Bankruptcy
When Does the Automatic Stay Protect Companies that are Not in a Bankruptcy Proceeding?
In June 2022, Reuters published an article titled “How a “Bankruptcy Innovation” Halted Thousands of Lawsuits from Sick Plaintiffs.” The mechanism used to halt ongoing lawsuits was the automatic stay triggered by the bankruptcy filing of an affiliate of the defendant companies. The “bankruptcy innovation” is the so-called Texas Two-Step. The Texas Two-Step is not a lottery game or a country dance, or “a controversial legal maneuver,” as Investopedia calls it, but a statutorily established corporate transaction. It allows a company to complete a divisional merger under Texas corporate law, i.e. to separate assets and liabilities of a company into two different entities by creating a new entity and then liabilities and some assets are transferred into the newly created entity. The entity is then placed into bankruptcy to invoke the automatic stay. The main asset remaining with the entity that takes on the liabilities is a funding agreement, whereby the entity keeping the assets agrees to pay certain of the liabilities of the other (typically for mass tort claims). The primary benefit of the Texas Two-Step is that it keeps an operating company outside of bankruptcy but provides to the operating company the benefits of a bankruptcy filing. The Reuters article highlights four companies that used the Texas Two-Step: Georgia-Pacific, Saint-Gobain, Trane Technologies and Johnson & Johnson. The company that is currently in the spotlight for using the Texas Two-Step is Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”), and in particular, one of J&J’s subsidiaries – Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“J&J Consumer”). Following certain pre-2015 intercompany transactions, J&J Consumer assumed responsibility for all claims alleging that J&J’s talc-containing baby powder and other products caused ovarian cancer and other diseases. In October 2021, J&J Consumer engaged in a divisional merger under the Texas corporate statute. As a result of the divisional merger, J&J Consumer ceased to exist and two new companies, LTL and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc (“New J&J Consumer”) were created. LTL assumed all talc-related liabilities of the old company and filed a bankruptcy petition (initially in North Carolina but the case was transferred to New Jersey in November 2021). The talc plaintiffs challenged the filing and the use of Texas Two-Step. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of J&J/LTL and rejected the challenge. The bankruptcy court’s decision is now on appeal (review of this challenge will be included in one of our next issues). Meanwhile, LTL had asked the bankruptcy court for permission to extend the automatic stay to thousands of cosmetic talc-related claims with respect to J&J, J&J Consumer, New J&J Consumer. The automatic stay serves to protect the debtor that filed a bankruptcy petition, by stopping all collection efforts, including not only halting pending lawsuits but any acts that constitute an attempt to exercise control over assets subject to bankruptcy protection, thereby giving the debtor a respite from creditors and a chance to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan. Technically, the stay is not extended. Rather, the bankruptcy court issues an injunction having the effect of “extending” the stay to the entity not in bankruptcy. Although the scope of automatic stay is broad, its protections typically apply only to debtors in bankruptcy, not non-debtor defendants. Shortly after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, the North Carolina bankruptcy court granted a temporary restraining order and enjoined the prosecution of talc claims against the non-debtors (“Initial PI Order”). After the case was transferred to New Jersey, on February 25, 2022, the New Jersey bankruptcy court issued a decision that would extend the duration of relief granted under the Initial PI Order, including the issuance of a preliminary injunction for the duration of the Chapter 11 case, subject to the court revisiting continuation of the automatic stay and the preliminary injunction on June 29, 2022, and every four months thereafter. The court found that Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 105 provide independent bases for granting an injunctive relief to non-debtor parties. The critical factor in the Court’s analysis was the impact of the non-debtor litigation on the bankruptcy estate. The Court concluded that continued litigation against the non-debtor parties would liquidate pending tort claims, as well as indemnification claims, against LTL outside of Chapter 11 and potentially deplete available shared insurance coverage, thereby frustrating the purpose of the automatic stay. Since the claims against the debtor and the non-debtor parties involved the same products, same time periods, same alleged injuries, and same evidence, continued litigation could prejudice the debtor. For guidance on this matter, contact Albena Petrakov at apetrakov@offitkurman.com or at 212.380.4106.
June 30, 2022
Business
Executive Playbook: Business Owners & the Changing Economy
In this episode, Russell Berger and Mike Cammarata discuss the impact of changing economic conditions on business owners. While the news is filled with stories about inflation and a slowing economy, Mike and Russell talk about the practical challenges this creates for businesses and actions that businesses can take to prepare for economic uncertainty.
June 29, 2022
Tax
Operating Agreements – One Size Does Not Fit All
A recent private letter ruling highlights the danger of using a form or template blindly. PLR 202219005 involved a limited liability company (the “Company”) that sought, but failed, to be taxed as an S-corporation. On the effective date of the Company’s organization, the Company duly adopted a written operating agreement. The problem was the written operating agreement contained provisions appropriate for partnerships but not S-corporations. Specifically, one provision of the operating provided, “the proceeds from liquidation will be allocated to members with positive balances in their respective capital accounts, pro-rata, in proportion to the positive balances in those capital accounts.” Provisions like this one are seen routinely in operating agreements for entities taxed as partnerships for federal income tax purposes but are wholly inappropriate for entities taxed as S-corporations. Recall an S-corporation may have only one class of stock. While an S-corporation can have voting and non-voting shares, all shares must have identical rights to distribution and liquidation proceeds. The problem is partnership allocation provisions, such as the one at issue here, do not confer identical rights to distribution and liquidation proceeds. More of a problem among the DIY community who grab forms off the internet; this also can happen with attorneys who create limited liability companies (and operating agreements for those LLCs) without understanding what the agreements actually say and do. The allocation and distribution provisions of an operating agreement are the meat of the agreement because these provisions determine how members get money (or don’t get it) (distributions) and how they are taxed on money (or not taxed) (allocations). You don’t go to your dentist for heart surgery, and you don’t go to your cardiologist to fill a tooth. Lawyers are the same. When setting up a new company, turn to a lawyer well-versed in business and tax matters. The PLR does not discuss how the operating agreement came to contain partnership tax allocation provisions, only that it did. This PLR serves as a cautionary tale – do not use forms blindly. With operating agreements, one size DOES NOT fit all. Each operating agreement should be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the particular transaction and the parties’ intended tax treatment. In the case the Company was fortunate, the Service granted relief. Still, the need for (and cost of) a PLR easily could have been avoided had the taxpayer carefully reviewed the operating agreement. Scott Tippett is a member of Offit Kurman, where he focuses his practice on business and tax planning. Offit Kurman counsels business owners on strategic business, tax, and risk management techniques. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author’s and do not constitute and are not intended as legal or tax advice.
June 22, 2022
Labor and Employment
Defamation Claims: Johnny Depp Pulled Off a Miracle
Clients very frequently approach our lawyers with a keen interest in suing someone for defamation, a la Johnny Depp. I strongly discourage these claims. It’s a very tough row to hoe. First, defamation (libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation) requires a statement of fact, not opinion. For example, “John Doe is a racist” is not a defamatory statement because “racist” is an opinion (versus “John Doe used a racial slur.”) It also requires publication – sharing the statement with others. That means that a person could tell you off when you’re in a room alone, and it’s not defamation. Also, there are exceptions: for example, special standards apply to statements about people in the public eye. Almost anything goes with political figures, for instance. Finally, you have to prove actual damages. It might have hurt your feelings that someone published something very negative about you or your business, but did it lead to monetary harm? More than your legal bill would be if you sued? If the above requirements don’t eliminate the possibility of filing a defamation claim, I still think it’s a very tough one. As clearly revealed at the Depp v. Heard trial, it is “he said, she said” all the way. The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that’s 51%) that the defendant’s statement was defamatory. Looking at the example above, how does John Doe prove that he did not make the racial slur? It’s his word against someone else’s word. Somehow, Depp pulled off this miracle. Defamation suits are only for people who lost a lot of money or suffered a huge indignity via the statements and have money to burn. Depp lost a pirate movie and other commercial opportunities; it’s extremely embarrassing to be labeled as a domestic abuser, and he is very wealthy. I shiver to think what he paid his lawyers for that win – against a person who filed a successful counterclaim for defamation against him; likely can’t pay it because the verdict is so large; and, at the bare minimum, won’t be paid for quite a while during the appeals process. I wonder if he feels it was worth it.
June 22, 2022
Estates and Trusts
Is Same-Sex Marriage in Jeopardy?
This article has been updated. The Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade has sent abortion-rights advocates reeling. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court ended a constitutional right that was the law of the land for nearly half a century. The ruling could put other constitutional rights in jeopardy as well. Many in the LGBTQ community are asking, “Is same-sex marriage next?” Like the right to abortion, the right to same-sex marriage hinges on the Due Process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. This amendment was adopted after the Civil War as part of Reconstruction. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to guarantee the right to use birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), to be intimate with someone of the same sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and to marry a person of one’s choosing (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Samuel Alito doesn’t mince words. He argues that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, and because a woman’s right to end a pregnancy isn’t “deeply rooted in this nation’s history.” This argument is misguided, if only because it runs afoul of stare decisis, the legal doctrine that obliges a court of law to follow prior court decisions when making a ruling on a similar case. The reasoning behind Justice Alito’s opinion may nevertheless form a road map for overturning same-sex marriage and other 14th Amendment rights. For those of us in the LGBTQ community, the question is what we can do to protect ourselves and our hard-won right to marriage. Those of us in same-sex relationships should prepare for the unexpected by drawing up estate plans. It is important to remember that a Supreme Court decision overturning Obergefell would not make same-sex marriage illegal. It would simply leave it to states legislatures to determine whether to allow gay marriages in their state. The Maryland Legislature has already done this. In 2012, it passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the Free State. The law took effect on January 1, 2013, after winning approval from a majority of Marylanders in a statewide ballot referendum. Maryland’s same-sex couples who are already married can therefore take comfort. In the wake of a Supreme Court decision overturning Obergefell, our unions should survive, at least at the state level. But continued federal recognition of gay marriage would be less certain, and a national patchwork of laws and policies might necessarily develop. A marriage recognized in Maryland could suddenly be considered invalid in other states, and by the federal government. That could mean the end of important federal benefits, such increased Social Security payments to a surviving spouse. With that in mind, many same-sex couples are rushing to tie the knot. This is especially true of couples whose marriage plans were delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Whether we are disposed toward marriage or not, those of us in same-sex relationships should prepare for the unexpected by drawing up estate plans. Most plans include a will, financial power of attorney, and advance medical directive for each partner. These essential documents will authorize your partner or someone else you trust to manage your finances and health care if you ever become incapacitated. They will also help to ensure the efficient transfer of your assets upon your death. Marriage confers significant legal benefits, but a marriage license alone isn’t enough. No matter what the future holds for same-sex unions, an estate plan will help protect your relationship from some of life’s most significant uncertainties.
June 21, 2022
Tax
North Carolina Enacts Pass – Through Entity Tax
Recently the North Carolina General Assembly changed the law to permit pass-through entities (partnerships and s-corporations) to pay entity-level tax, thereby joining a majority of states (29 at last count) in doing so. The change is effective for tax years beginning January 1, 2022. As with most states, paying tax at the entity level is optional (mandatory in Connecticut). If a partnership pays tax at the entity level, the tax paid is a separately allocable item to the individual partners, so the net effect is the same, which begs the question, then why pay tax at the entity level. Originally pass-through entity tax (PTET) laws came about as a workaround for the state and local tax (SALT) limitations imposed by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Recall the TCJA limits deductions of state and local taxes to ten thousand ($10,000) annually, but taxes paid y an entity are business expenses, not subject to the 10K cap. There are two potential drawbacks of PTET. First, not all states give their residents credit for PTET paid in other states. Second, in some states, PTET is paid at a state’s top marginal rate (or more), so the advantage may be illusory at best. But let me suggest an additional aspect of PTET – asset protection. In the traditional model, a partnership would, at a minimum, make distributions to its partners to cover the taxes for the income allocated to each partner. Within the partnership, and here we are talking about a limited liability company taxed as a partnership, not a true general partnership, assets held within the LLC are beyond the reach of an individual partner’s creditors. However, when a tax distribution is made, the funds out of the LLC and into the individual partners’ bank accounts where the funds then become subject to set-off by the bank, garnishment by a judgment-creditor, withdrawal by a joint account holder, not to mention subject to the joint account holder’s judgment creditors, or, in extreme cases, prejudgment attachment. Depending on the amount of income allocated to a partner, the tax distribution could be substantial. Imagine the disgruntled, secretly planning to separate spouse who waits until the tax deposit is made to drain the joint bank account, leaving the partner/member without immediate liquid assets with which to pay tax liabilities. On the other hand, if the entity elects PTET, then the funds never leave the entity and are paid by the entity directly to the relevant tax authorities and the tax paid is allocated to the individual members/partners as though the tax distribution had been made to them and they, in turn, paid their respective tax obligations. No doubt, neither the North Carolina General Assembly nor any other state legislative body that enacted a PTET did it for asset protection purposes, but every now and then, life has its little bonuses. Scott Tippett is a member of Offit Kurman, where he focuses his practice on business and tax planning. Offit Kurman counsels business owners on strategic business, tax, and risk management techniques. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author’s and do not constitute and are not intended as legal or tax advice.
June 16, 2022
Labor and Employment
Anti-SLAPP and Section 230 Ruling
In a rare ruling on April 26, 2022, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted our Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss in a defamation case brought by Joshua Harris, a former Green Party candidate for Mayor of Baltimore, against our clients Courtney Fix and Get Your Fix, LLC. Ms. Fix, who was the owner of a local donut shop, Full Circle Doughnuts, was sued by five different men in three separate lawsuits for defamation based on her social media posts that shared the stories of other women and their alleged loathsome experiences involving the men who filed suit. While two of the lawsuits were ultimately resolved out of court, the case filed by Mr. Harris was dismissed on several grounds, including Anti-SLAPP and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In granting Ms. Fix’s Motion, the Court found that Mr. Harris brought the case against Ms. Fix in bad faith, his case lacked merit, Ms. Fix’s speech was protected under the First Amendment, and Mr. Harris’s status as a public figure, as well as the content of Ms. Fix’s speech in the context of the MeToo and Times Up movements, made Ms. Fix’s speech a matter of public concern. In making its ruling, the Court noted Mr. Harris’ request that the Court force Ms. Fix to submit to a mental evaluation “particularly offensive.” I was honored to have worked with my colleague Mark Dimenna to secure this outcome for our client. While Maryland’s Anti-SLAPP law has been on the books since 2004, these matters are rarely before Maryland courts, and there is just one reported case analyzing the law. On April 29, 2022, Mr. Harris appealed the Baltimore City Circuit Court’s decision, and the case is now pending before the Court of Special Appeals, providing just the second opportunity for Maryland’s appellate courts to consider the Anti-SLAPP statute. Check out the Baltimore Business Journal article on this case here: Judge dismisses defamation lawsuit against former Full Circle Doughnuts owner
June 3, 2022
Business
Executive Playbook: Planning for Your Exit
In this episode, Russell Berger and Mike Cammarata discuss strategies for preparing and planning for an exit from your company.
June 1, 2022
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7 Trustee's Perspective: Selling Litigation in Bankruptcy is Prohibited?
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee may receive the opportunity to pursue a large claim for an avoidable transfer, such as a fraudulent conveyance, a preferential transfer or a pre-petition claim that the debtor holds. However, such litigation may be expensive to pursue and there may be a large risk of loss. Should the trustee engage in “Bet the Farm” litigation at the trustee’s personal financial risk when outside counsel will not accept the case on a contingency fee basis and there are no other assets in the Estate? Should the trustee abandon the claim to the detriment of the creditors? The best alternative may be to sell the litigation, but is the sale barred by old common law principles? This scenario involves the principles of maintenance, champerty and barratry (the “Principles”), which trace back supposedly to ancient Greece. The Supreme Court found that 1) maintenance is helping another prosecute a suit; 2) champerty is maintaining a suit in return for a financial interest in the outcome, and 3) barratry is a continuing practice of maintenance or champerty. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 425 (1978). The Principles were intended to prevent the manufacturing of frivolous or vexatious litigation. The fifty states are not uniform in their treatment of the Principles, with some states upholding the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance in some form[1] and others having abolished the doctrine altogether or not recognizing it.[2] According to the Fourth Circuit, most jurisdictions no longer recognize causes of action for damages based on champerty and maintenance and such actions arose only where the alleged wrongdoer had no interest in the litigation.American Hotel Management Associates, Inc. v. Jones, 768 F.2d 562, 570 (4th Cir.1985), but Maryland still does. See Rojas v. Huntington Neighborhood Ass'n, No. DLB-21-28, 2022 WL 616815, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2022). Similarly, see In re DesignLine Corp., 565 B.R. 341 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2017) (holding that a proposed agreement between trustee and entity that had agreed to finance trustee's pursuit of litigation against debtor's insiders was prohibited by champerty under North Carolina law and could not be approved.) Of course, the bankruptcy court may need to address which state law to apply in any case. See Koro Co., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 568 F.Supp. 280 (D.D.C. 1983) (the court determined that New York law of champerty, rather than New Jersey law, applied to invalidate the assignment of claims.) Also, see Riffin v. Consol. Rail Corp., 363 F. Supp. 3d 569, 575 (E.D. Pa.), aff'd, 783 F. App'x 246 (3d Cir. 2019) Barratry and the other Principles may be defined by statute in some states and may cover a multitude of sins. See e.g. Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code Ann. § 10-604(b).[3] As stated by the District Court of Maryland, the conduct proscribed by the current statute was first made a statutory offense in Maryland in 1908. “Before then, the officious stirring up of, maintaining, or meddling in litigation in which a person had no interest constituted the common law crime of barratry, maintenance, champerty, or embracery, depending on the particular nature of the conduct.” Abbott v. Gordon, No. CIV.A. DKC 09-0372, 2011 WL 828646, at *17 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2011). Both champerty and barratry require proof that the intermeddler expected to personally gain from or share in the outcome of the litigation. Now let’s go back to our creative and diligent Chapter 7 trustee. In the case of In re Simply Essentials LLC, No. 20-305, 2022 WL 1026045 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 5, 2022), the trustee proposed a sale of a potential worthwhile avoidance action against a creditor to another creditor that would litigate those suits in the best interest of the estate. The trustee sought authorization to sell the right to bring avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code regarding preferential and fraudulent transfers. The trustee believed the claims could provide the estate with a large recovery, but the Estate could not afford to pursue them. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement under which the trustee would sell the Estate’s right to bring avoidance claims to a creditor holding a $23.4 million claim over the potential defendant’s competing offer. The Court overruled an objection that these claims were not included in “property of the estate” and recognized the practicalities of the situation stating that: "To allow parties otherwise facing meritorious … avoidance claims to escape those claims because the trustee cannot afford to pursue them and they cannot be sold or transferred would be an absurd result.” The court reasoned that Section 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code recognizes these claims as assets of the Estate that can be sold under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and B.R. 9019(b). Regardless of whether a debtor or creditor opposes or supports the sale of litigation in bankruptcy by a trustee, one should not forget to check the applicable statute or the common law Principles under governing law before making an argument to the court. [1] These states include, among others, the bankruptcy-friendly Delaware and New York as well as Alaska, D.C., Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania. [2]Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and recently Minnesota, among others, do not recognize the principles. [3] (b) Without an existing relationship or interest in an issue: (1) a person may not, for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person in a lawsuit; (2) a person who is not a lawyer may not, for personal gain, access a report for the purpose of soliciting another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person; and (3) a lawyer, except as provided in the Rules of Professional Conduct, may not: (i) for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the person in a lawsuit; (ii) directly or indirectly employ or in any way compensate or agree to employ or compensate any person as an expert witness or otherwise for the purpose of having that person solicit or attempt to solicit clients for the lawyer; (iii) knowingly represent a person who retained the lawyer as a result of solicitation prohibited under this section; or (iv) cause a case to be instituted without the authority of a client.(c) Any solicitation involving acts described in this section is prima facie evidence that the person soliciting is acting for gain. (1) a person may not, for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person in a lawsuit; (2) a person who is not a lawyer may not, for personal gain, access a report for the purpose of soliciting another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the other person; and (3) a lawyer, except as provided in the Rules of Professional Conduct, may not: (i) for personal gain, solicit another person to sue or to retain a lawyer to represent the person in a lawsuit; (ii) directly or indirectly employ or in any way compensate or agree to employ or compensate any person as an expert witness or otherwise for the purpose of having that person solicit or attempt to solicit clients for the lawyer; (iii) knowingly represent a person who retained the lawyer as a result of solicitation prohibited under this section; or (iv) cause a case to be instituted without the authority of a client.(c) Any solicitation involving acts described in this section is prima facie evidence that the person soliciting is acting for gain.
May 27, 2022
The Weekly Scenario
The Weekly Scenario: Virtual Maryland Wills and Trusts
Effective April 21, 2022, people can now sign their Maryland Wills and Trusts virtually. Senate Bill 36 is new legislation initiated in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; in passing this legislation, Maryland will join several other states that permit electronic wills. To execute a valid Will in Maryland, an individual has to sign his Will in the physical presence of two witnesses. This new law allows an individual signing her Will to meet with their witnesses virtually (in their “electronic presence”) and sign their wills via an interface that supports videoconferencing and electronic signature, thus bypassing the requirement to meet in person. Thus, individuals who are hospitalized or for other reasons prefer not to visit the law office in person can put the Wills in place. After the document is electronically signed in the presence of two witnesses, a “certified paper original” of the Will is created either by the client or client’s attorney or by the client himself, in which case it must be notarized. Senate Bill 36 also made it possible to remotely execute a notarized trust agreement. It became possible to remotely execute other important estate planning documents (Powers of Attorney and Advanced Medical Directives) in 2021. While it is now possible to sign these documents electronically, I believe most attorneys will still want clients to come to the office to sign documents in person. Signing in person will allow questions to be asked and changes to be made if need be in a more formal setting.
May 20, 2022
Family Law
When to File for Divorce in Maryland
Many people looking to file for divorce don’t know where to start or how urgently they should proceed with the filing. Some couples, in the emotionally-charged act of separating from one another, make the mistake of jumping straight into filing without considering all of their options. Generally speaking, it’s best if the parties can work things out with counsel before filing for divorce; this approach is ideal and may save them a lot of financial and emotional stress in the long run. Once a party files, the attorney’s fees tend to increase due to court-imposed deadlines, so avoiding that time crunch altogether is beneficial for everyone involved. If the parties manage to work with counsel to exchange all of the information and documentation before filing, counsel may be able to help the parties come to a resolution outside of court; if they are reaching an impasse, the next step may be to try mediation. If mediation fails and they’ve exhausted all settlement efforts, counsel may then recommend that they go ahead and file. Obviously, some divorces are messier than others, and parties cannot always be collaborative like this, so sometimes it is necessary to file immediately—especially if the court needs to quickly intervene with regards to children and custody issues. The first step when deciding to file for divorce should always be to seek the help of an experienced divorce or family law attorney. In the state of Maryland, it’s possible that certain forms must be filed days or weeks before the trial (depending on the county)—an experienced divorce lawyer should be able to help you keep on top of these due dates. Some of the forms you may need to fill out may include documents detailing your property and how each party thinks it should be divided, financial documentation, request for financial support from one party to another, and more. The many forms, as well as the varying practices of each court, can make the process of filing for divorce a little muddy, which is why pursuing divorce without legal representation can be risky business.
May 19, 2022
Family Law
Traveling with Toddlers on Planes
Here are nine tips for traveling with Toddlers in today’s world: Be prepared for dirty objects that find their way to your toddler. Bring along plenty of sanitizing wipes and keep them within easy reach. Pack at least two extra outfits as, sometimes, one is just not enough. Ask every flight attendant and gate agent you see if the flight is full. If not, ask if they can move people around so that your family gets a coveted free middle seat. Always carry a small medical kit with you – should include travel-size essentials – Band-Aids, Neosporin, Tylenol, Benadryl, and keep it in your carry-on for easy access. There may be some in the plane’s medical kit, but who knows for sure! Take loads of snacks in small containers or ziplock bags. Choose a variety to keep the little one satisfied – fruit, vegetables, pouches, biscuits, crackers, cheese nibbles, etc. There may be delays, and the stuff you can buy at the airport is expensive! Take a large scarf that you can wrap around the little one. Sometimes feeling snug as a bug helps them unwind and relax. Changes in air pressure can be very difficult for little ones, so take pacifiers and empty bottles that you can refill with water or juice supplied by the airlines to help them a bit. Stretch your legs and walk up and down the aisle. It really helps change the scenery for the little ones, and you may actually get some smiles and fist-bumps from adult passengers on the aisle. If you are traveling with another adult, send them on first to get some overhead compartment space for your carry-on, and then wait until the last minute to board with your child. It may seem insignificant, but those extra 10 minutes before boarding are treasured moments.
May 18, 2022
Family Law
Avoid the Common Mistake of Commingling Assets
In divorce cases, it is not unusual to find that a client has at some point during the marriage commingled nonmarital assets with marital assets, making it difficult or impossible to prove that the assets should be retained by the client at the time of divorce. In Maryland and the District of Columbia, assets acquired by a spouse prior to the marriage or by gift or inheritance are that spouse’s nonmarital property. Commingling of assets occurs when a marital asset is mixed in with a nonmarital asset. One example of this common mistake is when a client has funds in a bank account that existed prior to the marriage and then begins depositing funds earned during the marriage into that same account. Another example is when a spouse receives an inheritance or a gift during the marriage and commingles the inherited or gifted funds with marital funds acquired during the marriage. In those situations, the separate property can lose the quality of being nonmarital, meaning that the commingled funds might be deemed marital property and divided by the court at the time of divorce. To ensure that nonmarital assets will not be deemed marital property at the time of divorce, the best course of action is to keep them separate during the marriage by maintaining a separate bank account. It is also prudent to execute a prenuptial agreement prior to the marriage identifying which property will remain nonmarital at the time of divorce. To prove that an asset is nonmarital at the time of divorce, retaining documentation is vital. Account statements are frequently used to prove that funds in an account are a spouse’s nonmarital assets. If you have nonmarital assets that you want to remain your separate property, hold on to those old account statements establishing how and when you acquired the assets because they might not be available from banks or other financial institutions 10, 20, or 30 years later when you are getting divorced. It might also be necessary to employ a forensic expert to prove that the assets are nonmarital, depending upon the situation. Everyone goes into their marriage hoping it will last forever, but you would be wise to avoid the common mistake of commingling just in case it doesn’t.
May 16, 2022
Labor and Employment
You Can’t Arbitrate That!
Making an agreement to arbitrate an issue may be a great way to limit expense, save time, and preserve the confidential nature of the dispute. I often consider these when I draft contracts like severance agreements, non-compete agreements, and employment agreements. This has been a tool to keep information that might damage a company’s reputation out of the press. However, a new federal law says that employers can’t force employees to arbitrate claims about workplace sexual harassment or assault, even if they agreed in writing. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act had widespread bipartisan support. Employees may now choose (regardless of what they signed) how to bring any sexual harassment or assault claims against a company – in court or through arbitration. They also can’t be forced to waive their rights to join others in a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment or assault, regardless of what they signed. Note that some states also have laws forbidding employers from requiring an employee who’s alleged sexual harassment or assault to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This type of law is pending in a number of states, too. There’s obviously a strong sentiment among lawmakers to discourage an organization’s ability to keep such claims private. For those reasons, employers should consider updating anti-harassment policies and training programs (which are legally required in some states). Employers should also review and revise employment agreements that contain mandatory arbitration clauses and/or joint-action waivers – or just lower expectations of privacy.
May 13, 2022
Business
How to Avoid Derailing Your Sell Side M&A Transaction
There are many items and considerations that can derail your sell side M&A transaction. Active litigation, titling issues to assets and employee/benefit matters all could lead to the quick demise of your sale. Most times, these items are found when due diligence commences in earnest by your buyer. However, the single most item that will tank your deal (or have buyers pass before a deal commences) relates to sloppy financial books and records. A seller’s financial data is generally the first substantive intersection with a buyer. Even before a letter of intent is submitted, a buyer will want to see some financial records of the potential target. If the seller’s records are disorganized and not in accordance with proper standards, most buyers will move on. For all business owners having good financial statements is vital to operating a successful business; for sellers in the market, hoping clean records is a must-have. The inability to show the buyer financial value and clean operations is the foremost deal killer for a seller. Sellers wanting to sell their business should have their books and records scrubbed before going into the marketplace to make certain their finances are clean, normal and what would be expected by a buyer. Failure to do so may prevent a seller from landing that large payday.
May 13, 2022
Family Law
Consider Whether an Expert is Necessary for Your Family Law Case
In “My Cousin Vinny,” arguably one of the best movies of all time, the character Mona Lisa Vito, played by Marisa Tomei, testifies as an automotive expert in a criminal case and provides an opinion about an automotive issue (positraction) that wins the case and results in the acquittal of two young men charged with murder. Experts are often necessary in litigation to provide professional opinions on complex issues in a wide range of cases. In any family law case, one of the strategic decisions a client must make with their attorney at the outset is whether to hire an expert. The following are some of the experts that parties to a family law case should consider hiring depending upon the issues in your family law case: Forensic accountant: Investigates whether a party has hidden assets and income, traces parties’ assets to nonmarital sources such as premarital assets, inheritance or gifts, or rebuts claims by the opposing party that certain property is nonmarital or marital. Business evaluation expert: Determines the economic value of a business owned by one of the parties in a divorce case so that the Court can consider the value of the business in the distribution of marital property. Real estate appraiser: Determines the value of the marital home, vacation homes, commercial properties owned by the parties, and any other real property that may be subject to distribution. Custody evaluator: Makes recommendations as to legal and physical custody of children after interviewing the parties, third parties, and the children, observing the parties and children, reviewing relevant documents, and in some cases performing psychological testing. Vocational expert: In cases involving claims for alimony, testifies as to the ability of a party to obtain and maintain employment and the amount of income the party is capable of earning. Attorneys’ fees expert: A lawyer who has substantial experience practicing family law and opines as to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees incurred by the parties for the purpose of obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees or opposing a claim for attorneys’ fees. Courts often impose deadlines for the designation of experts early in the case. Failure to designate an expert by the court-ordered deadline can result in a party not being permitted to have an expert testify. An expert will explain complex issues to the Court in the presentation of your case and can rebut the opinions of experts hired by the opposing party. An expert can also provide valuable advice during the discovery process, preparation for trial, and settlement negotiations. That is why it is so important to retain an expert in accordance with the court’s deadline and have the expert begin working on the case. It also helps to have an attorney who knows the expert, has worked with the expert in the past and is confident that the expert will provide compelling testimony and opinions that will be accepted by the court at trial.
May 6, 2022
The Practice of Law
How to Find an Attorney – Regardless of Your Budget
I am sometimes called into situations where clients have hired other attorneys and aren’t happy with their services (or bills). I mean, I’ve heard some loud complaints. Another scenario I’ve encountered: the client comes to me with an employment-related agreement that lacks basic terms (hopelessly vague) or isn’t enforceable. So it becomes obvious to me that either 1) the client found something on the internet and copied it, or 2) prior counsel didn’t know what they were doing or did not do it carefully. What to do? If you’re an individual reading this and you don’t have money for a regular attorney’s rate, you may apply to various state or local agencies for free or reduced-cost help with some types of matters. You may also file certain litigations on your own behalf (although not all) and ask that the Court appoint you free counsel – yes, even in a civil case. Call your state’s bar association, as well; they may have other suggestions, such as working with supervised students at a law school. If you are looking for counsel on a business matter, then as Mama said, SHOP AROUND. Here’s how: Look for a specialist in the particular area(s) of law involved. Don’t call your neighbor because he’s the only attorney you know. Don’t rely on your best friend (that can get messy) or even their recommendations without doing your own research. To find a specialist, you may turn to the web, but don’t defer to the attorneys at the top of the page (they paid Google for the privilege). You could also look in local recent publications for “Best Lawyers” lists, but only those where attorneys are peer-selected. How long have they been practicing in that area? Do they claim so many specialties that it’s a bit suspect? After locating some attorneys who list the area as a specialty, contact several attorneys. Describe your situation, ask how often they handle this type of matter and for how many years. Just like a surgeon, you’re looking for someone who’s handled this procedure many times. Don’t go to the firm your organization “has used forever” unless you are very comfortable with the expertise and experience of the current lawyers at the firm (and their rates; ask). Ask: who will handle the bulk of the work, the experienced partner or the new associate? Get quotes from qualified attorneys. There is a huge range of billable rates for the same work from very similar lawyers. Recently I was on a call with lawyers from a firm (who aren’t as experienced). The two of them on the other end of the phone cost their client almost three times what I charged my client. These might seem time-consuming. But these efforts could save tens of thousands of dollars. Best regards, Katherine
May 4, 2022
Labor and Employment
May Your Business Require Employees Not to Mask?
As more and more businesses mandate that workers return to the workplace, management is wondering about masking requirements. Some business owners feel strongly that they don’t want to require their employees to wear masks. Others do not want to create the impression that the location isn’t safe for customers and feel that this might be exacerbated by masked public-facing employees. Some feel strongly that it’s their right as an employer to impose a no-mask policy for other reasons. Is that a good idea? If an employee decides to defy the no-mask policy, they may have a legal claim (backed by science) if the business fires them for disobeying the policy. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is still recommending public masking. An employee might even bring a whistleblower claim under state law if the employee complains about the safety of the workplace to management and/or health authorities. An employee could also complain to OSHA. Although the Supreme Court struck down the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard requiring safety measures, OSHA will still enforce a masking policy if it determines that the location is unsafe (at least for certain employees) without masking. Finally, it bears repeating that an employee with a disability who’s protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (or equivalent state law) and whose healthcare provider advises that masking is required should be allowed to mask. That claim (depending upon the exact facts, of course) would make it past a motion to dismiss and cost the business a lot to litigate. I haven’t seen a case on this topic yet, but for these reasons, I wouldn’t advise a mandated no-mask policy right now. Why not create a mask-optional policy if the business feels strongly? It might yield very similar results. Update on last week’s blog on the no-poach agreement criminal trial: the jury found the defendants not guilty. However, this was a criminal trial, and it’s easier to prove liability in a civil case (remember, O.J. Simpson). It’s still ok to mandate mask-wearing on the job.
April 29, 2022
Bankruptcy
NOW WHAT? The Future of the Small Business Bankruptcy Act
We have all seen and heard of the mega-bankruptcy cases in the news, whether for reasonable economic causes (Forever 21, JC Penneys, GNC) or for attempted strategic advantage (J&J Talc Litigation; Boys Scouts Sexual Abuse claims, or various Religious Dioceses). The costs and expense to the business entities seeking federal bankruptcy protection has become astronomical. The legal and consulting fees are in the millions of dollars each month. The concept of seeking bankruptcy relief was clearly becoming cost-prohibitive for most businesses. Just prior to the unimaginable pandemic, Congress sought to remedy the problem by creating and adopting the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”). This Act became effective February 19, 2020. The purpose was to make bankruptcy more efficient and affordable to the real-world business community. The Act sought to provide these efficiencies for businesses with less than $2,725,625 in total debt. Literally, 30 days later, we are all in the throes of the modern COVID-19 Pandemic. At the time, no bankruptcy practitioner was truly aware of how SBRA would actually work; however, Congress, with perhaps some fear of small business collapse as a result of global economic shutdowns, adopted at lightning speed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). This Act was adopted and signed by the President on March 27, 2020- just over a month following SBRA’s effective date. The most critical provision of the CARES Act was the increase of the eligibility threshold for qualifying for a Small Business Bankruptcy from the established $2,725,625 claim amount to the increased sum of $7,500,000. This increase opened up the SBRA benefits to a significant amount of business. Why is this so important? Simply stated- the cost-effective benefits of Debtors in a Small Business Bankruptcy are significant. First, there is no obligation for a Small Business debtor to pay Quarterly Fees to the U.S. Trustee System. In a normal chapter 11 bankruptcy case, a company in chapter 11 is obligated to pay fees to assist in funding government oversight of the bankruptcy process by assessing a fee based on the total dollar amount of disbursements made by the bankruptcy company while it remains in a chapter 11 proceeding. Yes, the company, in addition to paying its regular bills and operation expenses, must pay an additional “fee” just from being in Bankruptcy. For the non-mega case- this obligation alone could, and has, caused the bankruptcy effort to fail. They did not file bankruptcy to be obligated to pay more for normal business operations. SBRA excuses Small Business debtors from paying this fee. A second major benefit is that no creditors committee is permitted to be formed in a Small Business Bankruptcy. In the normal chapter 11 case, quite often, the larger unsecured creditors are permitted to band together and form an official recognized committee to be authorized to negotiate their best treatment from the debtor. Once established, the creditors’ committee is permitted to hire professionals such as a lawyer and accountant to represent the committee. The costs associated with these professional fees, however, is required to be paid by the Debtor. Again, a cost that can torpedo many businesses in their quest to reorganize. SBRA eliminates this exposure by prohibiting creditors committees. The third significant benefit of the Small Business Bankruptcy is the elimination of the application of the absolute priority rule. This rule found under Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor’s plan of reorganization cannot be approved by the bankruptcy court unless it provides that all creditors who hold a higher prioritized claim are first paid in full before a subordinated priority class of claims can retain any interest in the reorganized company. Since unsecured creditors claims hold a higher priority for payment than business owners, a business owner under a regular chapter 11 cannot retain their ownership interest unless some exception can be established. Since most small businesses are owned and controlled often by a few family members, eliminating this requirement goes a long way in promoting the salvation of America’s small businesses. So clearly, there are great benefits under SBRA which gives a majority of small businesses a better chance at survival. The CARES Act extended this benefit to even a wider and necessary breadth of business. Unfortunately- the CARES Act extension of this increased eligibility number was only intended to be temporary. Under the original enactment, the increase was intended to revert to the original lesser eligibility amount in one year- on March 27, 2021. With the COVID-19 pandemic remaining in flux by the early Spring of 2021, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, a Republican from Illinois, introduced S.473 entitled the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021 on February 25, 2021. The Act sought to further extend the increased eligibility for qualifying for a small business bankruptcy for an additional year until March 27, 2022. Remarkably, this legislation again moved through both Houses of Congress and was eventually signed by the President- actually after March 27, 2021- but who is watching. This brings us to present day, and the first question asked- NOW WHAT? See on March 14, 2022, Senator Durbin again introduced legislation in the Senate- S.3823, which without saying much of anything, looks to simply eliminate Section 1113 of the CARES Act. Why is this important- because that section is the section which establishes the sunset provision for the eligibility increase. If this section was eliminated, the increased eligibility threshold of $7,500,000 would become permanent. This certainly is well supported by the Debtor Bankruptcy Bar and the American Bankruptcy Institute. Regretfully the world again gets in the way of this important legislative amendment. On March 14, 2022, S. 3823 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Everyone was hoping for prompt consideration by Judiciary and then forwarding the Legislation to the full Senate for approval. The Bill is was optimistically anticipated before the expiration on March 27, 2022, as mandated under the current Section 1113. Unfortunately, however, last week, the Senate Judiciary got tied up with a certain Judiciary Hearing questioning some Judge looking to be approved to sit on the Supreme Court. The Committee did not have the time to consider S. 3823. The legislation was not adopted in time, and as a result, on Monday, March 28, 2022, eligibility to qualify for a small business bankruptcy reverted to the lesser $2,725,625. Due to inflationary provisions of the bankruptcy code, on April 1, 2022, the qualification number will be adjusted to $3,024,725, however, this number is a far cry from $7,500,000. Many viable businesses have been left out in the cold. The story- and hope is not all lost. Despite S.3823 remaining before the Senate Judiciary Committee when the higher threshold lapsed, there remains overwhelming support for this very necessary change for small business bankruptcy qualification. With the anticipated significant future increases in lending costs and a further demand on small business, demands of business will become even more pressing. Work remains to be done, but the increase in the qualification amount is favored and will hopefully be reinstated soon. On April 7, 2022, ten days after the expiration of the law, the Senate unanimously approved the legislation with some minor revisions and sent the adopted bill to the House. According to the Congressional website, the Bill was received by the House of Representatives on April 11, 2022, and held at the desk. What happens between now and then is anyone’s guess. For questions about the Small Business Bankruptcy Act, contact Paul J. Winterhalter at pwinterhalter@offitkurman.com.
April 28, 2022
Bankruptcy
Subchapter V Corner – Are Subchapter V Business Debtors at Risk to Fight Non-Dischargeability Creditor Complaints?
An interesting issue is percolating in the Fourth Circuit right now. This issue is whether, in a Subchapter V case, a creditor may successfully object to the dischargeability of certain debts of a non-individual debtor (as opposed to an individual debtor). The debts in question are the debts described in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 523 is titled “Exceptions to discharge” and describes the types of debts that are not dischargeable by “an individual debtor.” Section 523 includes certain tax debts, debts for fraud, debts for breach of fiduciary duty, debts for willful and malicious injury, and certain debts payable to a governmental unit. In the bankruptcy world, we’ve all been trained that Section 523 does not apply in cases filed by non-individual debtors. That’s because the preamble to Section 523 refers to debts of “an individual debtor.” When I first learned of this issue, I thought it was farfetched that a creditor could object to the dischargeability of the type of debts described in Section 523 in a bankruptcy case filed by an entity. However, if you look at the statutory provisions at issue here, there does appear to be some logic behind it. And because Subchapter V of Chapter 11 has only been around since February of 2020, the statutory provisions are brand new. Why is this important? I mentioned above that a case is pending in the Fourth Circuit on this issue. The case arises in the Cleary Packaging, LLC case (the “Debtor”), which was filed on February 7, 2021, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Prior to the filing, a creditor, Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. (the “Creditor”), obtained a large money judgment against the Debtor for intentional interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relations (the “Debt”). After the Debtor filed for bankruptcy, the Creditor objected to the dischargeability of the Debt under Section 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury). Ultimately, the Bankruptcy Court held that the Bankruptcy Code limits the application of Section 523 in Subchapter V cases to individual debtors. The Creditor obtained permission to pursue a direct appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Interestingly, the case caught the attention of the United States, which filed an amicus brief in support of reversal, citing several types of debts described in Section 523, including tax debts, certain fines and penalties and criminal restitution debts. Another group of nine interested parties also filed a separate amicus brief in support of reversal because of their interest in enforcing wage theft claims. The Fourth Circuit conducted an oral argument on March 10, 2022, and has not yet issued a decision. The Creditor and the amici curiae argue, among other things, that because Section 1192 of the Bankruptcy Code (which governs discharges in nonconsensual plans in Subchapter V cases) excepts from discharge any debt “of the kind specified in section 523(a) of this title,” and does not differentiate between individual and non-individual cases, it applies equally to both individual and nonindividual debtors. We shall see. For information on this topic, contact Stephen Metz.
April 27, 2022
Estates and Trusts
Leaving Little to Chance — A Trust for Your Financial Legacy
Receiving an inheritance can seem like winning the lottery. A financial windfall lands on your doorstep and promises to change your life for the better. But an inheritance and lottery winnings differ in many important ways, starting with the likelihood of receiving one. You are much more likely to receive an inheritance than win the lottery, especially if you are already well off. About 20 percent of Americans inherit money at some point in their lives, but that number jumps to almost 40 percent for people in more affluent households. Lottery winners, on the other hand, tend to be less well off, and they often have trouble managing their newfound wealth. They may also view their windfall differently. Someone who wins the lottery feels like a “winner” and may show little restraint in spending the prize money. When a sprawling house, luxury cars, and European vacations are all within easy reach, there may seem to be little reason to hold back. Someone who receives an inheritance is a different kind of winner—a person who has earned enough love and devotion to be remembered in someone’s will. Instead of being called a winner, the recipient is a “legatee.” (The word comes from the legal term for an inheritance, a “legacy.”) Whether the benefactor is a parent or grandparent, a partner or spouse, the recipient may well view the gift as that person’s personal legacy. It’s not a prize from government coffers but wealth passed down in love after a lifetime of hard work and careful investing. Viewed in this light, an inheritance is not a license to become a spendthrift. It’s a legacy that carries the implicit obligation to husband the assets in a way that honors the donor and perhaps considers the next generation. An inheritance carries the implicit obligation to honor the donor and consider the next generation. The government has recognized this difference by making lottery winnings taxable to the recipient while inherited assets generally are not. (In Maryland, one exception is the 10% inheritance tax, which applies to a bequest left to anyone who is not a close family member, such as an unmarried partner, niece or nephew, or friend.) One way in which lottery winnings and inherited wealth are the same is that they are both easy to squander. A disproportionate number of lottery winners declare bankruptcy within five years. For those who inherit, the money that had been earned through hard work may be lost through fast living. This is especially true of legacies left to a young person or someone with money-management problems. You can’t guarantee that someone will win the lottery, but you can leave them a legacy designed to last. Speak with an estates and trusts attorney about preparing a will that provides for the people you care about. If they include a young person or someone who struggles with being responsible, ask about including a “spendthrift trust” in your will. This kind of trust can protect your bequest by putting someone responsible, called the “trustee,” in charge of administering the assets. As the gatekeeper, the trustee can ensure that the money held in trust is spent for worthwhile purposes. The principal may also be shielded from your loved one’s creditors. Take care of the people you care about by having your will prepared by an estates and trusts lawyer who understands your needs on a personal level.
April 26, 2022
Business
Tax Considerations when Selling your Business
Most business owners pay their fair share of taxes while running their company. When it comes time to sell the business, most owners are seeking tax strategies to minimize taxes paid on their gain. We know that tax considerations are a major driver of any commercial transaction, especially M&A transactions. So, what should a seller keep in mind when considering a sale? First, before going into the market and soliciting letters of intent (LOI), sellers should update their estate plan and engage in pre-transaction tax planning. Ideally, this planning should be finalized a year in advance of a sale. The closer to the sale, the less tax planning opportunities available. Estate planning strategies including gifting and otherwise transferring interests to reduce wealth received directly by the seller. Pre-tax planning may include reorganizing the structure of the business or changing tax elections. Once the seller receives an LOI, the proposed structure of the transaction becomes paramount for the seller’s tax planning. For example, structuring the transaction as an equity purchase likely could result in long-term capital gains treatment for the seller. An asset sale structure could lead to a mixed result of ordinary income as well as capital gains for the seller, depending on how the purchase price is allocated. Most times, a change in structure that benefits one party is a negative for the other party. Thus, the seller must have competent legal counsel versed in M&A and taxation issues. Further, how a purchase price is paid to the seller may have implications on timing as well as the treatment of the income. Monies paid overtime may lead to tax on the income being deferred to later years. Monies paid in forms such as for employment or consulting services or in consideration of a restrictive covenant likewise could have particular tax implications. In summary, selling a business is most times the largest financial transaction for an entrepreneur. Making certain to understand the tax treatment and implications at the earliest is paramount. After all, for any entrepreneur, the bottom-line net amount is what ultimately counts, not the top-line valuation.
April 20, 2022
Labor and Employment
The Department of Justice Has Cooked Up Criminal Charges for No-Poach Agreements
Here’s yet another reason not to enter agreements with other companies not to hire (poach) other companies’ employees: potential criminal prosecution. In the first-ever criminal trial for labor-related antitrust (Sherman Act) violations, the Department of Justice alleges that former DaVita Inc. CEO Kent Thiry conspired with other healthcare CEOs to limit employee movement to competitors. As of this writing, the federal jury is deliberating. The trial was eight days long. Prosecutors allege that Thiry and DaVita entered “no-poach” agreements with Surgical Care Affiliates LLC, Radiology Partners, and Hazel Health Inc. not to solicit each other’s executives or to ask the executives to tell their bosses before applying for a job with one of the three companies. If so, prosecutors argued that this arrangement had a “chilling effect” on commerce by keeping wages down in the companies’ market. The defendants have admitted that such an agreement existed – but that it had no such effect on business. The DOJ and workers have already brought many civil suits claiming that no-poach agreements adversely affected markets. Apple, Google, Adobe, Pixar, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, McDonald’s, and Jimmy John’s are among those that have been sued.
April 20, 2022
The Weekly Scenario
The Weekly Scenario: Governor Hogan Signed into Law the Maryland Tax Reduction Act on Friday, April 1st.
The act will cut retirement taxes by eliminating all state tax on the first $50,000 of income for retirees making up to $100,000 in federally adjusted gross income. Retirees with Maryland income will pay no state tax up to $50k. This is purported to be the largest tax reduction for Maryland residents in two decades. The tax reductions are scheduled to be phased in over five years, beginning this year. In addition, Governor Hogan will be introducing the Hometown Heroes Act to exempt retired law enforcement, fire, rescue, corrections, and emergency response workers from state tax on all retirement income specific to the profession. In 2017, the Governor exempted the first $15,000 of these employees’ income. He will push to exempt income on these professions and lower the age of eligibility from 55 to 50 years. Specifically, this bipartisan tax relief agreement includes the following provisions for FY23-FY27: Tax Relief for Retirees65 and older making up to $100,000 in retirement income, and married couples making up to $150,000 in retirement income. As a result, 80% of Maryland’s retirees will receive substantial relief or pay no state income taxes at all. ($1.55 billion) The Work Opportunity Tax Creditincentivizes employers and businesses to hire and retain workers from underserved communities that have faced significant barriers to employment. ($195 million) Family Budget Boosters: sales tax exemptions for childcare products such as diapers, car seats, baby bottles and critical health products such as dental hygiene products, diabetic care products and medical devices. ($115.6 million) Signing ceremony later this week! As always, if you have any questions or would like to learn more, please contact Steve Shane at sshane@offitkurman.com or 301.575.0313.
April 15, 2022
The Weekly Scenario
The Weekly Scenario: New FDIC Rule to Simplify Banking for Trusts
On January 21, 2022, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved a new rule (going into effect on April 1, 2024) that will simplify the agency’s deposit insurance coverage regulations (after you can through 20 pages of rules!). For clients with deposits in Revocable and Irrevocable Trust accounts, the FDIC is merging the two deposit insurance categories for revocable and irrevocable trusts and applying simpler coverage rule. The point of the new rules is that they will create a consistent and (perhaps) easier process for bankers and those making deposits. Basically, the new rule is the insuring up to $250,000 for each trust beneficiary (not to exceed five beneficiaries), regardless of whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable, and regardless of any contingencies, the allocation of distributions among beneficiaries; and the maximum deposit insurance coverage of $1,250,000 per insured depository institution for trust deposits. As an example, you create a trust for your son and his three children. The Trustee can make distributions to any of the trust beneficiaries. If this trust deposits $1,000,000 in Bank 1 and $1,000,000 in Bank 2, the deposits in both banks will be protected by FDIC insurance. By contrast, if this trust deposits $1,500,000 in Bank 3, only $1,000,000 ($250,000 x 4 beneficiaries) of this account will be protected by FDIC insurance. The FDIC does not expect most trust depositors to experience any change in coverage when the rule takes effect but will be giving a two-year lead time for banks and depositors to become familiar with the new regulation.
April 1, 2022
Bankruptcy
Lenders Beware
WHEN IS A LENDER CROSSING THE LINE AND ENTERING LENDER LIABILITY WONDERLAND? A 2022 decision out of a bankruptcy court in Texas reminded lenders that an overly aggressive approach to a borrower can result in lender liability[1] and substantial damages. In this case, brought by a Chapter 7 trustee, the bankruptcy court concluded that the lender destroyed the debtor’s enterprise value and future as a going concern and ultimately drove the debtor out of business. The Court found that for the lender’s actions, the debtor would not have failed as a going concern and would not have had to file bankruptcy. As a result, the Court awarded $16,966,928 in damages for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, contractual and business interference, and willful violation of the automatic stay. The lender unsuccessfully tried to argue that the debtor was dead on arrival. [1] As the bankruptcy court put it, “[l]ender liability” is a broad umbrella term often used to describe various theories through which a borrower (or its trustee in bankruptcy) seeks to impose liability (or a remedy of some sort) against a former lender in a lending relationship that has soured.” THE STORY BEHIND THE AWARD Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Bailey”) was the debtor/borrower in this tragic story. Republic Business Credit, LLC (“Republic”) was the lender. Before filing bankruptcy, Bailey and Republic entered into a factoring arrangement and an asset-based loan facility in February 2015. Republic performed substantial diligence in late 2014 and early 2015 before entering into the agreements. During the due diligence process, Republic had identified several issues, including unpaid ad valorem taxes, stretched accounts payable, and a major customer (the Department of Defense) that paid on a milestone rather than progressive billing basis. Despite these issues, the underwriter viewed the proposed transaction as a “strong deal” and approved it. Four months after entering into the agreements, Republic refused to advance funds as expected, declared default and made payments to itself from Bailey’s lockbox under the factoring agreement to pay down the ABL (Asset Based Lending) facility. The Court found that Republic took complete and total control of Bailey’s cash. It controlled not only the collections through the lockbox and all disbursements too. All funds advanced from July 2015 forward were sent directly to vendors selected by Republic vendors and a payroll company for the payroll of employees selected by Republic. The Court held that the lender’s handling of disbursement was inconsistent with the parties’ agreements—specifically, the Factoring Agreements contemplated that Republic would “pay to Seller [Bailey] an Advance.” In September 2015, Republic stopped funding altogether. Republic also became involved in replacing management and otherwise micromanaging the Debtor. It forced the Debtor’s Chief Executive Officer to give the Republic a lien on his exempt homestead. THE DECISION In a meticulous 145-page decision, the Court analyzed the Republic’s conduct, including and highlighting numerous internal lender email communications produced in discovery and presented during the trial. The Court adopted the bankruptcy trustee’s theory of the case, i.e. that the lender: (i) refused to advance funds in good faith and in the manner promised almost immediately after the agreements were signed taking a stance that the businesses were in an “over-advanced” position, which was not a defined concept in the agreements and was problematic in light of several weeks of due diligence and awareness regarding certain slow-paying accounts and inventory status; (ii) charged fees, expenses, penalties and other items against “reserves” (contributing to the alleged “over-advanced” position), without any transparency; (iii) exercised excessive control over the businesses by controlling what vendors, employees, and expenses got paid and insisting on direct payments to them by the factoring company rather than funding to the businesses as contemplated by the underlying agreements (i.e., the argument being that this was an improper exertion of control; there were no amendments of documents or forbearance agreements to justify deviating from the underlying agreements). WHAT ACTION TO AVOID AS A LENDER This decision can now serve as a roadmap for borrowers to establish lender liability. In summary, the factors considered by the Court include: Taking over the business function and exercising business judgment – Without the requisite knowledge and experience, Republic approved payments to certain vendors and materials suppliers, reordered the sequence in which different products at Bailey were manufactured, and changed the manufacturing priorities from keeping long-term customers, to doing “quick-turn” projects; Controlling the workforce at Bailey through controlling the payroll and ordering who got paid and who did not and what types or classifications of employees could get paid; Directing vendors of Bailey to pay Republic instead of Bailey under the threat of litigation, destroying the goodwill that Bailey had built up with these vendors; Lack of transparency and misrepresentations as to why: (i) why it considered Bailey to be in default, (ii) the status of funds availability or lack thereof, (iii) application of funds collected and charging numerous fees and expenses. The conduct of the lender, in this case, appears egregious. Still, it is a reminder for lenders to closely review with counsel contractual remedies and exercise caution in implementing these remedies.
March 31, 2022
Real Estate
This Week in Real Estate: Share Equity Agreements
As home prices continue to rise across the county, many homeowners are researching whether to obtain home equity loans to take advantage of the value appreciation and unlock some of the increased equity. I similarly did this research. While researching home equity loans, I came across a vehicle that investors have been using for quite some time but is now available in the residential home consumer market – share equity agreements. Shared equity agreements, sometimes known as home equity investments, enable a home buyer or homeowner to share home equity in exchange for a one-time cash payment from an investor. Such agreements allow you to liquidate part of your home equity for cash or sometimes are used in the home purchasing process to help prospective homeowners with a down payment. Investors give homeowners a lump sum in exchange for a share in the future value of their homes. When the homes are sold (or when the contract term ends), the investors receive their share from the sale. If the value of the house increases, so does the amount the investor receives. If the house drops in value, the investor also shares in the loss. There are no interest rates or monthly payments to worry about. The homeowner doesn’t pay off the investor with monthly payments or interest. Instead, at the end of the contract, the homeowner agrees to pay the investor’s initial investment and a fixed percentage of the change in home value. In a few cases, the investor’s share is based off the overall value of the property at sale. The end of the contract is set for a predetermined date (terms are typically 10 to 30 years) or when the home is sold. You can buy out the investment at any time. Shared equity appreciation agreements give investors a low-risk way to invest in real estate that can also offer them tax benefits. There are a growing number of reputable firms offering these products to consumers. Generally, these firms are partnered with large institutional investors, such as pension funds, who are looking for investment exposure to real estate assets. A shared appreciation mortgage gives an investment company or investor a stake in the home’s future equity. However, the investor won’t have anything to do with the day-to-day running of your home. They can’t make decisions on how you decorate or what remodeling projects you take on. However, they will benefit if your home’s value increases. You will also be responsible for any expenses, taxes, or insurance costs. When your equity sharing agreement contract finishes, the homeowner repays the investing partner the amount they initially loaned to the homeowner, plus a percentage of the appreciation in the home’s value. If the home decreases in value, the investor will receive less money. A shared equity finance agreement isn’t technically a mortgage. It may be easier to qualify for a shared equity agreement than a home loan product. Credit and income requirements are typically more lenient. Next week, we will examine how the shared agreements actually work.
March 31, 2022
Bankruptcy
Subchapter V Corner
The $7,500,000 debt ceiling for Subchapter V filings ended in the spring of 2022. With the enactment of Subchapter V of Chapter 11 (Sub V) of the Bankruptcy Code, viable small and medium-sized businesses have a more cost-efficient restructuring mechanism. Who is eligible? – Businesses and individuals engaged in commercial or business activities with no more than $2,725,625 of noncontingent liquidated secured and unsecured debt as of the date of filing or the order for relief. The business or individual cannot have owning of single-asset real estate as its primary activity. The CARES Act, however, increased the debt ceiling to $7,500,000 until March 27, 2021, and further extended it until March 27, 2022, with the COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021, Democrats and Republicans are now weighing an extension of Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit before it is due to sunset back to the previous amount under the Code. Without another renewal, the increased debt limit applies only to cases filed after the effective date of the CARES Act and before March 27, 2022. What is the advantage of a Subchapter V filing? There are several modifications of the traditional restructuring process that make a Subchapter V proceeding a more straightforward and cheaper path to reorganization: It allows the owner of the business to preserve their equity even when the business is not in a position to pay in full its secured and unsecured creditors (i.e., abrogates the so-called “absolute priority rule”). The creditors’ ability to block confirmation is significantly weakened because Subchapter V eliminates the traditional requirement that at least one impaired class of creditors accepts the reorganization plan. A reorganization plan will be deemed fair and equitable to objecting unsecured creditors if the debtor pays projected disposable income to be received over at least three years. A Subchapter V plan may provide for later payment of administrative expenses (i.e., payment through the plan) as opposed to payment on the effective date of the plan. Only the debtor can file a plan (i.e., eliminates the ability of creditors to propose their own restructuring plan). It eliminates US Trustee quarterly fees and other procedural and reporting burdens. For guidance on this matter, contact Albena Petrakov at apetrakov@offitkurman.com or at 212.380.4106.
March 22, 2022
Labor and Employment
How the Ukrainian Invasion Could Impact U.S.-Based Employees
Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine—and the related sanctions against Russia— impacts your company’s U.S. employees. How, you ask? First, I don’t need to belabor this point, but limiting Ukrainian and Russian trade puts stress on supply chains, leading to additional U.S. food and other shortages and adding fuel to the inflation fire. Employers might have to consider suspending projects or reducing production, leading to furloughs or layoffs. If the company’s thinking about a layoff of more than a few dozen people, check the federal WARN Act as well as any WARN Act in the states where employees are working for notice requirements, which could be months in advance. If they aren’t planning to lay off workers, employers should be sensitive to the effects of the rising cost of living – consider small raises for valuable employees. Also, if pay issues become too important in the workforce overall, keep in mind that companies might have to fight union campaigns. On the immigration front, over two million people have fled Ukraine; as of the time I’m writing this, many are expected to apply to come to the U.S. Moreover, on March 3, the Department of Homeland Security granted what’s called Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to eligible Ukrainian nationals in the U.S. because of “ongoing armed conflict” and “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” Those eligible for TPS must have continuously resided in the U.S. since March 1, 2022, or earlier. The TPS will last 18 months, and people applying for TPS may also apply for a document allowing them to work in the U.S. for the duration of their TPS status. This could help with labor shortage issues if companies are still hiring. Finally, employers should be sensitive to the emotional impact of the situation. It might not be easy for employees who see colleagues, friends, and their families affected by the war. They might even need access to mental health care. Don’t forget that if the company is subject to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act or similar state statutes, military family leave provisions entitle eligible employees to take FMLA leave for any “qualifying exigency” arising from the foreign deployment of the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent with the Armed Forces. This includes leave to arrange for departures of their loved one. Uncharted territory might lead to legal mistakes on top of all the other problems right now. Make sure to think through your personnel decisions.
March 21, 2022
Intellectual Property
Trademark Law v. The First Amendment – the Saga Continues
In recent years, the US Supreme Court found that two provisions of the US trademark law that date back to the 1940s were unconstitutional because they violated the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam, it was the law prohibiting registration of disparaging trademarks, and in In re Brunetti, it was the law prohibiting registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. Now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reached a similar conclusion in a less obvious case. In In re Elster, decided on February 24, an attorney applied to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for “T-shirts.” Registration was refused based on a provision that prohibits trademark registration of a name identifying a particular living individual without that individual’s consent (and another ground not ultimately considered on appeal). Elster appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which upheld the refusal. Elster then appealed to the Federal Circuit. The federal government argued that the government interest in protecting state-law privacy and publicity rights outweighed Elster’s First Amendment rights. The court noted that Trump, as a public figure, had no right of privacy-protecting him from criticism in the absence of knowingly publishing false information or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth. The court also said, “The right of publicity does not support a government restriction on the use of a mark because the mark is critical of a public official without his or her consent.” The court ultimately concluded that the free speech provisions of the first amendment outweighed the government interest and that “[t]he statute leaves the [US Patent and Trademark Office] no discretion to exempt trademarks that advance parody, criticism, commentary on matters of public importance, artistic transformation, or any other First Amendment interests. It effectively grants all public figures the power to restrict trademarks constituting First Amendment expression before they occur.” And so the court reversed the TTAB’s decision and found the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL to be registrable. In reaching its decision, the court made clear that it was not concluding that the relevant section of the trademark law is overbroad, saying it was leaving that question for another day. Rather, it was saying that the application of the law to Elster’s trademark was in violation of his First Amendment rights. Still, this leaves the door open for other trademark applicants for such marks that are parody or critical commentary to raise the overbreadth challenge in the future. Are you considering adoption of a trademark that includes the name of a living individual? For guidance on the evolving state of the law as it applies to your situation, contact Laura Winston at lwinston@offitkurman.com or 347-589-8536.
March 17, 2022
Page 31 of 36
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
