Can an advisor be held liable for the false statements in a prospectus made by another?

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Business Planning, Contributors, General Interest, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

For all you accountants, investment advisors, and even attorneys who provide advice and guidance to companies or other entities raising money or other property for investment purposes, it might be a good idea to pay particular attention to the

United States Supreme Court opinion, when issued, in the case of Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525 (S. Ct.). This case was argued before the Court on December 7, 2010. The Court’s opinion should be issued sometime during the first half of 2011.

Janus Capital Group, Inc. is somewhat factually and legally complex. However, in very simplified terms, First Derivative Traders is attempting to assert primary Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) fraud liability against an entity,

Janus Capital Management LLC, that “helped” and “participat[ed] in” preparing a prospectus. The prospectus was actually that of, and was issued by, Janus Funds, a separate entity. Janus Funds had its own lawyers review the prospectus. Further, the Funds’ Board of Trustees, which was primarily responsible for it, reviewed it, as did the outside Trustees of Janus Funds, who also had their own counsel review it.

The United States (i.e., the Securities and Exchange Commission) filed an amicus brief in this case advocating such indirect liability in private actions, never mind the right of private action was judicially, not statutorily, created.

Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

United States Supreme Court

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Common Interest Community Board revokes a management company’s license

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, HOA, Merger & Acquisition, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

The Common Interest Community Board (the “CICB”) revoked a management company’s license for regulatory violations.  In a case reported in the September issue of the Community Associations Institute Law Reporter (Virginia Common Interest Community Board v. Sarraga t/a Lakeside Community Management, File No. 2010-00562, June 24, 2010), the CICB revoked the license of Sarraga t/aLakeside Community Management and issued fines totaling $2,000.

Continue reading “Common Interest Community Board revokes a management company’s license”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Caveat Emptor and a Buyer’s Duty to Investigate Real Estate Purchase

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Construction litigation, General Interest, Real Estate Litigation, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

We blogged about a Charlottesville Circuit Court case in which the court analyzed the duty to disclose for a seller of residential real estate.  We wrote another post regarding that case discussing an exception to the rule of caveat emptor. Specifically, if the seller attempted to “divert” the purchaser’s attention away from problem areas, a court could find fraud and rescind the contract.

However, in Virginia, if a prospective home purchaser discovers information alerting him to a potential problem, that person is charged with knowledge he would have found had he diligently pursued the inquiry. That rule was highlighted in an unpublished opinion released by the Virginia Supreme Court. This blog post reviews the facts of that case and the lessons to learn for real estate sellers and buyers.

Continue reading “Caveat Emptor and a Buyer’s Duty to Investigate Real Estate Purchase”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Arbitration in debt collection: FTC says it’s a broken system

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Common Interest Community, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

As a follow-up to our post on the costs and benefits of the arbitration process, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently issued a report indicating that the litigation and arbitration practices for resolving consumer debt need major reform.

Debt collection cases are on the rise.  We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of cases we are filing on delinquent homeowner association dues. In James City County/Williamsburg, the local courts have seen a 27% increase in civil filings from 2006 to 2008.  Other courts in Virginia and other states are experiencing similar increases in civil filings.

The FTC has made specific recommendations that the Federal government and the states consider new laws to protect consumers including a recommendation that a temporary ban be placed on the use of binding arbitration until such time that the arbitration forums have initiated changes to address deficiencies in arbitration. The FTC has suggested that state legislatures adopt measures to make it more likely that consumers will defend themselves in litigation, decreasing the prevalence of default judgments; require debt collectors to include more information about the alleged debt in their complaints; take steps to make it less likely that collectors will sue on debt on which the statute of limitations has run; and change laws to prevent the freezing of a specified amount in a bank account including funds exempt from garnishment.

We do not believe that these changes, if they occur, will effect our current practice areas and clients. However, we have also seen instances in which perceived procedural unfairness can lead to overreaching legislation. For example, it is fair to say that when the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was passed, legislators did not intend for it to reach into the wide-ranging areas it now does, including the collection of homeowner dues. See, e.g., Barry v. Board of Managers of Elmwood Park Condominium II, NT Slip Op 27506, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-civil-court/1211140.html (December 12, 2007, NY Civil Court City of New York, Richmond County) (Judge Philip S. Straniere writing that “Somehow I think that Adams, Jefferson and Madison must be turning over in their graves at the thought that the federal government is regulating such a local activity as the collection of condominium association dues between the homeowner and the association”).

Arbitration tends to release pressure on state courts by handling cases that otherwise would be brought in court. However, if the process continues to be perceived as unfair, restrictions on the use of arbitration could be forthcoming.

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

You obtained a judgment against your construction contractor, how do you collect?

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Construction litigation, General Interest, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Sometimes your dispute with your contractor goes all the way to court and you obtain a judgment. However, sometimes the contractor does not have the ability to pay the judgment, so financially, you are out-of-pocket your judgment damages plus your attorneys’ fees. You may have one last alternative to recover at least a portion of your losses through the Virginia Contractor Transaction Recovery Fund (the “Recovery Fund”).

Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

Williamsburg Courthouse

 

 

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Can an engineering firm limit its liability by contract?

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Business Planning, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

 

Maybe not, in certain circumstances. A Fairfax County judge has determined that an engineering firm cannot limit its liability by contract in a case involving a 2008 fee contract. The typical fee agreement for an engineering firm includes some form of “limitation of liability” in which the firm seeks to limit its liability “to the amount of fees paid” to the firm, whether the claim is for breach of contract or warranty, or for negligence. In the case of Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc., the engineering services firm, Dewberry, filed a fee claim against C3NS. C3NS filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. Dewberry had a limitation of liability clause in its fee agreement. It sought summary judgment to prevent C3NS from claiming that the limitation of liability paragraph was void. The Court sided with C3NS.

Continue reading “Can an engineering firm limit its liability by contract?”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Can an advisor be held liable for the false statements in a prospectus made by another?

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Business Planning, Contributors, General Interest, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments
Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

United States Supreme Court

Previously we blogged about a pending case before the Supreme Court that had the possibility to significantly increase the liability of persons for assisting in the preparation of a “prospectus.” As of June 13, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion in that case, styled as Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525 (S. Ct.).

The determination of this case is relevant to accountants and business lawyers who assist in the preparation of documents for the purpose of raising money for investment. The Janus Capital Group, Inc. case presented the question of who may be deemed to have “made” an untrue statement for the purposes of Rule 10b-5, and specifically whether someone who assisted in the preparation of a prospectus could “make” a statement through such assistance. As the result of a 5-4 decision, accountants and business attorneys may breathe a little easier. Continue reading “Can an advisor be held liable for the false statements in a prospectus made by another?”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

ADA Compliance – (Another) Update on HOAs, Condos and Swimming Pools

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Common Interest Community, HOA, HOA litigation, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley, Unit Owners Association | No Comments

We have blogged about new requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) that may affect Homeowners Associations and Condominium Associations that own swimming pools, wading pools, or spas. Subsequently, we updated our previous post to report upon an update to the required compliance date.

The Justice Department has now issued a “final rule” revising “the Department of Justice regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act to extend until January 31, 2013” as the compliance date for the ADA Standards for Accessible Design for existing pools and spas.

Consequently, if your HOA or Condo Association allows non-members of the association to use its pool in exchange for some form of compensation, your pool may fall under the definition of a public accommodation. If it does, the association would have to comply with the new ADA Standards and provide accessible entry and exits no later than January 31, 2013. What does that mean for your HOA?

Continue reading “ADA Compliance – (Another) Update on HOAs, Condos and Swimming Pools”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

HOAs and Mediation: Not always a viable alternative to Litigation

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Common Interest Community, HOA, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Real Estate Litigation, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley, Unit Owners Association | 3 Comments

We have written extensively on the virtues of alternative dispute resolution, specifically mediation, to resolve disputes. Litigation is a time-consuming and expensive undertaking, and in the end, both sides are generally unhappy with the result because of the costs and time incurred.

But although we encourage mediation generally, mediation in HOA litigation is a much more complex and difficult undertaking. In this blog post, we will discuss difficulties with mediating HOA disputes.

Continue reading “HOAs and Mediation: Not always a viable alternative to Litigation”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

3 Comments »

3 tips for safe emailing with your attorney

October 30, 2014 on 1:20 pm | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Obviously the use of email has changed many aspects of our world, including the practice of law. As with all new technology, we sometimes learn hard lessons. The attorney-client privilege is the foundation of effective communication between counsel and clients. Only a client can waive that privilege. Although email has far more positives than negatives, to protect attorney-client communications, use these three tips.

Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

Attorney-Client Privilege

 

Continue reading “3 tips for safe emailing with your attorney”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »
« Previous PageNext Page »
  • Phone Numbers

    (757) 229-4281- Office

    (757) 229-7439 - Fax
  • Address

    4808 Courthouse Street Suite 102 Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
  • Subscribe to the Blog

  • Tarley Robinson Twitter Feed

Web Development by OneWaveMedia.Com