Reed Smith State Tax Practice’s Post

Here is our latest on the FTC noncompete litigation pending in Pennsylvania and Florida. Thanks to my colleagues Justin Allen and Jack Robinson for putting it together. There is still time for the Ryan court and these cases to issue more decisive rulings - including a final order on August 30 in Ryan and likely immediate appeal to the 5th Circuit. In any event, most practioners and experts believe it is a question of “when” it is invalidated, not “if”. But assuming nothing changes before September 4, it seems that companies have at least 3 options: (1) don’t comply - opting to trust it will all work out in other litigation but risking FTC litigation before it does; (2) file an injunction to preserve status quo for their own business and plausibly continue its covenants program while litigation is pending; or (3) comply (but then will have to unring the bell and re-impliment when the Rule is ultimately invalidated). Each of these options has benefits, risks and costs that should be evaluated with your favorite restrictive covenant lawyer. :)

In a recent pivotal decision, Ingram v. Kulynych Estate, the Ontario Court of Appeal has provided essential clarity on the limitation periods applicable to trust claims involving estates, especially those with real property. This ruling reaffirms the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, emphasizing the importance of timely claims to facilitate the efficient administration of estates. This decision has significant implications for estate planning and litigation, stressing the necessity for prompt action in estate-related disputes. The court’s analysis underscores a commitment to protecting estates from prolonged fiscal vulnerability and ensuring justice through the expedient settlement of claims. 📖 Dive deeper into the nuances of this landmark decision and its impact on estate law by reading our full blog post. https://ow.ly/xU3X50TBSfG #HullonEstates #Trust #LegalInsights

Damages Cap In each of the jurisdictions Scotland, and Northern Ireland, there is no such statutory cap on damages. There are emerging common law provisions which can nonetheless, in certain circumstances, cap the damages to less than the Cost of Works. We have considerable experience in all jurisdictions and can therefore provide more detailed advice on a case by case basis. Learn more via the link 👇 #DamagesCap #Jurisdictions #Landlord #Tenant

https://lnkd.in/gqS22C7t Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act - one of Arizona's newest upcoming laws. Read my latest article explaining all the key points of this new law.

Louisiana has no laws on the books requiring transparency of these litigation funding agreements. Fortunately, Louisiana policymakers have an opportunity to address the problems this shadowy industry causes in its lawsuit system. The Legislature has passed SB 355, which would increase transparency and oversight of TPLF agreements in all civil cases before Louisiana courts. The sooner SB 355 is enacted into law, the sooner Louisiana can strengthen its defenses against potential threats to its civil justice system. https://lnkd.in/e24msVSY

Tara L. Piurko, Eric Sherkin, T Jesse White and Noah D. Gordon will be at the Canadian Property Tax Association, Inc. (CPTA) Valuation and Legal Symposium, May 13-14. Don't miss Eric and Noah on the panel analyzing recent Ontario Divisional Court decisions on a range of topics in #PropertyAssessment law: https://ow.ly/XJQl50RB0Sq #MTSpeaks #MTLitigation #CourtDecision

Council of State, 20 June 2024 ⚖️ Recenlty, the Council of State determined its competence to address cases pertaining to the "préjudice exceptionnel." The case at hand pertains to the chain "Le Pain Quotidien," which purportedly incurred significant financial losses due to the implementation of restrictions associated with the global pandemic of COVID-19. The plaintiffs asserted that these losses exceeded the typical business risks that a company in their sector would encounter. Following the rejection of their request for compensation by the Minister of the Interior, the operator elected to submit the case for review by the Council of State, invoking Article 11 of the Council of State Act. The pivotal point in this ruling was the auditor’s report, which corroborated the exception raised by the respondent and asserted that the Council of State is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The respondent advanced the argument that the principle of equality of citizens for public burdens, which is enshrined in Article 11 of the Council of State Act, constitutes a general legal principle that ordinary courts are also empowered to apply in order to award compensation. This gave rise to the question of whether the jurisdiction of the Council of State to adjudicate compensation claims should be reassessed. The matter was then referred to the President of the Council of State, who subsequently referred it to the General Assembly of the Administrative Litigation Division. The Council of State thus concluded that its jurisdiction under Article 11 is not merely residual, but rather contingent upon the extent to which ordinary courts consider themselves competent. This assessment was based on previous case law of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court. In 2015 and 2016, the latter considered that ordinary courts should be able to assess the right to compensation when a restriction on the right to property disregards the principle of equality of citizens for public burdens under Article 144 of the Constitution. This principle was reiterated in a recent ruling of November 2023, but this time without reference to property rights. The question of whether the jurisdiction of civil courts related to the general legal principle is limited to property rights violations was left open by the Council of State. The Council of State found it sufficient for this case to determine that the losses suffered by "Le Pain Quotidien" could be seen as a violation of property rights. Consequently, as the claim was based on the principle of equality of citizens before public burdens, the Council of State ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on this claim. This judgment re-evaluated and limits the power of the State Council to hear appeals for compensation. It remains to be seen whether this limitation applies only to claims relating to property rights or completely excludes this jurisdiction, a point that will have to be settled by future case law.  

CBM Lawyers Wills and Estate Planning Team is dedicated to helping you navigate the complexities of estate law. We provide clear, practical advice to update your will, manage estate taxes, and ensure your assets are distributed according to your wishes. Contact us today! https://lnkd.in/gpEAKxuT #CBMLawyers #EstatePlanning #YourCommunityLawFirm #LangleyBC #Wills #LegalAdvice

Court Reaffirms Jurisdiction and Finds Good Cause to Vacate Charging Orders Hilda Wong appeared for the applicant (“Tang”) in successfully vacating the registration of charging orders over a property (“Property”) in Re Tang Hoi Chun [2024] HKDC 143. The Property was previously owned by two individuals, one of whom was a Mr Yau Tik Sunny (“Sunny”). American Express Bank Limited (“AE”) had previously obtained the charging orders against Sunny’s half share of the Property in 2002, shortly after the Property was sold to Tang. The charging orders were not re-registered. Tang entered into an agreement to sell the Property in 2023, pursuant to which he had to vacate the charging orders before completion. When Tang’s solicitors wrote to AE’s solicitors requesting that they enter into a consent summons to vacate the charging orders and received no substantive reply, Tang applied by ex parte originating summons (“OS”) to vacate the charging orders. Tang's solicitors subsequently notified AE and Sunny of the hearing of the OS. In response, AE acknowledged service and stated that AE had no objection to, or any submissions in respect of, Tang’s application and asked for their attendance to be excused. Sunny also had neither any objection to nor submissions regarding Tang’s application. The Court found that the charging orders could and should be discharged for the following reasons: (1)  the Court has inherent jurisdiction to vacate registrations in the Land Registry upon “good cause” being shown; (2)  pursuant to the effect of section 17 of the Land Registration Ordinance, as the principles relevant to vacating prohibitory orders also apply to vacating charging orders; and (3)  “good cause” to vacate was shown by, inter alia, the charging orders ceasing to have effect and encumber the Property since they had not been re-registered, there being no conceivable issue or interest relating to re-registration that could arise given AE and Sunny’s positions, and any enforcement or execution proceedings on the charging orders are time-barred. In light of the above, the Court made no order as to costs of the proceedings. Link to judgment: https://lnkd.in/gcXpUXkb Link to Hilda’s profile: https://lnkd.in/df3rtvpm #bernacchichambers #landlaw  

In this edition of B&D's 2024 Litigation Look Ahead series, our litigation team examines two Fifth Amendment takings cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that could affect the government’s ability to regulate land use legislatively and property owners’ right to bring takings claims against states. Authors: Susan Smith, Nicole Bayne #TheEnvironmentalLawFirm #SCOTUS