Maryland Business Litigation Lawyer BlogBeing appointed an agent under a financial power of attorney, or as a Court-appointed guardian, comes with a significant delegation of authority. However, it is important to know that such delegation of power is not without limits. For example, an agent can only exercise powers specifically granted under the power of attorney document. And, in the case of a guardianship, the guardian is obligated to periodically account for the Court of their efforts on behalf of the ward. And, of course, a fiduciary under either scenario cannot abuse their power or use their power unlawfully.
Published on:
Interesting Tax Option for Maryland Entities
After the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, the limitation on an individual’s ability to itemize tax deductions resulted in higher income tax for many Maryland business owners. On May 8, 2020, Maryland enacted legislation allowing pass through entities (primarily LLCs, partnerships and S corporations) to elect to pay tax on a member’s distributive share at the entity level. As a result, the taxable gross income of individuals receiving distributive shares of the entities net income is less. In addition, the election creates a federal income tax deduction for the business that is not subject to the $10,000 itemized deduction limit established by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Published on:
WeWork. WeLitigate.
WeWork. WeLitigate.
Published on:
The Statutory Right to Purchase Shareholder Stock in the Dissolution of a Close Corporation
The Statutory Right to Purchase Shareholder Stock in the Dissolution of a Close Corporation
Published on:
Weird Science: Maryland’s New Test for the Admissibility of Expert Testimony
WEIRD SCIENCE: MARYLAND’S NEW TEST FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Published on:
The Waiting Was the Hardest Part: The Court of Appeals Finally Makes Clear that a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Exists Under Maryland Law
On July 14, 2020, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Plank v. Cherneski, (Misc. No. 3, Sept. Term 2019) (July 14, 2020), which finally harmonized Maryland case law as to the existence of a standalone “breach of fiduciary duty” claim. The Court held that such a claim exists under Maryland law and that its elements are: “(1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of the duty owed by the fiduciary to the beneficiary; and (3) harm to the beneficiary.” The Court stressed that the nature of the fiduciary relationship and available remedies are fact specific and considered on a case-by case basis. “If a plaintiff describes a fiduciary relationship, identifies a breach, and requests a remedy recognized by statute, contract, or common law applicable to the specific type of fiduciary relationship and the specific breach alleged, a court should permit the count to proceed.” The remedy available depends on the specific fiduciary relationship at issue.
Published on:
Five Most Common Legal Pitfalls for Marketing Entrepreneurs
Marketing entrepreneurs’ greatest strengths are their creativity and vision. It is this vision that drives many to take the leap to start their own agency/consultancy or join a start-up venture to market an exciting new product. Unfortunately, most marketers are not well-versed in the intricate legal issues involved with starting a business. This can lead to a variety of problems, especially as the venture begins to become successful. A common misconception is that good legal advice is often too expensive for the early stages of a business venture. This is not the case – provided the right counsel is selected. To ensure the success of any new venture, marketers should take steps to avoid the following common pitfalls:
Published on:
Securities Litigation Update: Cyan V. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress enacted two laws to shore up practices that were considered to have led in part to the Market Crash of 1929: the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), which governs initial securities offerings; and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), which governs all subsequent trading. The 1933 Act permits both state and federal courts to hear claims brought under that Act, and bars defendants from removing such claims to federal court. The 1934 Act, however, grants federal court exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims brought under that Act.
Published on:
Silverman Thompson’s Ned Parent Publishes Article on Undue Influence in MSBA Bar Bulletin
Ned Parent, a member of Silverman Thompson’s Business Litigation Group, published an article in the September 2017 issue of the Maryland State Bar Association’s “Bar Bulletin” publication. Mr. Parent’s article discussed the “undue influence” standard used in Caveat proceedings (the formal term used for proceedings challenging the validity of a Will). Specifically, the article discussed the challenges in successfully proving undue influence in such proceedings, and suggested possible solutions to address those challenges.
Published on:
Waste Fraud and Abuse Part 1, What It Is and Who Is Concerned
Concern regarding “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending is everywhere these days, it seems. Even in 2017, it is a solidly bi-partisan concern. A quick internet search reveals that think tanks from the progressive Center for American Progress to the libertarian Cato Institute have published on the topic, and politicians as ideologically diverse as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Az.) host pages on the official House of Representatives domain, house.gov, addressing wasteful or fraudulent government spending.
Published on:
Settlement of Dispute Over Non-Compete Agreement
Omni Imaging, LLC (“Omni”), a Maryland limited liability company, filed its lawsuit against our clients, Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. (“Blue Ridge”) and Richard A. Wilson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on or about October 12, 2016, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Omni is an LLC in the business of selling and maintaining x-ray facilities and radiology products, accessories, supplies and services in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Mr. Wilson was formerly employed by Omni prior to joining Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc. Blue Ridge is a North Carolina corporation and a national supplier of x-ray imaging equipment, service and supplies. Omni sued our clients over a dispute concerning a non-compete agreement signed by Mr. Wilson prior to leaving his employ with Omni. STSW was able to defend Blue Ridge and Mr. Wilson and reach a fair and reasonable settlement with the assistance of the Honorable Beth P. Gesner, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Published on:
Federal Court Dismisses ADA Complaint
Businesses are obliged to ensure that their facilities comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. But can anyone who believes he has found a violation somewhere sue to remedy it? The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently considered what types of plaintiffs may initiate such litigation, and excluded out-of-state persons that merely “test” faraway properties for ADA compliance.
Published on:
Apple v. DOJ/FBI – Is Justice Scalia Rolling Over in His Grave?
Long a consistent and ardent judicial champion of the constitutional protections afforded citizens under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, one cannot help but wonder how Justice Scalia would have viewed the showdown between Apple and the Department of Justice.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Spoliation – The oft mispronounced Rule of Evidence that Every Business Person Needs to Know
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion this week that serves as a reminder that a party’s simple failure to preserve evidence can sometimes snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The case (and link) is Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva Power.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Appellate Courts Clarify ADR Procedure
It’s no secret that the Court of Special Appeals has been increasingly overwhelmed with cases, nor is it a secret that the Court would like to see a lot of these cases resolved or otherwise cleaned up before having to spend time on them. Those concerns led to the creation of the Court’s ADR Division and accompanying procedures for steering the parties toward settlement or streamlining of the appellate process. After trying those out for a while, however, the Maryland Courts’ Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure identified some kinks, inefficiencies, and redundancies in the overall system, and proposed some related rules changes that were adopted by the Court of Appeals this month.
Continue reading →