Posted: April 22nd, 2021
CMM Managing Partner Joe Campolo, a Stony Brook University alumnus, led a virtual interview at the annual Entrepreneurs Edge on April 8, 2021. This year’s featured entrepreneur was Pablo Legorreta, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Royalty Pharma, the largest buyer of biopharmaceutical royalties. As an experienced interviewer, Campolo asked thought-provoking questions that helped tell Legoretta’s story to inspire the students of SBU’s College of Business.
Watch the interview replay below:
Posted: April 20th, 2021
Campolo Middleton & McCormick’s Mergers and Acquisitions team has successfully closed another deal, demonstrating resilience in the face of a challenging on-again/off-again transaction.
The deal involved our client, a crane company specializing in crane rentals and rigging services, as the seller in an asset purchase deal. Based on Long Island, the company has been servicing Long Island and the greater New York area for decades. The transaction was months in the making but CMM’s team – led by Vincent Costa – was able to push the multimillion-dollar deal across the finish line.
The deal demonstrates CMM’s perseverance and commitment to its clients through the firm’s ability to efficiently negotiate and close complex transactions during the pandemic. Where other firms see insurmountable challenges, CMM sees temporary bumps in the road to be negotiated and worked through. Learn more about our Mergers & Acquisitions practice and call us at (631) 738-9100 for guidance on your next sale, purchase, or restructuring.
Tags: negotiation
Have you ever had a conversation with someone, and while they’re talking you say, “I see,” “Hmm,” or even “Interesting”… but when they’re finished, you ignore everything they said and go in with your pre-planned response? That’s called passive listening. The fact is, most people aren’t listening to understand – just to respond. You may think you’re showing that you’re engaged, but you won’t fool anyone for long. That’s where active listening comes in.
In negotiations, active listening can be used as a powerful tool to gather information. This requires an active mind, a degree of empathy, and listening with a goal in mind. Active listening is not simply nodding your head while your counterpart talks or just making great eye contact. Rather, it involves asking questions and providing feedback. If you can master active listening, you’ll be able to steer a negotiation to your advantage…if you would just actively listen!
Let’s break it down into three easy steps, then we’ll put it into practice:
No, this isn’t the same type of mirroring where if someone scratches their head, you lift your hand up to do the same. This type of mirroring involves paraphrasing and repeating some of the words your adversary just said. Say the words as a question to keep the person talking. This makes the person feel like you’re truly listening to them and creates a connection.
Asking questions that start with “what” and “why” is a great way to make the person you’re negotiating with feel in control despite the fact that you’re the one who asked a calibrated question. Calibrated questions starting with words like “how” will make your counterpart stop and think about the question you just asked. This will help you gain insight into what they’re thinking and how you can entice them with an offer they can’t refuse.
Empathy involves the ability to understand and point out (but not necessarily agree with) the feelings that the person you’re negotiating with is feeling. When you acknowledge that person’s point of view, you can help win their trust. Additionally, by using emotion labels like “You seem angry” and “It sounds like you’re upset,” you can verbally observe and point out feelings that can help you gather even more information when your counterpart confirms or denies your emotion label.
Let’s talk about a real-life example. Suppose you’re a roofer and you have a client with a commercial property in the suburbs that refers you to repair/replace a business associate’s roof in the city. After some confusion finding the access door, you inspect the city roof and let the prospective client know your recommendation to replace the entire roof, as well as the proposed price.
Later, the prospective client calls you with some concerns, saying, “The fact that you didn’t initially know how to find the way onto the roof yesterday does not give us comfort that you know how to service roofs in this area. The reviews on your website look great, and our business partners loved the service your provided for them, but we’re not sure that redoing the entire roof is the way we want to go. We appreciate your recommendation, but if you won’t consider just doing roof patches, then we are prepared to find someone who will.”
Here’s how you as the roofer might respond using passive listening:
“We do service city roofs. The complex that you own just gave us a little bit of trouble, but no worries since we were able to access the roof eventually. And in terms of the patches, we highly recommend redoing the whole roof at once since we’re up there already. Patches will not last as long as redoing the whole roof.”
Here’s how you as the roofer might respond using active listening:
Paraphrase: “It sounds like your business associates were satisfied with the service we provided them a few months ago. But if I understand correctly, you need me to assure you that we are experienced at working on city roofs? You’re also concerned about our recommendation to replace the whole roof versus doing patches? Have I captured your main points?”
Inquire: “You mentioned that you don’t know if you want to redo the whole roof? Help me understand how to you came this conclusion. Let’s talk about the cost efficiency of replacing the whole roof at once to last longer as opposed to doing patches that would be less efficient.”
Acknowledge: “It seems like you’re upset that we had difficulty finding our way up to the roof yesterday and you think that this reflects a lack of experience in the city. While we primarily fix suburban area roofs, we can assure you that we’re well qualified to fix city roofs and do it all the time.”
The roofer’s response using passive listening would most likely not have resulted in the roofer nailing the job. They failed to address the concerns of the clients and responded with a standard answer.
On the other hand, the response using active listening would have divulged key information. By using the three-step approach of paraphrasing, inquiring, and acknowledging, the roofer could have found out, for example, that the potential client wanted to do patches instead of the whole roof because the client was not expecting to do business in the building long-term and wanted only a temporary solution. With this information, the roofer could have tailored their recommendation differently and gained a new client.
Using mirroring, calibrated questions, tactical empathy, and labeling, you too can gather information to guide a negotiation. Using active listening to understand the goals of your counterpart could be the difference between a recipe for control of the situation and a recipe for disaster. So, the next time you find yourself listening to a person and coming up with your own rebuttals right away, try slowing down, making a few observations, and asking a few questions. You might find yourself with the understanding of your counterpart that you need to succeed in that negotiation. For more information on active listening, check out the Harvard Program on Negotiation article, “Negotiation Skills for Win-Win Negotiations” here and read up on passive vs. active listening in the Social Engineer blog here.
Posted: April 19th, 2021
Event Date: May 13th, 2021
Join Joe Campolo, Co-Founder of Moving Forward Strategies, as he goes “Beyond the Book” with like-minded business professionals during this 90-minute complimentary virtual event. Joe Campolo and MFS Co-Founder Donna Sirianni will provide an in-depth analysis of the book Connected to Goodness by David Meltzer, followed by an interactive discussion and an intimate Q&A with the author.
In Connected to Goodness, David Meltzer reveals his seven interconnected principles for success in manifesting everything you desire in business and life. Meltzer’s philosophy on how the combination of meditation, values, and energy has created the peace and balance he now enjoys in his personal and professional world.
The event will begin with a 30-minute presentation from Joe Campolo to learn how he has manifested success in his personal and professional life as a U.S. Marine and Managing Partner of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP. Donna Sirianni will follow with powerful, interactive lessons that will help you tap into your spiritual side and focus your energy on your desires in life and business. Lastly, David Meltzer will join us for an intimate Q&A with the audience!
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
David Meltzer is the Co-founder of Sports 1 Marketing, one of the world’s most successful sports marketing firms, and has spent 25 years working as an entrepreneur and executive in the legal, technology, sports, and entertainment fields. He formerly served as CEO of the renowned Leigh Steinberg Sports & Entertainment agency, which was the inspiration for the movie Jerry Maguire. He is a philanthropist, three-time international best-selling author, Top 100 Business Coach, Fortune 500 speaker, Executive Producer of Entrepreneur‘s #1 digital business show, Elevator Pitch, and host of the top entrepreneur podcast, The Playbook.
DATE: Thursday, May 13, 2021
TIME: 1 PM – 2:30 PM
Posted: April 12th, 2021
Tags: cannabis, labor & employment
With the legalization of recreational marijuana in New York State, employers and employees alike might be wondering to what extent an employer can tell employees to “Keep Off the Grass.”
Before we tackle employment-related issues raised by the legislation, here is a summary of the main provisions of the new law:
Permitted Use
Criminal Regulation
Tax Structure
As New York State joins the 15 other states (as of this writing) that have legalized the adult use of marijuana, a major question is what the impact the new legislation will have on the workplace.
Can Employers Still Drug Test for Marijuana? How Does the Law Impact the Hiring Process?
Currently, even with the new legislation, there is no law that bans marijuana from drug testing in New York State as a whole. However, New York City has already showcased its less rigid stance on marijuana drug testing. As of May 2020, NYC banned most employers from requiring job applicants to submit to a marijuana drug test as a condition of employment with the exception of positions in law enforcement, transportation and construction. Now that marijuana is legal, it’s possible that New York State could follow NYC’s lead and ban marijuana testing as well.
While employers might still be able to drug test for marijuana, an amendment to Section 201-d of the New York Labor Law explains that employers may not refuse to hire, employ, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against someone who uses cannabis lawfully while off-duty and off-premises. Therefore, despite it being legal for employers to test for marijuana, a positive marijuana test does not necessarily equate to workplace “impairment.” Workplace “impairment” would permit an employer to take adverse action. The legislation defines being “impaired” by cannabis use when an employee “manifests specific articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position.”
It is important to note that while New York has legalized the possession and use of recreational marijuana, under federal law, marijuana is still illegal. If that sounds confusing, that’s because it is. While the new law requires that employers follow state law when it comes to marijuana, it also provides that an employer is exempt from following the nondiscrimination provisions of the marijuana legislation if complying would result in the loss of a federal contract or federal funding.
Can Employers Control Employee Use of Marijuana Outside of Working Hours?
While the law on testing for marijuana in the workplace is still unsettled, employers will still be able to ban it from the workplace and use being high on the job as basis for termination. However, while employers can prohibit the use or possession of marijuana on-site or during work hours, they cannot control what an employee does or does not do outside of working hours. So employers cannot prohibit employees from smoking pot outside of working hours, nor can they discriminate against employees who do so.
What Kind of Workplace Policies Can Employers Set?
While some may welcome the scent of marijuana in the air at an outdoor concert, the same scent may not be as well received in the office. So employers should take advantage of the opportunity to update their employee handbooks and spell out the consequences of using marijuana during working hours – typically, in a manner that resembles the consequences of alcohol use. Similar to how an employer can set an alcohol-free policy where employees are not allowed to be intoxicated on the job, they can do the same for marijuana and prohibit being “impaired” by cannabis use. If an employer mandates a drug-free policy in their handbook, that means they might not only require that employees stay off the grass, but also keep it off of workplace premises.
Additionally, employers can set policies for marijuana usage during lunch and break times. Employers should clearly communicate with employees to ensure they are aware of their employer’s drug-related policies, as well as train and advise managers on the policy changes.
New York’s approach to navigating the legalization of marijuana will be a constantly evolving topic over the next several months and even years. If you have any questions about specific guidelines, situations, or need a policy revision for your business, please contact our Labor and Employment Department at (631) 738-9100.
Posted: April 12th, 2021
When emotions are running high during a contentious litigation, it can be difficult for the parties living and breathing it to take a step back and decide the best path forward. A CMM client in the technology space recently found itself in that situation. Thanks to CMM’s business-focused approach, the client was empowered to see the full picture and make the best decision for the business.
Our client had sold a technology product to the plaintiff, who complained that it did not work properly; our client contended that the plaintiff had simply used it wrong despite receiving training and support. A lawsuit ensued, with an immense amount of discovery and tension to match. The parties would not budge on their versions of what happened, and it appeared that the litigation could go on indefinitely. The distance between the parties seemed to grow each day.
Sometimes litigation is a necessary and best approach to handling a dispute. Other times, expensive litigation can be avoided by a lawyer who takes the time to truly understand the issues. CMM’s David Green recognized that settling the case was in the best interest of all parties. Green was able to convince the plaintiff, as well as our client, that prolonged fighting through litigation would not benefit either side. Ultimately, the parties were able to put emotions aside and make a deal.
“Outstanding settlement! I’m very pleased with the result and thank you for keeping settlement discussions alive,” our client’s insurance adjuster shared with Green.
The plaintiff’s attorney agreed, telling Green that “Resolution is always possible with a professional on the other end.”
CMM is in the business of helping clients achieve their goals in the best way possible – not in litigating for litigation’s sake. Learn more about our litigation work here.
Posted: April 6th, 2021
Tags: negotiation
Delivering bad news may not top anyone’s favorite-things list, but did you know it can be used as a weapon in a negotiation? Whether you use it to gauge a reaction, make a counteroffer, or set the stage for other news that you may have, delivering bad news is an art. Keep reading as I talk about three ways to deliver bad news and how to wield these methods in a negotiation.
The sandwich technique can be used to deliver various kinds of bad news. Here are a few:
| The Bad News: | How You Can Use It: | Examples: |
|---|---|---|
| You have to tell an employee that they’re not performing well | Get the employee to perform better | “Your work at the company has been great; you are very detail-oriented and organized. However, your performance has been down recently. Let’s meet next week to discuss your next project. ” |
| You’re telling your boss your skills aren’t being utilized | Get that promotion you want | “I really love working here; I’ve learned so much. However, I feel like I could bring so much more to the table in a more senior role. Would I be able to schedule a performance review where we review my performance and explore growth within the company?” |
| You decline a sum that is offered in a negotiation | Get a better price | “I really love the features of the car; the sleek design is exactly what I’m looking for. Unfortunately, I really do not think I will be able to afford that. Is there any way we can negotiate a lower price?” |
| You’re increasing rent your tenants must pay | Soften the blow of increased rent to your tenants | “You are a wonderful tenant; you always pay on time! However, I do want to let you know that starting next month, I have to increase the monthly rent due to the pandemic. I will send you a new contract to look over.” |
| You’re unable to make a payment | Lower a price or buy time | “You know how I always pay on time and the full amount? Well, this month I need to ask for an extension, just for a few days. I will be able to pay the full amount in a week.” |
By using the sandwich method, you can frame your bad news, constructive criticism or whatever you are trying to negotiate with a compliment that is positive, and then end with a solution. By proposing a way to move forward as the last step, you can create an actionable plan to keep the negotiation moving. This will force the person you are negotiating with to respond.
If you’ve ever started a sentence with “No offense but…” or “You’re going to kill me but…,” then you’re familiar with the “accusation audit” technique.
You may want to try this technique if you’re dealing with someone who has an already established negative assumption of you. For instance, if you’re trying to sell medical equipment to a doctor who is already suspicious of you and your products, you might want to state their assumption out loud and then follow it up with something more reassuring. This way, you can wield the bad news to your advantage to soften the person you’re negotiating with. Here’s an example: “You probably think I’m trying to scam you. (Pause) However, I want you know that people see real results with our products.”
You can also use an accusation audit to set and then exceed expectations by making someone think the bad news is worse that it is – so when you deliver it, it stings less and the person you’re negotiating with will think or say something along the lines of: “Oh, that’s not so bad! I thought you were going to say the whole deal is off!” An example of this type of accusation audit might go: “Alright, so you’re going to think that the company views this project as a waste of time after I tell you this. (Pause) I’m really upset about this too, but I have to cut the budget by 25% for the project you’re currently working on. “
Say you make a calculation error in a report. Wouldn’t it feel better to receive a reply that says, “Somehow I got different numbers, let’s both recheck to see what we get again” rather than “Your calculation is wrong”? The non-accusatory approach – by making open ended observations – can work the same way. This tactic avoids putting the blame on the person you’re giving bad news to. The person you are negotiating with will also feel prompted to respond by offering their own perspective on the issue – and it’s also a great way to avoid incriminating yourself when delivering the news.
By using phrases like “It seems like” and “It looks like,” the bad news you are delivering can be softened to your advantage. For example, you can say “It seems like the team is struggling to meet deadlines recently…” rather than “You missed several deadlines recently” or “It looks like you missed the March payment for rent…” rather than “You missed the March payment, where is it?”
Now that you’re an expert on delivering bad news, I urge you to try one of these strategies the next time you’re in an uncomfortable position. Knowing how to communicate bad news is an important skill to have in your arsenal, so instead of viewing it as something to dread, try to view it as the weapon it is. Now, grab your delivering bad news tactics, use them the next time you’re in that situation, and take control of your negotiation.
[1] Read more about delivering bad news in former FBI top hostage negotiator Chris Voss’s book, Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended on It (HarperCollins 2016).
Posted: April 2nd, 2021
By: Scott Middleton, Esq. email
Tags: municipal, negligence
Spring is finally here, and now that the last of the snow from the recent snowstorms has melted after being piled high, we can finally see the grass again. Although snowplows may be in hibernation until next year, you may wonder: did any municipalities face liability for snowplow accidents during this past messy winter? While rare, snowplow accidents happen. But can a municipality be held responsible for the actions of its driver/employee? The answer is generally, not very often.
In most instances a snowplow operator “actually engaged in work on the highway” is exempt from the rules of the road and may only be held liable for damages caused by an act done and reckless disregard for the safety of others.[1] The claimant/plaintiff must establish that the “operator acted in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.” This type of municipal law makes it difficult to prove an accident was the operator’s fault.
In this case, an employee of the Village of Great Neck Estates was operating a Village-owned snowplow. While in reverse, the snowplow was involved in an accident with a pedestrian walking in the street. The plaintiff later sued the employee and the Village for personal injuries. The court held that the employee did not act with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” since the employee testified that he had the beeping alert of the snowplow activated, was traveling at a low speed, and had the snowplow lights on. Additionally, the employee testified that he was looking in the snowplow’s mirrors while traveling backward but did not see the pedestrian behind the snowplow. In this instance, the plaintiff was unable to prove that the operator acted in “conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk.”
Contrast those facts with the long resolved Neddo case from 1949, where an automobile collided with a snow scraper on a highway in New York.[2] In this case, the state was ultimately found liable for failing to have proper lighting on a snow scraper. Likewise, in the 1982 Cherico case, New York City was held liable after a car accident when a snowplow-equipped truck caused an accumulation of ice and snow to fly over a guard rail and smash a driver’s windshield.[3] In that case, an engineer testified that that the snowplow operator did not follow the proper method of snow removal, which would have been to push the snow off the roadway onto the right shoulder instead of into the center.
If a municipality is served with a Notice of Claim for a vehicular accident involving a snowplow, it should be treated like any other claim and forwarded to the insurance carrier or third-party adjuster. Realize, however, that only in rare circumstances will a municipality be held responsible for the actions of its snowplow operators.
At CMM, we know that navigating municipal law on your own can be a challenge. If we can be of any assistance or you need a municipal law attorney on your side, please feel free to contact us at (631) 738-9100.
[1] Kaffash v. Village of Great Neck Estates, 190 A.D.3d 709 (2d Dep’t 2021).
[2] Neddo v. State of New York, 300 N.Y. 533 (1949).
[3] Cherico v. City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 889 (1st Dep’t 1982).
Posted: April 1st, 2021
In a display of CMM’s expansive reach, the firm’s M&A team has completed another cross-border deal.
The deal involved a Dutch company that sold its equity interest in a California LLC that specializes in the manufacture and sale of rolled cones and tubes for the smoking industry. In addition to the sale to their business partners, the client also sold intellectual property rights to several patents and trademarks for certain smoking products that are distributed by the California entity.
The transaction was three years in the making, with numerous starts, stalls, stops, and restarts, but CMM’s team – led by Donald Rassiger with the critical support of corporate paralegal Katharine Campolo – was able to push the complicated deal over the finish line.
“Thank you for the great effort you all had and all the good work you did for the brand and the deal that took place. This is no goodbye!” the client shared following the closing.
CMM continues to push forward and embrace challenging times through hard work and positivity. The deal demonstrates the comprehensive diligence that clients expect from CMM. Learn more about our Mergers & Acquisitions practice and call us at (631) 738-9100 for guidance on your next transaction.
