• JD Supra United States

Publisher:
JD Supra
Publication date:
2019-04-29

Law Firm

Latest documents

  • Oregon Tax Court Applies Wayfair Retroactively in Telecommunications Tax Case

    The Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court just handed down a nexus decision with respect to the collection of an emergency telecommunications tax (E911 Tax). In Ooma, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, TC 5331 Tax Court, 03/02/2020, the Court concluded that notwithstanding the absence of physical presence in Oregon, a company which provided VOIP services to Oregon customers, was required to collect the E911 Tax.

  • COVID-19: Retirement Plan FAQs

    This set of FAQs is part of a series dealing with the impact of COVID-19 on businesses. Government-mandated protocols and social distancing directives as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to significant business interruptions and tremendous financial strain on employers. These measures may continue to disrupt businesses and the economy for the foreseeable future. As a result, employers are faced with difficult choices regarding their employees–including how to keep them working during this unprecedented time and for many employers, possibly reducing employees’ hours, furloughing employees, or terminations–all of which can directly affect retirement plans and other types of employee benefit plans...

  • USPTO Clarifies Practice for Reviving Unintentionally Abandoned Patent Applications and Patents

    The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Notice clarifying its practice as to situations that will require additional information about whether a delay in seeking the revival of an abandoned application, acceptance of a delayed maintenance fee payment, or acceptance of a delayed priority or benefit claim was unintentional. 85 FED. REG. 12222 (Mar. 2, 2020)...

  • EPA Enforcement Discretion Policy for COVID-19 Pandemic

    Seyfarth Synopsis: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in support of the U.S. Government’s overall response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has announced a temporary enforcement discretion policy regarding environmental legal obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • TSCA Fees Rule Update – EPA Issues No Action Assurance Memorandum

    In one action, EPA has solved the problem faced by thousands of companies as they prepare to comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule self-notification requirement. On March 25, 2020, EPA release a memorandum by the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) assuring that EPA will not bring an enforcement action against any company that only manufactured a high-priority substance as an impurity or byproduct, or as a component of an imported article, that does not self-notify to EPA.

  • The CARES Act: What It Means for Gig Businesses and Workers

    Many independent contractors unable to work because of the COVID-19 pandemic could soon receive unprecedented relief from the U.S. Government as a result of the roughly $2 trillion coronavirus aid package that President Trump just signed into law.

  • ASCs’ Response to COVID-19: Nine Things to Consider

    Recommendations by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to postpone non-essential medical, surgical and dental procedures as well as state guidance on elective procedures create economic and legal challenges as many ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) limit the number of cases performed in their facilities or temporarily close their doors.

  • HB Analysis Of Recent COVID-19 Announcements By The State Of Colorado And The Marijuana Enforcement Division

    The below discussion is an analysis of the current legal environment related to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis highlights the ability of both medical and retail businesses to continue operating in light of several emergency orders from the State of Colorado and emergency rule changes from the Marijuana Enforcement Division (“MED”). This summary is not a legal opinion, but rather perspective and analysis on the current status of such emergency rules and orders...

  • To Infinity And Beyond (Or At Least AprilL 18, 2020): New York State Law Temporarily Authorizes The Remote Notarization Of Documents

    With the spread of COVID-19 in this State, New York’s government has taken unprecedented steps to address many issues that the COVID-19 pandemic has raised. One of those unprecedented steps is the recent issuance of an Executive Order that temporarily authorizes the remote notarization of documents in New York until April 18, 2020.

  • Ademption by satisfaction in the trust context

    A testator may adeem a devise via inter vivos transfer to the devisee. In other words, the testamentary provision is rendered inoperative by satisfaction. Ademption by satisfaction is comparable to the doctrine of advancements in the intestacy context. California has an ademption-by-satisfaction statute that applies to at-death transfers via trust as well as at-death transfers by will. See Sachs v. Sachs, 44 Cal.App.5th 59 (Cal. App. 2020). The Uniform Probate Code’s comparable ademption-by-satisfaction provision, specifically §2-609, applies only to transfers by will. That having been said, the inter-vivos gift itself need not be outright, “it can be in the form of a will substitute, such as designating…the beneficiary of the remainder interest in a revocable inter-vivos trust.” Id. cmt. In any case, an advancement feature in the at-death transfer provisions of a trust instrument has since time immemorial been routinely enforceable in equity. Statutory authority is not required. 
 
 Cross reference: Ademption by extinction in the trust context is taken up generally in §8.15.54 of Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook [pages 1246-1249] of the 2020 Edition, which section is reproduced in its entirety in the Appendix below.

Featured documents

  • Are MLM distributorships securities under Texas state law?

    The Texas Court of Civil Appeals held that the Koscot Distributorships were not securities under state law. The court specifically declined to follow other states in interpreting Koscot distributorships as securities. The court felt that because potentially significant efforts on the part of the...

  • Is the Koscot sales program a security under current federal law?

    The District court held that Koscot was not a security under the law of the circuit. The court felt compelled to follow earlier circuit precedent in deciding that profits must come "solely" from the efforts of others for an investment program to be considered a security. While other...

  • Connecticut v. Bull Investment Group

    The Superior Court was asked to decide if the sales of a coupon book distributorship, which authorized the sale of similar distributorships to others, violated Connecticut statutes prohibiting the sale of rights or privileges with payment to the purchaser upon the procurement of additional...

  • Did the respondents commit fraud and violate state anti-pyramid statutes in the promotion of a pyramid investment program?

    The Missouri Court of Appeals held that while no fraud was involved, Wahl had violated state anti-pyramid statutes. No fraud was present because the materials used to promote the scheme clearly indicated its pyramid nature without deceptive tactics. However, because the program sold "other...

  • Fahner v. Walsh , 122 Ill. App.3d 481 (1984)

    The Illinois Appellate Court determine that the proper measure of resitutionary damages is the amount of profit made by the liable individual, and anyone who can show that they lost money as a result of the liable individual's conduct should be eligible to claim a portion of the restitution....

  • Illinois v. Unimax

    The Court of Appeals held that Unimax's program violated that state pyramid statute. Marketers received a percentage of the monthly dues of those subscribers in their downline. A marketer was required to recruit subscribers and all were encouraged to become marketers, and subscribers in order to...

  • Can a bank be held liable for negligence in connection with an illegal pyramid scheme operated by one of its depositors?

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals was asked if a bank could be held liable for negligence in connection with an illegal pyramid scheme operated by one of its depositors. 
 
 The case and case summary are also available at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Kueber_v_Martin.php...

  • Under what circumstances may a defendant in a suit resist production of documents?

    The District Court held that documents that are not unduly burdensome to produce and respond to appropriately tailored document requests must be produced. Omnitrition had responded to the plaintiff's document requests with general complaints that compliance would be unduly burdensome. The District...

  • What is the proper method of accounting the amount of loss by victims of a Ponzi scheme?

    The Court of Appeals held that the calculation of loss should be accomplished by adding up the amount of money lost by victims of the scheme, the "loss to losing victims method." The Defendant argued that a "net loss" method should be used that offsets the total loss with the...

  • Is willful intent necessary to violate the fraud provisions of the state securities act?

    The Nebraska Supreme Court held that it was necessary to prove willful intent to be found guilty under the state securities statutes, but willful intent was not the same as scienter, or an evil motive. Irons managed a pure pyramid program where participants gave "gifts" to those on the...