By now, it is common knowledge that we have lost Prince, one of the greatest artists of our time. Though he is gone, his legacy will live on in his music, movies, and various other distributions of his image and art. Unfortunately, Prince had no will.  According to various estimates, Prince’s net worth at the time of his death was roughly 300 million with an additional 100 million expected in the next five years alone from fans that will continue to purchase the late singer’s songs and other memorabilia in his honor.  And if this is indeed true, this may be one of the worst business succession failures in recent memory in the music industry.  It just takes a second to recognize that Prince’s impact on society was far greater than just his music.  There were literally hundreds of thousands of tweets, articles and blog posts reflecting the impact Prince made upon them.  In short, Prince was an iconic brand that conducted business at his compound known as Paisley Park Studios just outside of Minneapolis.  Without having a will that established who will control his iconic brand, Prince essentially was running a multi-million dollar business without succession planning.

So why then do you want to have continuity succession planning in place? There are many considerations to take into account and in no particular order they are: mortality, tax planning, life changes or events to just name a few.

Mortality.  The only certainty in this world is that no one is getting out of here alive.   What will happen to your business when you are gone?  This can be a very emotional question and likely the biggest reason why people do not have estate plans.  People don’t like to talk or even think about their own death.  However, if you don’t deal with it, your survivors under the laws of intestate succession will be the ones running your business.  Think about how much effort you placed into getting your business going.  How hard you worked to create that brand and what it stands for.  Do you want your brothers and sisters or children running the show?  What about your business partners? The people with whom you share your personal and professional life may not be suited or capable of successfully working together and picking up the pieces after you did not plan carefully enough.  Truth be told, if you have partners (fellow shareholders), then they are also partly to blame here. While they are not responsible for your estate plan, they are equally responsible for not having a business succession agreement in place.  More on this agreement later.

For the viewers, reality television offers an escape and a harmless entertaining view of what a new house, fashion choice, or social situation might be like. For participants however, the experience can be anything but harmless.  On the HGTV show “Love It or List It”, homeowners turned to the show producer Big Coat TV and contractor Aaron Fitz Construction to renovate their North Carolina home. The couple had deposited $140,000 into an escrow account with Big Coat TV prior to construction to cover the cost of the renovations performed by Aaron Fitz Construction during the course of the taping. Plans were submitted for what the couple was looking for prior to agreeing to have their experience filmed.

In practice however, the episode shows an entirely different contractor who is not licensed in North Carolina.  A scaled down and subpar version of the original plans was completed.

The homeowners have since filed a lawsuit in Durham County Superior Court asserting claims for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices. The lawsuit contends that the work completed was shoddy and left the home “irreparably damaged”, with holes in the floor, low grade supplies, windows painted shut and more. It also questions why payments were not distributed as agreed to in the original contract as well as Big Coat TV’s use of unlicensed professionals. Instead of the couple paying for their renovation with a licensed contractor and having it filmed for a television program, they essentially paid for a set to be built that benefits the show and its advertisers that leaves this family with a potentially uninhabitable home.

Last week on March 30, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision that significantly helps white collar defendants defend themselves against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Internal Revenue Service or whatever agency might be prosecuting them.  The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that a defendant must have access to his or her funds that are not tainted by criminal conduct to pay for the defense costs of a lawyer of his or her choosing.  Please click here to read a copy of this decision.

Prior case holdings allowed the government to restrict a defendant’s access to “untainted” or “innocent” assets in an amount sufficient to offset against what the government agency alleged it could expect to obtain after conviction and forfeiture proceedings. Stated differently, at the inception of a case the government would deprive a defendant from using his “clean” or “untainted” money which resulted in a defendant not being able to hire a skilled defense team of his choosing.  Before a defendant’s case even began, he was placed in a position of defeat.  This forced defendants to borrow money from family to defend them or otherwise be defended by an over-worked Federal Defender.

Undoubtedly there will be extensive litigation over the interpretation over what a “reasonable fee for the assistance of counsel” means as that term was used by the Supreme Court.  Also, it is important to remember that “untainted” means that a defendant will not be able to use the money he has from selling cocaine or from liquidating his “burglar tools”.  This too will undoubtedly be subject to great litigation going forward as well.  However, being able to cite to a Supreme Court case that relies upon the Sixth Amendment is a great strategic arrow to have in a defense attorney’s quiver when we now make our emergency motions to set aside government restraining orders that froze our clients’ assets.  Previously we were making these arguments but did not have the power of a Supreme Court case directly on point.

As shocking as it may be, in this day and age there are still many hospitals and medical-related businesses that have not made sufficient risk assessments relating to patients’ protected health information (“PHI”) and their third party vendors that have access to this information.  This is pertinent to large organizations such as hospitals, smaller organizations like a physician or dental office, and the third party vendors that work with these types of entities (for example- IT and copy repair companies or cleaning services).  Last week, a resolution agreement between the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and North Memorial Healthcare proved that this issue is still extremely relevant and potentially costly. In this instance, North Memorial self-reported to OCR that an unencrypted laptop containing the PHI of approximately 10,000 individuals was stolen from its third party vendor.

Unbelievably, there was no business associate agreement between the hospital and its vendor.  At the conclusion of its investigation, North Memorial agreed to pay 1.55 million dollars to resolve allegations that it violated HIPPA and agreed to enter into a robust compliance program relating how it would enter into business associate agreements (“BAA”) going forward.  If you are interested in reading a copy of the actual Resolution Agreement, please click here.

Before addressing what North Memorial agreed to do going forward, understand that, North Memorial, as a “covered entity,” was required to take certain steps to protect PHI under HIPPA and to report any breach of this obligation directly to OCR.  OCR is the governmental agency in charge of enforcing the rules and regulations surrounding the privacy of individually identifiable health information and has the authority to conduct compliance reviews and investigations of complaints alleging violations of HIPPA rules generally.

On January 4, 2016, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf eliminated the Capital Stock Tax and Foreign Franchise Tax for all taxpayers effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2016. Previously, the Capital Stock and the Foreign Franchise were imposed on all limited liability companies (LLCs), corporations and a few other entities that were formed or doing business in Pennsylvania. These taxes were not imposed however on an entity that was formed as a state law partnership. As a result, the limited partnership was the entity of choice to own real estate.

With these taxes eliminated, Pennsylvania joins the rest of the country with the LLC now being entity of choice for owning real estate. Keep in mind however that with while this is the law right now, there still is no budget in place. The theory is that the elimination of these taxes will spur economic development and create greater tax revenue in the long run at the cost of losing what had been declining capital stock tax revenue.

Who knows what will happen if the budget is just a little short of what is needed that the January 4, 2016 repeal isn’t tweaked to bring the budget into balance. Regardless, this is the law as it stands today and we are here to advise you of the best way to invest in real estate while protecting your assets and giving you the most flexible management choices that are available. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Doug Leavitt at Danziger Shapiro & Leavitt, P.C.

President Obama signed into law last year the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 and it changed, among other things, the manner in which the IRS will audit partnerships. This change will also apply to Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) that elected to be treated as partnerships for tax purposes. While this new law goes into effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, clients need to consider now how this impacts their current partnership agreement and whether changes need to be made in advance.

Partnership Audit Rules Today

Under the rules in effect today, IRS audits of partnerships and LLCs are primarily conducted under a single administrative proceeding at the business entity level. The ultimate tax liability is decided at the entity level and any adjustments decided by the IRS flow through the entity (remember-the partnership is a pass through for tax purposes) and are allocated to the individual partners or members. In addition, the law in effect today requires that certain members of the partnership need to be notified of major findings during the audit process. Finally, the partnership level audit does not necessarily bind all partners.

President Obama recently signed into law The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act also known as the “FAST Act”. What people may be surprised to learn is that this new law also adds Section 7345 to the Internal Revenue Code which provides in part as follows:

“(a) In general.—If the Secretary (of State) receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport….”

Think about this for a second. Your passport will now be used against you as a collection tool. If notified by the IRS, the Secretary of State may pull your passport; refuse to renew it or even to issue you one in the first place. The monetary threshold for a “seriously delinquent tax debt” is only $50,000. Once you consider this includes interest and penalties, it is easy to see how quickly this threshold can be met.

Over the past few weeks several landlord clients called and asked the same question, “My tenant bolted and left some of his junk behind. Can I throw it out?” The answer to each landlord was slightly different but came from the same source – 68 P.S. § 250.505a – better known as Pennsylvania’s “Disposition of Abandoned Personal Property Act.” This Act became effective a little more than a year ago in December 2014 and actually is the second attempt by the Pennsylvania legislature to provide guidance to both commercial and residential landlords on how to properly get rid of property that has been left behind.

The Act starts off by identifying five distinct circumstances when personal property remaining on leased premises may be deemed abandoned.

(1) The tenant has vacated the unit following the termination of a written lease.

Last September Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates authored a six point Memorandum that identified how the Department of Justice would more effectively go after individuals responsible for corporate wrongdoing. The theory behind the new found emphasis on going after individuals being that corporations only act through individuals. Please click here for a detailed entry I wrote last year on this blog about the Yates Memo.

From an officer or director’s point of view in light of the Yates Memo, they need to take a critical review of the indemnity provisions that are currently in place. By this I mean, what is their employer’s obligations to them if the officers, directors or even high level employees are accused of corporate wrongdoing by either an outside entity like the Justice Department, a disgruntled shareholder in the form of a derivative lawsuit, or perhaps even an internal company investigation? Hiring an independent lawyer to protect your interest in any of these situations is expensive so it is better if the company will pay your legal expenses and even better if your company will advance your legal expenses. Click here for a blog entry I wrote two months ago that explains why it is important to have your own lawyer represent you during these investigations.

To determine what your company will or will not indemnify requires a review of the company’s by-laws. Additional places indemnity provisions can be found are in an employment agreement and not surprisingly, an indemnity agreement. The best protection for an officer or director is actually to have a separate indemnity agreement. Too often I see my clients come to me with their problems but say, “I am not worried, I have indemnification. Look at the by-laws I brought.” Don’t get me wrong, this is a good start, but that is all it is. Do the by-laws require indemnification or is it permissive and require a vote of the board of directors? Even if it is required, are legal fees advanced or only paid after you are found not to have violated your fiduciary duties? Even if the by-laws state it is required and legal fees are to be advanced, what is the process for advancing legal fees? Will the company and its insurance carrier be able to hide behind a convoluted process to delay payments? Does the employer have the ability to restrict your choice of counsel? As you can see there are a myriad of issues even when it seems clear. Even if you have D&O Insurance, keep in mind that the carrier’s policy has exclusions. For example, a typical D&O policy will not cover attorneys’ fee in an internal corporate investigation. Also, D&O policies change year to year as companies are always shopping for better prices so what coverage you have in year one may not be what you have in year two and beyond. However, a well drafted indemnity agreement will require the company to cover all expenses, including legal, incurred in connection with your position as an officer or director of the company to the fullest extent permitted by law and will not change in scope from year to year. These are big differences.

At the end of last year on December 15th , Philadelphia’s Mayor Nutter signed into law an amendment to the city’s Fair Criminal Screening Standards Ordinance. The amendment, which goes into effect on March 14, 2016, limits an employers’ ability to inquire about the criminal history of a potential employee and provides prospective job applicants with criminal records considerable protection.

Beginning next March 2016, employers will no longer be able to inquire into an applicant’s prior criminal history until a conditional job offer has been made to the prospective employee. Employers are precluded from categorically denying an applicant an offer of employment based upon a criminal conviction without first making an individualized assessment that analyzes whether the criminal record serves as a legitimate basis for withdrawing the conditional employment offer. The employer should consider the following 6 factors when making this individualized assessment:

  1. The nature of the offense.