News (All)

Looking Over the Cliff

Posted: January 21st, 2013

By: Martin Glass, Esq. email

Tags:

Well, happy new year to all. At the 11th hour Congress decided not to let us fall off the Fiscal Cliff by passing the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. But what does that mean in the world of estate planning? There are a number of things that happened (or didn’t happen). So let’s go through each one.

First, the federal exemption for gift and estate taxes was fixed permanently at $5 Million indexed by inflation, instead of reverting back to $1 Million. As of January 2013, that amount became $5.25 Million. This means that you can transfer the first $5.25 Million tax free, whether it was by gifting to people during your lifetime or to your loved ones upon your death. Of course ‘permanent’ just means until Congress changes it.

What about transfers between spouses? The IRS still looks at this as a special type of transfer. They still have what’s called an unlimited marital deduction, meaning you can transfer all of your estate to your spouse tax free, regardless how large it is! Just remember that now the surviving spouse has all of the assets and will be taxed for anything over the exempted amount when he or she dies. Also remember that this marital deduction is only available to spouses who are U.S. citizens.

The second item, which is sort of attached to the first, is that Congress raised the top tax rate on the estate tax from 35% to 40% on the amount that is greater than the exemption. This is still better than the 55% that it was going to go up to had Congress not acted.

The third item is a thing that the legal and financial world has dubbed ‘portability’ of your estate tax exemption. This is another added benefit for married couples. When the first spouse dies, the surviving spouse can elect to add any unused portion of the deceased spouse’s exemption to their own. This would then allow the surviving spouse to transfer up to $10.5 Million if the deceased spouse did not use any of his or her exemption.

Remember that portability of the deceased spouse is not automatic. The administrator of the deceased spouse’s estate must file an estate tax return for the deceased spouse, even if no tax is due. This return is due nine months after death with a six-month extension allowed. If the administrator doesn’t file the return or misses the deadline, the spouse loses the right to portability. Surviving spouses should file it even if they’re not wealthy today, because who knows what the future holds.

What about making a gift during your lifetime? Not everything is taxed, or counted against your $5 Million exemption. Every person has an annual exclusion. As of January 2013, that amount went up to $14,000. This means that you can literally stand on the street corner and give every person who walks by $14,000 and never have to tell the government about it. Now I don’t necessarily recommend doing that, but you can if you want, without paying any taxes and without telling the IRS. Anything above the $14,000 has to be reported to the IRS. They will keep tabs to see if and when you go over your $5 Million lifetime exemption.

There’s one other thing that I need to remind everyone about. Although the federal estate tax exemption has been locked in at $5 Million, New York State estate tax exemption is only $1 Million. The tax rate varies but averages around 10%-12%. So, for a $5 Million estate there may be no federal tax due, but your heirs might be paying New York up to $500,000 in taxes. New York doesn’t have any gift tax so there are ways to minimize, if not eliminate, the estate tax with proper planning.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Cuomo Signs Notice of Claim Legislation

Posted: January 10th, 2013

Governor Andrew Cuomo has approved legislation designed to streamline the process of filing lawsuits against municipalities and other government entities in New York, providing the groundwork for uniform, fair, cost-effective and straightforward statewide procedures for filing a Notice of Claim.

State law requires individuals intending to sue government entities for any tort — such as a slip-and-fall
or a malpractice at a public hospital — to file a Notice of Claim to alert a potential defendant of an
impending lawsuit. Currently, they must be filed in the county in which an alleged incident occurred.
The bill will allow plaintiffs to file notices of claim with the secretary of state in Albany, who would then notify defendants. Most of the bill’s provisions take effect in 180 days.

The legislature will also amend the bill to ensure that local governments and public authorities will not face shortened time periods within which to investigate claims if the secretary of state faces delays in notifying potential defendants.

The legislation also provides for a uniform 90-day filing deadline for all notices of claim, regardless of the type of government entity involved.

Supporters of the proposal, including the State Bar Association and the New York Trial Lawyers Association, say the current process of filing notices of claim is confusing and often leads to cases being tossed out on technicalities. They believe this bill will eliminate expensive and time-consuming litigation over unnecessarily complex issues of procedure which unnecessarily burden the courts as well as the
governmental and quasi-governmental entities involved.

Here are some highlights.

  • Service on secretary of state. In addition to serving a Notice of Claim directly on a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, plaintiffs will also be able serve Notices of Claim through the Secretary of State, as current law allows for service of process on businesses and corporations;
  • Uniform 90-day period for serving notice of claim. Notices of Claim to any entity, including public corporations and public authorities, entitled to such a notice will be subject to the current rules of the general municipal law, including a 90-day limit for filing a Notice of Claim;
  • Uniform one year and 90 day statute of limitations. The CPLR and other statutes are amended to state that except for wrongful death actions, all actions against public entities for damages, injuries to property, or personal injuries are subject to a one year and 90 day statute of limitations or another applicable statute of limitations prescribed by law, whichever is longer.

Learn to Spot these 10 Negotiating Tactics

Posted: January 9th, 2013

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

Here’s how to spot 10 tactics that many negotiators use. These have nothing to do with the win-win successful agreements of a good negotiation. Learn what to do when somebody pulls these tricks. Awareness of these tactics can strengthen your own negotiation skills.

1.Left at the altar- The other party feigns backing out of a deal just before you are ready to complete the agreement. Hoping the tactic brings the other party closer to their position, the tactic often yields 11th-hour concessions.

Your countermeasure: Don’t fall for the bait. Let the deal drop and go through a quiet period. Try resurrecting the deal after no less than 30 days, or when the other party calls you. At that point, it will be your turn to get concessions.

2. Making balloon futures- The other party forecasts future sales growth, which is accelerated from historic averages. This is similar to the “call-girl principle,” in which a service is worth more before it’s performed.

Your countermeasure: Base your decision or price only on past history. Make future bonuses or payouts available if accelerated growth actually happens.

3. Calling a higher authority- The other party says that they are unable to make a final decision or won’t tell you who the final decision maker is.

Your countermeasure: Stop negotiating until you are discussing directly with that decision maker. You are wasting your time and energy.

4. Crunch time- The other party applies a lot of pressure by saying, “that’s nonsense, you have to do much better than that.”

Your countermeasure: Use the “flinch” tactic, showing shock and amazement that this issue has been raised. Repeat the offer you just made.

5. Bring in the dancer- This is when a member of the other party talks for a long time without saying anything substantive to the real issues. This is usually intended as a distraction. This can also be a snow job, bringing in unnecessary data to support the other party’s position.

Your countermeasure: Ask, “specifically, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?” Repeat several more times if necessary.

6. Re-trading the deal- The opposite party attempts to reopen points from the negotiation after agreement has been reached. This is also called “forgotten issue.”

Your countermeasure: Simply say no. Call them out for breaking the agreement. This may become “left at the altar” (#1).

7. Huntley and Brinkley- Two people for the other party team up against you at the same time.

Your countermeasure: If you can’t handle the pressure, get someone to join you or ask to negotiate with only one person at a time.

8. Turning Soviet- A really mean negotiator that doesn’t care if the your side gets anything out of the deal. This is the opposite of win-win.

Your countermeasure: Ask for someone else to negotiate with and don’t start again until your request is granted.

9. The walkout- Deliberately walking out of a negotiation to show disinterest.

Your countermeasure: Let them walk out. If they do not come back, leave. Do not call them for a month.

10. Roaring brains- These are people that talk a lot with no real experience in a particular area.

Your countermeasure: Do the research so you have the facts to question their experience and data.

For more information, click here.

Standard to Obtain TROs in Trademark Infringement Claims Get Tough

Posted: December 17th, 2012

Tags:

As everyone shops for toys this holiday season, many have encountered counterfeits that are strikingly similar at first glance, but with their low price point compared to the actual licensed product, these counterfeits have lured away or even deceived consumers.

In response, toy developers and manufacturers who obtained federal trademark and copyright registrations commenced actions for trademark and copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to immediately stop the counterfeit sales.

The standard to which a court will grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requires a showing of irreparable harm. This showing, however, may have been made stricter in trademark cases by a recent decision by a District Court in California by that precluded a presumption of irreparable even upon a plaintiff’s demonstration of a likelihood of success on the merits.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) and eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) established that on a copyright or patent infringement claim, the presumption of irreparable harm is impermissible when a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits. In expanding on this standard, the District Court for the Northern District of California in Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 2012 WL 5425584 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) recently held that there was no principled reason why this standard should not be applied in the trademark context; thus, the Rovio Court held that a plaintiff is not granted the presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits in trademark infringement claims.

Accordingly, with the new district court decision, the standard for TROs and preliminary injunctions on copyright or patent infringement claims will likely be applied to trademark infringement claims — there is no longer a presumption of irreparable harm even when a likelihood of success is shown. Requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions should therefore be supported by substantial evidence.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Choosing a Guardian

Posted: December 16th, 2012

By: Martin Glass, Esq. email

Tags:

For the past couple of months I’ve been talking about the different fiduciaries that are typically named in a Will or a Trust. There’s one that’s more specifically for younger people and it specifically goes in your Last Will and Testament. That’s the choosing of a guardian over your children.This is a very difficult conversation to have with clients. Can you imagine a young couple contemplating a future for their child in which those same parents don’t play a central role? Almost as much as parents pray that their children will outlive them, parents likewise hope that they will be around to help guide and shape their children’s lives long into their adulthood. As a parent of young adults, it has given me a great deal of pride to watch my children grow and mature.

While an uncomfortable conversation to have, it is necessary for parents to consider what will happen to their children in the unlikely event that they don’t see their children into adulthood. While no parent wants to think about it, there is possibly no more important a choice that parents can make than deciding who will raise their children if something were to keep them from doing so themselves. Most people would prefer to control how their assets are distributed at the time of death rather than leave the decision to the courts. How could the decision of who raises your children be of any less import?

When choosing a potential guardian for your children, one of the main considerations that should guide your decision is lifestyle. When I refer to lifestyle, I’m not talking about making sure your child is raised in the lap of luxury with your rich cousin who owns a bank. I’m talking something much more fundamental than that — choose someone that you trust to love and care for your children in the same way that you would do if you were around.

There is no question that this decision will be guided by your own preferences and experiences. Parents need to recognize that one choice isn’t necessarily better than another, but each choice carries with it long term consequences. Just think about this. Would you expect your children’s informative experiences to be the same if they are raised by your divorced, workaholic brother as compared to them being raised by your stay-at-home sister and her husband? Of course not. But your brother may love them and your sister may be abusive to them.

Every person you contemplate as a guardian will have his or her good and bad traits. It’s your job to figure out who strikes the right balance for what your child needs. The decision will (or should) be shaped by the values and philosophies you hold dear. When choosing a potential guardian, just a few things you should think about include: their religious beliefs; their moral values; their educational values; and their societal/political philosophies. All will have a very real and lasting impact on your child’s development, so be sure that the guardian’s values and philosophies are an acceptable match for how you want your child raised.

Now on paper, all this sounds easy. But most of us have limited choices. When considering potential candidates for their children’s guardian, one of the questions that clients often ask is, “Am I limited to choosing a family member?” The answer is absolutely not! Although many turn to brothers, sisters and sometimes even parents as their first choice for guardian, there is nothing to say that trusted friends wouldn’t be an equivalent or even far better selection than a family member. So long as the potential guardians have a real and trusted relationship with a child, I think they should be a valid candidate for the duty.

The simple fact of life is that not every person is a suitable guardian for every child. It’s a case by case decision. Depending on circumstances, it may not be the wisest choice to place a young child with older guardians who are themselves at risk of passing before the child reaches adulthood. It’s a personal choice though, and nothing says that one selection is more appropriate than another. When making the decision, you need to think not only about your child’s circumstances (are they older, younger, special needs, etc.), but you need to consider the circumstances of the individuals that you are considering to make sure they are good fits both long and short term. Just a few issues to consider: are they elderly; divorced; close to your family (geographically and emotionally); suffer from addictions; financially stable; have their own children. All will have an impact on your children, so be sure to think long and hard on your choice.

Now that you’ve gone through the exercise of figuring out who is the best fit for raising your children, what comes next? The obvious answer is to reduce it to writing by having an estate planning attorney draft a Last Will and Testament. While correct, that’s only half of the answer. Yes, you need to ensure that your wishes are reduced to writing to make sure they are given later effect, but even before that’s done, there’s something else you need to do. Talk to the potential guardians! Let them know what you’re thinking and why you’d like to select them. Chances are good that they will be honored to take on the duty, but there’s no guarantee unless you confirm it with them first. The last thing you want to do is name someone as a guardian who doesn’t want or isn’t prepared for the responsibility. Then make sure you follow up with an estate planning attorney and memorialize your decision.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act Deadlines Approaching

Posted: December 10th, 2012

As we reported several times over the last two years, New York enacted the Wage Theft Prevention Act (“WTPA”) requiring employers to furnish notices to employees addressing pay, overtime, and other pay-related information. As is the case every year, the annual notice must be distributed to employees between January 1, 2013 and February 1, 2013. If you employ individuals in New York State, or have affiliates and branches in New York that employ individuals, then you must comply with the current notification requirement of the WTPA. All employers should make sure this is handled promptly to avoid potential penalties and fines.

Employers must provide a copy of the notice to the employee, have each employee sign and date the notice, and maintain all notices and acknowledgements for six years. While the law does not dictate the form of notice, the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) has provided sample forms, which we have included in the links below.

Employers who fail to provide the required notices may be liable for damages of up to $50 per week, per employee.

 

Landlord/Tenant Issues: Recent Appellate Cases

Posted: December 10th, 2012

By Patrick McCormick

Two appellate courts recently rendered decisions discussing landlord/tenant issues. The decisions, while breaking no new ground, do point out what can happen when parties fail to properly memorialize their landlord/tenant relationship and when a landlord fails to act to correct defective conditions in commercial premises.

The first case is Joylaine Realty Co., LLC v. Samuel1 in which the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of landlord’s complaint holding that repeated flooding of the commercial premises combined with the landlord’s failure to take any action to correct the condition suspended tenant’s obligation to pay rent. The Appellate Division decision is short on facts and analysis but does clearly hold “the repeated flooding of the subject premises substantially and materially deprived the defendant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises, and the plaintiff failed to take any steps to correct the condition.” Without engaging in substantive analysis of the facts or applicable law, the Appellate Division simply relied upon well settled law that “[A] commercial tenant may be relieved of its obligation to pay the full amount of rent due where it has been actually or constructively evicted from either the whole or part of the leasehold”2 and “A constructive eviction occurs where ‘the landlord’s wrongful acts substantially and materially deprive the tenant of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises.”3 Thus, finding that a constructive eviction occurred, the Court confirmed that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent was suspended.

The next appellate decision comes from the Fourth Department in Peak Development, LLC v. Construction Exchange4 and involved a claim related to common area maintenance. In Peak, the landlord sued to collect from tenant additional rent consisting of common area maintenance charges for snow removal, janitorial services and lavatory maintenance. The Fourth Department reversed summary judgment granted in favor of tenant. The tenant’s lease extension expired in October 1997 and a new lease was not executed. Thus, tenant remained in possession of the demised premises as a holdover month-to-month tenant. The express terms of the lease provided for CAM charges and that such charges were to be “pro-rated on a monthly basis according to the amount of space occupied by [defendants] to the total building space.” Plaintiff purchased the property in 2003. The month-to-month tenancy continued until April 1, 2006 when a “letter lease” became effective. The specific terms contained in the “letter lease” were not discussed by the Court. Defendant/tenant in moving for summary judgment relied on the lease, the lease extension and an affidavit from defendant’s executive vice president that CAM charges under the lease and lease extension were not paid between September 1987 and October 1997 and argued that plaintiff waived the right to collect such charges because plaintiff’s predecessor did not collect the CAM under the lease and lease extension. The Court found that the “issue of whether waiver has occurred is generally one of fact [citation omitted] and, here, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s predecessor waived his entitlement to CAM charges.”

As part of its decision, the Appellate Division cited to the well settled law that “a successor-in-interest to real property takes the premises subject to the conditions as to the tenancy, including any waiver of rights, that [its] predecessor in title has established if the successor-in-interest has notice of the existence of the leasehold and of the waiver”[Citations omitted]. The Court also found that the plaintiff in this case “had notice of the leasehold with defendants and, in any event, possession of the premises constitutes constructive notice to purchaser of the rights of the possessor” [citation omitted].

The practical impact of this decision and the facts presented is significant. If, in fact, there was a waiver of the right to collect CAM, the tenant now must locate the seller of the premises (the sale occurred about 8 years before the lower court decision) and, even if located, hope that seller or someone on behalf of the seller if the seller was a business entity, even remembers the terms of the lease and lease extension and whether there was any thought given to the right to collect CAM charges and whether such right was affirmatively waived.

Practical Examples of Using a BATNA in Negotiations

Posted: December 9th, 2012

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

Over the past few months, this blog covered the basics of negotiation theory, discussing some of the strategies and tools of a successful negotiator. Last month, we explored Roger Fisher and William Ury’s coined term BATNA. Coincidently, there was recently an article in the New York Times Business Section about the practical application of BATNA in Hollywood and Washington. The article is:

In Talks, G.O.P. May Have to Just Say Yes
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: December 8, 2012

To read the article, click here.

Claim for Breach of Implied Contract Not Preempted by Federal Copyright Act

Posted: November 20th, 2012

Tags:

In an important decision for the entertainment industry, the Second Circuit held that a claim under state law for breach of implied contract, including a promise to pay, is not preempted by the Federal Copyright Act.

In 2010, a suit was brought by Forest Park Pictures against Universal Television Network, Inc. (the television production arm of NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of Comcast Corp., which controls USA Network), for breach of contract over USA Network’s show Royal Pains. Forest Park alleged that in 2005, it developed an idea for a show called “Housecall,” in which a doctor, after being expelled from the medical community for treating patients who could not pay, moves to Malibu to attend to the rich and famous. Forest Park developed storylines and character bios, and pitched the concept to an executive at USA Network. Although nothing materialized after the meeting, in 2009, USA Network began airing Royal Pains, a show that focuses on the life of a “concierge doctor” providing medical services to the wealthy residents of the Hamptons. Forest Park brought suit against Universal for breach of contract.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Forest Park’s claims were preempted by the Federal Copyright Act because the allegations entailed theft of uncopyrightable idea and granted Universal’s motion to dismiss.

The Second Circuit reversed by holding that a claim for breach of an implied contract, including a promise to pay, is not preempted by the Federal Copyright Act because even though uncopyrightable material may fall within the subject matter of the Copyright Act, there are qualitative differences between a contract claim and a copyright-violation claim. Unlike contract law, the Copyright Act does not provide an express right for the copyright owner to receive payment for the use of the work. Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that an implied contract, including a promise to pay, was formed when Forest Park pitched their concept to USA Network, and USA Network’s failure to compensate Forest Park for Royal Pains gave rise to a cause of action not subject to preemption.

Generally, under a claim for breach of an implied contract, when an idea is submitted and accepted for review, as Forest Park asserted here, there is an expectation that if there material is later used, the writer will receive compensation. In fighting these implied contract claims, networks have previously argued that the state-based contract claims are pre-empted by federal copyright law. Now, with this latest Second Circuit decision, this poses a new challenge for networks in defending themselves against similar idea-theft lawsuits, and they will likely pay more attention to see how the suit plays out on remand to the Southern District of New York.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.