Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The question of how to value private companies in marital dissolution proceedings has been wrestled with for many years. Several valuation methods have been used, although some that are commonly used, and perhaps favored, for other valuation purposes are effectively banned from use in divorce cases due to interpretations of existing case law. Two significant valuation methods, the Guideline Public Company Method (GPC method) and the Discounted Cash Flow Method (DCF method), have been largely excluded from use in divorce cases in some states. This article addresses the GPC method, and when it would be appropriate to use. At a later date, Part Two of this article will address the DCF method.
A New York State appellate panel upheld a Workers' Compensation claim that will result in a domestic partner sharing benefits deriving from 9/11 with the decedent's child. The consequence of the decision is that Paul Innella's 6-year-old daughter will lose some Workers' Compensation death benefits to a woman who says she was engaged to Mr. Innella. The woman is not the child's mother. "[O]ne certainly could debate the equities of the statute," Justice Crew wrote for a unanimous panel. Nonetheless, the justices said, the provision survives constitutional scrutiny.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
The impetus for greater international harmonization in the law of pre-sale franchise disclosure is about to get a boost in Ontario, Canada. At press time, financial statements to be attached to compliant disclosure documents under Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act ("Franchise Disclosure"), 2000 ("The Wishart Act") are required to be prepared only in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards ("GAAS") — if audited — or, if not audited, then prepared under the review engagement standards in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") set out in the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Handbook ("CICA Handbook"). No other standards are currently acceptable.
In 2004, 7-Eleven, Inc. offered its entire U.S. franchise network a new franchise agreement. More than 96% of the franchisees representing its 3400 franchised stores signed the new agreement. The plans, process, and activities that were a part of this endeavor and the experiences developing and implementing this new agreement offer insight to both franchisors and franchisees when planning system-wide changes and/or new franchise agreements.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
The Supreme Court has decided that the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes can be used in prosecutions involving schemes to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue. The April 26 decision, written by Justice Thomas, expansively interpreted the words of 18 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 1343 and narrowly interpreted the common law "revenue rule," which some courts had viewed as limiting the reach of these statutes in cases involving foreign tax evasion. <i>Pasquantino v. United States</i>, 125 S.Ct. 1766 (2005).
The ruling was swift and unanimous. On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the late accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen), under the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 1512(b)(2), in a key case arising from one of the most significant corporate scandals in American history. <i>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States</i>, 544 U.S. -- (2005) (full text of the opinion can be downloaded at www.supremecourtus. gov/opinions/04pdf/04-368.pdf). The result was unsurprising given the antagonistic questions the Justices posed to the government at oral argument. The Court overturned Andersen's conviction on the narrow grounds that the jury instructions failed to convey properly the elements of a crime under ' 1512(b)(2), and remanded for a possible new trial. The decision clarified the limits of ' 1512(b)(2) while leaving at least one important question unresolved. Perhaps more importantly, it may force a more narrow reading of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with respect to document retention.