been exposed. They may still ask to quarantine while they await test results. This may either be handled by telework, isolating onsite, or taking available paid or unpaid time off. Be cognizant of reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities; this may fall into that basket. On another note, I am really happy to announce that I was voted into Best Lawyers in America for employment law. I joined 59 of my colleagues at Offit Kurman, who were included in the listing of the top 5% of American lawyers. Sincerely, thank you for your trust in me.
August 31, 2022
Page 29 of 35
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
