It’s time for your Small Business to audit its Corporate Documents

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, John Tarley | No Comments

Many of our New Year’s Resolutions address our personal health, but owners of small businesses should also resolve to address your corporate health. Small businesses operate with great attention to the product or service the company provides, but little energy is left to review the infrastructure of the company. Issues such as shareholder agreements, key person insurance, disability insurance, annual meetings and other corporate necessities are given short shrift because of the attention we pay to running the business.

Williamsburg Virginia Business Lawyers

Business Agreements

This blog post provides a few suggestions to help you overcome a problem unique to small businesses: spending too much time working in your business rather than working on your business.  Continue reading “It’s time for your Small Business to audit its Corporate Documents”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Using your business’ computer to email your attorney may be a bad idea

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, General Interest, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Real Estate Litigation, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

Email

Well, we have written about protecting the attorney-client privilege and about safe emailing tips when emailing your attorney. Although we thought we had it pretty well covered, a recent decision from a California appellate has given us something more to think about.
Continue reading “Using your business’ computer to email your attorney may be a bad idea”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

When Raising Money For Investment Purposes From Any Source, BEWARE

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

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”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

HOAs and Transition from Developer Control – 101

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Law, Business Planning, Common Interest Community, HOA, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Susan B. Tarley, Unit Owners Association | No Comments

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”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

What does it mean to be on the Board of Directors of your HOA? Fiduciary Duties (Part 1 of a series)

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, HOA, Merger & Acquisition, Real Estate Strategies, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

Board members are told that they have fiduciary duties to the community association, but what does that really mean?  Fiduciary duties arise because the members of the association entrust a board member to act in the best interest of the association when handling the association’s business.

There are three components that are important to understand fiduciary duty.  First, the Virginia Code, at § 13.1-870, imposes on directors a requirement that a director exercise her duties in good faith and in the best interest of the association.  This requirement is the so-called “business judgment” rule. Second, Virginia case law imposes duty of care that requires a board member to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.  Third, Virginia case law imposes a duty of loyalty that requires a board member to put the association before any personal interest.  These last two duties are referred to as “common law” duties. Continue reading “What does it mean to be on the Board of Directors of your HOA? Fiduciary Duties (Part 1 of a series)”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

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

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Common Interest Community, State & Federal Litigation, Susan B. Tarley | No Comments

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

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

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

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Employment law, John Tarley, Merger & Acquisition, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

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 noncompete 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 noncompete 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 noncompete restrictions.  These elements are “considered together” rather than “as three separate and distinct issues.”

Further, if the noncompete 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 Noncompete Agreements”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Can your business enforce an employee noncompete agreement?

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, Merger & Acquisition, Neal J. Robinson | No Comments

The analysis of the enforceability of noncompete agreements begins with the question “How did the covenant not to compete arise?”  Employee covenants not to compete generally arise in one of two ways:  1) solely as a result of employment; and 2) arising as ancillary to another agreement, such as an agreement to purchase the prospective employee’s business.

 

Continue reading “Can your business enforce an employee noncompete agreement?”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

No Comments »

Can an engineering firm limit its liability by contract?

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 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 »

Small Business Break-Ups – The High Cost of Litigating a Forced Separation

October 30, 2014 on 1:12 pm | In Business Planning, John Tarley, State & Federal Litigation | No Comments

A recent Virginia Supreme Court Case, Cattano v. Bragg, illustrates two points we have made time and time again: 1) Make sure your small business is prepared for an eventual “divorce” between the shareholders; and 2) Litigation is very, very expensive.

In this blog post we will review the Supreme Court’s decision and provide some tips for your small business so that you can avoid the calamity that occurred in this case, which included an attorneys’ fee award of over $260,000 for the prevailing party.

Continue reading “Small Business Break-Ups – The High Cost of Litigating a Forced Separation”

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