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.

United States Supreme Court

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

DOG Street Pub, the former SunTrust Bank

Continue reading “Zoning and “Adaptive Reuse” – What does that actually mean?”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Many small businesses rely upon loans from friends and family for startup funds, for business expansions, or to support existing operations. Many times, these loans are made upon an oral agreement. As we have written previously, although oral agreements can be enforceable, without a writing, the terms of the agreements can be difficult to prove. In this blog post, we will describe other problems with informal lending transactions between family and friends.

In a study entitled “Lenders’ Blind Trust and Borrowers’ Blind Spots: A Descriptive Investigation of Personal Loans,” researchers outlined many of the difficulties of maintaining a lender-borrower relationship  between friends and family. In many “informal” lending relationships, the borrowers and the lenders remember the transactions differently. This “self-serving bias” can lead to problems. For example, borrowers may believe that the “loan” was a “gift,” or although agreeing that the transaction was a “loan,” may believe they paid off the loan. On the other hand, the lenders may feel angry when the “loan” is not repaid, especially when the borrower never raises the issue of repayment.

The study documented these differences between borrowers and lenders:

 Many borrowers thought the idea for the loan originated with the lender, not themselves, although the lenders thought otherwise;

 Borrowers reported far fewer delinquent loans than lenders;

 Borrowers were fairly confident they would eventually repay the loan, but lenders thought even one missed payment probably meant the loan would never be paid off;

 Delinquent borrowers “are much more likely to report feeling guilty, and also strangely, relieved and happy. Lenders associated with delinquent loans, in contrast, are much more likely to report feeling angry.”

Even though banks are flush with cash to lend, you may not qualify for a loan, or the bank’s terms may be too onerous. Consequently, family and friends are natural sources of funds for startup funds or for operating capital. However, as the proverb says,”Before borrowing money from a friend, decide which you need most.” Therefore, if you must borrow from friends or family, it is a small price to pay to perserve your personal relationships to have your business attorney draft the appropriate loan documents, including a promissory note, so that everybody knows the expectations of the transaction. Taking this step at a relatively small price can save your friendships.

Tarley Robinson, PLC,  Williamsburg, VA

Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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?”

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.

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

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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

It’s a simple fact of business life that you and your company’s fellow shareholders or members will not always see eye-to-eye. Furthermore, our personal lives change and that effects the level of willingness in which some participate in a business venture.

As in any relationship, businesses also reach that awkward stage in which a shareholder or member wants to leave his current business venture and start something new. We have discussed starting your business and provided guidelines for setting forth the rules for governing your business. This article addresses some of the difficulties that arise during the “break-up period.” For the purposes of this article, we will use the terms “shareholder” and “member” interchangeably, as well as the terms “director” and “managing member.”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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

Many times, parties enter into informal loan agreements on a simple oral promise to “pay it back.”  Similarly, others will enter into oral agreements to perform residential construction projects, or other types of projects. When things do not go as expected and the promises are of a value worth litigating over (or one of the parties to the promise thinks they are) things can go swiftly downhill.

Contracts

Continue reading “Oral Contracts are enforceable, but . . . .”

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

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

Republished by Blog Post Promoter