Why you should have a buy-sell agreement with your business partners

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, John Tarley, Merger & Acquisition | No Comments

Originally posted 2011-04-19 09:00:02. Republished by Blog Post Promoter


As we have previously noted, if businesses are analogous to marriages, then the start-up of businesses begins with the “honeymoon” stage in which the business partners believe that they have similar visions of the company’s rosy future. Things change.

The list of “things that change” is long including the death, retirement or disability of your business partner; you or your business partner wanting to sell your interest in the company; or one of you wanting to add another business partner. What do you do then? Continue reading “Why you should have a buy-sell agreement with your business partners”

No Comments »

Choosing your Virginia Business Entity

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, General Interest, John Tarley, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson | No Comments

Originally posted 2011-03-15 09:00:12. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

[youtube PTMt5iVhobs nolink]

There are many questions to ask and many issues to resolve when you decide to start your Virginia business entity. The time to ask those questions and resolve those issues is before you enter into your business agreement.

Neal’s 3-minute slideshow presentation gives an a brief primer on the forms of entities that are available and questions to start your dialog with your business attorney and business partners. This slideshow combines basic information with more advanced concepts for the more experienced entrepreneur.

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

Neal Robinson

No Comments »

HOAs and Transition from Developer Control – 101

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Law, Business Planning, Common Interest Community, HOA, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Susan B. Tarley, Unit Owners Association | No Comments

Originally posted 2013-11-12 15:58:04. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Owners in most community associations—both homeowner associations and condominium associations—eventually reach the point where the developer transfers control of the Board of Directors to the owners. This blog post provides an introduction to the transition process and what owners can expect.

Susan Tarley

Continue reading “HOAs and Transition from Developer Control – 101”

No Comments »

Emails from work computer can waive rights to privileged communications

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Construction litigation, General Interest, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Real Estate Litigation | No Comments

Originally posted 2011-04-13 17:44:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

We have written on the issues that arise when employees use their work computer for personal business. In that blog article, we referred to a California case in which an appellate court ruled that an employee’s emails to her attorney were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the company had a written policy that informed employees that computers were not to be used for personal matters, that emails could be monitored to ensure that employees complied with the policy, and that employees should not expect any privacy in the use of their computers.

In local news, former Delegate Phil Hamilton raised a “marital privilege” objection to the use at trial of emails he sent to his wife. Certain communications to and from a spouse can be protected from disclosure. There were complicating factors to this case’s analysis.

 

Email

 

Continue reading “Emails from work computer can waive rights to privileged communications”

No Comments »

When Raising Money For Investment Purposes From Any Source, BEWARE

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Originally posted 2010-12-27 10:49:33. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Raising money or obtaining other property for investment purposes from whatever source in Virginia, including from family and friends, implicates state and federal law.

Some may have read about the recent action for fraud filed by Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of the State of New York, against Ernst & Young, LLP, one of the largest accounting firms in the United States.  Some, noting that this action was not brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, may have wondered from whence the Attorney General’s authority arose.  Authority arose under the Martin Act, a New York law initially passed in 1921, and amended and codified in 1982 in Article 23-A of the New York General Business Law.

What is important for those in the Commonwealth of Virginia attempting to raise money or obtain other property for investment purposes is that Virginia has similar securities laws.  Virginia’s Securities Act is codified in Title 13.1, Chapter 5, of the Code of Virginia.  As with that of the State of New York, the reach of Virginia’s Securities Act differs from, and is more extensive than, that of the federal securities acts.

Ernst & Young

Continue reading “When Raising Money For Investment Purposes From Any Source, BEWARE”

No Comments »

Does your Business use Employee Noncompete Agreements?

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Originally posted 2010-08-17 22:37:52. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

Contract

The legal issues related to employee “non-competes” (also known as covenants not to compete or non-competition agreements) are often not well understood by employees subject to them, the companies insisting upon them, or the companies intending to hire persons subject to them.  That may well be especially true in the Commonwealth of Virginia where one frequently hears, “That agreement is so broad it will never be enforced and Virginia doesn’t ‘blue pencil’ these agreements, so no problema.”

Continue reading “Does your Business use Employee Noncompete Agreements?”

No Comments »

Can an engineering firm limit its liability by contract?

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Originally posted 2010-10-13 07:34:52. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

 

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?”

No Comments »

The Same Employer But a Different Result in this Virginia Supreme Court Case Regarding the Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreements

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Employment law, John Tarley, Merger & Acquisition, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Originally posted 2011-12-13 08:00:55. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Over the course of the past 20 years, the Virginia Supreme Court has tweaked the law governing non-compete agreements. In its latest case, the Court came full circle by invalidating a non-compete agreement that used the same language the Court had upheld 20 years earlier in a case involving the same company.

As we have written before, trial courts will enforce non-compete agreements when the agreements (1) are narrowly drawn to protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, (2) are not unduly burdensome on the employee’s ability to earn a living, and (3) are not against public policy. Importantly, the employer has the burden to prove each of these elements. When evaluating whether the employer has met that burden, trials courts should consider the “function, geographic scope, and duration” elements of the non-compete restrictions.  These elements are “considered together” rather than “as three separate and distinct issues.”

Further, if the non-compete agreement is too broad or otherwise unenforceable, a Virginia court will not rewrite, or “blue pencil” the agreement to make it enforceable. Therefore, it is important that you work with your business attorney to draft an enforceable non-compete agreement.

Continue reading “The Same Employer But a Different Result in this Virginia Supreme Court Case Regarding the Enforceability of Non-Compete Agreements”

No Comments »

Attorney-Client Privilege: What is it and how do you protect it?

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

Originally posted 2010-06-29 00:57:15. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The attorney-client privilege permits confidential communication between an attorney and her client.  The objective is to encourage open communication, which permits an attorney to provide thorough, competent and complete advice.  Generally speaking, only a client can waive the privilege, but as found by the Virginia Supreme Court in Walton v. Mid-Atlantic Spine Specialist, PC, et al., a client’s inadvertent disclosure of a privileged communication may operate as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

In this Williamsburg medical malpractice case, a defendant doctor wrote a letter to his attorney calling into question his medical diagnosis he gave to his patient. The doctor kept this letter in a separate notebook. During discovery the defendant medical practice used a third party service to copy document requests. The letter was provided inadvertently to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant claimed that he did not produce the letter or permit anyone else to produce the letter, the Court found that the defendant did not take adequate protection to protect the letter. The Court noted that the notebook in which the letter was found was not marked as confidential or privileged. Furthermore, the Court held that the client did not take prompt action following disclosure.

The Virginia Supreme Court considered five main factors in determining whether the inadvertent disclosure waived the client’s privilege.  The Court looked at:  (1) the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosures, (2) the time taken to rectify the error, (3) the scope of discovery, (4) the extent of the disclosure, and (5) whether the party asserting the claim of privilege or protection for the communication has used its unavailability for misleading or otherwise improper or overreaching purposes in the litigation making it unfair to allow the party to invoke confidentiality under the circumstances.

As a start, clients should maintain attorney-client privileged communications in a separate file or notebook and clearly mark the file or notebook and each communication as “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION.”  Then, if an inadvertent disclosure is made, the client should contact her attorney as soon as possible to determine a plan of action to restore the attorney-client privilege.

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

No Comments »

Common Interest Community Board revokes a management company’s license

March 31, 2014 on 10:30 am | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, HOA, Merger & Acquisition, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

Originally posted 2010-09-22 05:35:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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”

No Comments »
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Next Page »
  • Phone Numbers

    (757) 229-4281- Office

    (757) 229-7439 - Fax
  • Address

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

    All Topics
  • Tarley Robinson Twitter Feed

Web Development by OneWaveMedia.Com