Business Law

Health care trades or businesses in which real estate is a necessary component in the delivery of health care goods and services should be aware of the business interest deduction limitation that was enacted at the end of 2017 and became effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Read more

The Sixth Circuit has held that even though the statute of limitations applicable to a mortgage reseller's repurchase claim against the seller had run, the reseller's claim for indemnification was not time-barred. [Franklin American Mortgage Co. vs. University National Bank of Lawrence, 2018 Westlaw 6377719 (6th Cir.).] Read more

A bankruptcy court in Ohio, applying Alabama law, has held that a trustee could not qualify as a hypothetical bona fide purchaser of a bankrupt's real property because a recorded power of attorney did not expressly authorize the daughter to convey her mother's real property to herself. [In re Shelton, 2018 Westlaw 5098814 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio).] Read more

After announcing in December that it would intervene in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the US Department of Justice filed its complaint-in-intervention in the Northern District of California on March 4, 2019. Read more

The Fifth Circuit has held that the applicable state statute of limitations governing secured creditors' deficiency suits did not begin to run until the creditor has sold all of the items covered by a cross-collateralization clause contained in the parties’ agreements. [Volvo Financial Services vs. Williamson, 2018 Westlaw 6333781 (5th Cir.).] Read more

On February 13th, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) announced that it is seeking public comment on its Trade Regulation Rule entitled, "Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising" (the “Rule”). As part of the FTC’s periodic regulatory review, the agency is requesting comments to thirteen specific questions to address whether franchisors, franchise sellers and franchisees have benefited from the Rule, what modifications are needed to the Rule, the costs of compliance and what amendments might be needed to address changes in relevant technology and economic conditions. Read more

On March 19, 2019, the Corporations Committee submitted a comment letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) addressing earnings releases and quarterly reports. The letter was submitted in response to the SEC’s Request for Comment issued on December 18, 2018 (Release Nos. 33-10588; 34-84842) pursuant to which the SEC requested comments on how to address investor protections while reducing burdens associated with quarterly reports, such as reducing unnecessary duplication in the information disclosed. Read more

The following is a profile of the Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California. Judge Spaeth met with members of the Business Litigation Committee and the Insolvency Law Committee in her chambers at the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana and discussed her personal and professional background, her appointment as a Magistrate Judge and her experience on the bench. Read more

Summary: On January 16, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide questions of California law relevant to the Ninth Circuit’s determination of Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), No. 17-60032 (9th Cir.). The question presented by the Ninth Circuit is whether the “form of title” presumption in California Evidence Code section 662 overcomes the presumption in California Family Code section 760 that all property acquired by a married person during marriage is community property. Read more

Summary: In Klein v. ODS Technologies, LP (In re J & J Chemical, Inc.), Adv. No. 18-08029-JDP (Bankr. D. Idaho Jan. 11, 2019), a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho (the “Court”) held that the court in which a bankruptcy case is pending is a proper venue for a fraudulent transfer action brought under sections 544(b) or 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, regardless of the amount at issue or the residence of the defendant. The Court also held that even if 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) applies to such an action, the court is a proper venue if the value of the property to be recovered is at least $1,300, and the higher $12,850 threshold for actions against a non-insider to recover “a debt” does not apply. If the Court’s analysis is correct, either (a) there is no monetary threshold for filing preference actions in the plaintiff’s home court against non-resident defendants, or (b) the monetary threshold is only $1,300. Read more