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."
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?
Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an extraordinary tool to trustees and debtors in possession -- the ability to sell property "free and clear." This unique power, unavailable to a seller outside bankruptcy, not only facilitates the tasks of liquidation or reorganization, but it may even be the critical incentive for entering bankruptcy in the first place. It has now become the principal focus of many Chapter 11 cases.
A debtor has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the assets of its estate. When selling assets of a bankruptcy estate, the process usually begins with an extensive marketing process. As a result of extensive marketing, a debtor can find itself actively negotiating with numerous potential purchasers. While most marketing periods end with a court-approved auction, it has become commonplace for the debtor to enter into the auction process with a "stalking horse" agreement in place.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
