Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
As reported on these pages late last year, on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided <i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i>, holding, in a 4-3 decision, that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts violated the state's constitution.
Features
In-house counsel focused on complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should be wary of falling into a trap that could increase the business risks and liability exposure of their company and its executives.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
The latest rulings of interest to your practice.
Features
Are ethics programs no longer optional but mandatory? If the program is not good enough, is that fact itself the basis for liability? A recent civil case filed by the creative health care prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia asserts that a company's "ineffective" compliance program satisfies the scienter requirements of the civil False Claims Act (FCA).
Recent hearings of a subcommittee of the Senate Committee Governmental Affairs have again focused a harsh spotlight on the abusive use of tax shelters. As if to stress the point, On Dec. 29, 2003, the Treasury Department proposed changes to Circular 230 that "set high standards for the tax advisors and firms that provide opinions supporting tax-motivated transactions."
Recent rulings of importance to you and your clients.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your clients.
In <i>Twin Lakes Development Corp. v. Town of Monroe</i> (NYLJ 11/21/03, p.19, col. 5), the New York Court of Appeals addressed an issue that has been unresolved in New York since the United States Supreme Court's 1994 opinion in <i>Dolan v. City of Tigard</i>, 512 US 374: Can a municipality collect a payment in lieu of parkland dedication as the price for approving a subdivision when the municipality has not made an individualized determination of the need for recreational facilities generated by the proposed subdivision? The court had little difficulty upholding the fee, raising two further questions: first, will the court's decision survive scrutiny by the United States Supreme Court, and second, what constitutional limits remain on a municipality's power to impose fees on developers?