jump to navigation

Dane Street Expands to Better Serve Their Customers 02/03/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, M&A.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Dane Street Client Logo (M0739750)MBBP client Dane Street recently announced the acquisition of National Examinations Network (NEN) a Huntington, NY based company.  The new partnership will further strengthen Dane Street’s ability to better serve their clients within that region. Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton serves as counsel to Dane Street, and advised it in connection with the structuring, negotiation and documentation of this transaction.  Shannon Zollo was the lead corporate attorney on MBBP’s team.

More details can be read here.

USPTO Reduces Certain Trademark Filing Fees 01/29/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

By: Tom Dunn

Trademark Attorney Thomas DunnOn January 17, 2015, the USPTO reduced certain trademark filing fees and introduced a new electronic application filing option.

The fee for both the TEAS Plus application and the TEAS Regular application are reduced by $50. The TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) application is a new filing option, and one may still submit a paper filing, as well:

Application for registration, per international class
(paper filing)
$375
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS application)
$325
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS RF application)
$275
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS Plus application)
$225

Each of the three TEAS options comes with a set of requirements; the lower the fee, the higher the number of requirements. (TEAS is an acronym for Trademark Electronic Application System.)

For example, to take advantage of the $225 fee per class of goods/services in the TEAS Plus application, one must meet the following requirements: include an e-mail address and authorization for the USPTO to send application-related e-mail correspondence; agree to file related submissions, such as responses to Office actions, electronically via TEAS; select an identification of goods/services from the USPTO Trademark ID Manual; pay all fees at the time of filing; and provide certain statements regarding the mark in the application as-filed, if applicable (e.g., translation statement, claim of ownership, color claim and description).

Only a subset of the foregoing requirements pertains to the TEAS RF application, while none pertain to the TEAS application.

If one files a TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application but does not satisfy the relevant requirements the applicant will be required to submit an additional processing fee of $50 per class of goods or services, and the application will then be handled as a TEAS application.

The fee to electronically renew a trademark registration has been reduced by $100, to $300 per class of goods/services, as well.

Please see the Reduced Fee FAQs page for more information about the new filing fees and the Trademark Fee Information page for information on payment options and a listing of other trademark fees.

To discuss trademark filing options and related matters, please contact Tom Dunn by email at tdunn@mbbp.com or by phone at (781) 697-2248.

Action Item for Smaller Reporting Companies – Update Review of Internal Controls to COSO 2013 01/29/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Legal Developments, New Resources, Public Companies.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Corporate Attorney Daniele Ouellette LevyBy: Daniele Ouellette Levy 

In response to the requirements of SOX 404, a majority of public companies adopted the 1992 framework prepare by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to assess the design and effectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting.  Effective as of December 14, 2014, COSO no longer makes the 1992 framework available and encourages public companies to transition to its revised framework – COSO 2013.

Public companies are required, on an annual basis, to evaluate the effectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting and to disclose in their 10-K the results of such evaluation and the framework used to make such evaluation.  Public companies must also disclose any material changes to internal controls – for example changes resulting from a transition to COSO 2013.

Companies who delay the transition to COSO 2013 face the risk of increased scrutiny by the SEC.  In a recent public meeting, the SEC staff stated “the longer issuers continue to use the 1992 framework, the more likely they are to receive questions from the staff about whether the issuer’s use of the 1992 framework satisfies the SEC’s requirement to use a suitable, recognized framework”. To avoid questions form the staff, smaller reporting companies will want to take steps to transition to COSO 2013.

 

For more information regarding this topic, please feel free to contact Daniele Ouellette Levy.

In Honor of Data Privacy Day, MBBP’s Data Privacy “Bell Ringers” 01/28/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in New Resources, Privacy and Data Security.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

dpd2015Happy Data Privacy Day!

Information and data are everywhere. Indeed, as of 2010, it was noted that “every two days, we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003.” And as information and data have proliferated, so too have the laws applicable to privacy and data security. Understanding — and complying with — this rapidly changing landscape of laws is critical for any business, because the penalties for violation can be significant and may include substantial fines plus destruction of unlawfully obtained data.

So, in honor of this week’s Data Privacy Day, the privacy team at MBBP would like to share with you some of the major privacy “bell ringers” — the contexts that should “ring a bell” indicating the presence of privacy-related legal issues and prompt you to consult with privacy counsel.

For instance, handling any of the following classes of information should ring a bellbell

  • Medical or Health
  • Credit/Debit Card or Bank/Financial Account
  • Social Security Numbers
  • “Personal Information” within the meaning of the Massachusetts Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth, 201 C.M.R. § 17.00 et seq. (Massachusetts resident’s first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with anyone or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account).

Check out our other “bell ringers“.

To discuss your specific privacy and data security legal services needs, please contact Faith Kasparian, Michael Cavaretta, or Howard Zaharoff.

Spectro Scientific Acquires On-Site Analysis, Inc. 01/28/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Deal News.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Spectro Scientific

On November 28, 2014, MBBP client Spectro Scientific, a leading developer and manufacturer of analytical tools and software acquired On-Site Analysis, Inc., (OSA).  Spectro Scientific is one of the largest worldwide suppliers of oil, fuel and processed water analysis instruments to industry and the military.  OSA specializes in manufacturing analytical equipment primarily for on-premise coolant, oil and lubrication testing.  The acquisition will enable customers to enjoy continually higher levels of analytical speed, convenience and accuracy.

Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton serves as counsel to Spectro Scientific, and advised it in connection with the structuring, negotiation and documentation of this transaction.  Joe Marrow was the lead corporate attorney on MBBP’s team.

For more information read the full article.

Court Outlines Requirements for Insider Trading Case 01/23/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Legal Developments, New Resources, Public Companies.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Corporate Attorney Mark TaralloBy: Mark Tarallo

In a decision dated December 10, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified its position on insider trading cases where the discloser of the information committed no crime.  In US v. Newman, the Court addressed a situation where the defendants, who were several “degrees” removed from the discloser of the information, received the information without any knowledge as to the criminal liability of the discloser.  The Court ruled that since the defendants did not know that the discloser committed a crime, then the defendants cannot be guilty of a criminal act, stating in part “we find no support for the Government’s contention that knowledge of a breach of the duty of confidentiality without knowledge of the personal benefit is sufficient to impose criminal liability.”  The Court then went on to lay out a clear statement of the requirements for an insider trading case:

In sum, we hold that to sustain an insider trading conviction against a tippee, the Government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the corporate insider was entrusted with a fiduciary duty; (2) the corporate insider breached his fiduciary duty by (a) disclosing confidential information to a tippee (b) in exchange for a personal benefit; (3) the tippee knew of the tipper’s breach, that is, he knew the information was confidential and divulged for personal benefit; and (4) the tippee still used that information to trade in a security or tip another individual for personal benefit.

The Court reversed the lower court’s guilty finding, and ordered a finding of not guilty.  In addition to clearly setting out the standards for an insider trading case, the case serves as a reminder to all public companies that they should incorporate robust protections to ensure against even the inadvertent disclosure of confidential, non-public information.

 

For more information regarding this topic, please feel free to contact Mark Tarallo.

Tax Alert – February 2, 2015 Deadline for Information Reporting with Respect to Exercised Incentive Stock Options 01/23/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Taxation.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Action May Be Required

Tax Attorney Robert Finkel
Corporations, both publicly and privately held, that transferred stock in 2014 pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options (ISOs) are required to report each transfer to both the IRS and the exercising person.

Form 3921 (Exercise of an Incentive Stock option Under Section 422(b)) is used for both reporting purposes. Form 3921 requires the corporation to furnish certain information regarding the exercise, including the fair market value of the shares of stock on the date the ISO was exercised.

This year, corporations must furnish Forms 3921 to all exercising persons on or before February 2, 2015 and to the IRS on or before March 2, 2015 (March 31, 2015, if forms are filed electronically). Each exercise by an employee requires a new Form 3921, which may require corporations to fill out and furnish multiple Tax Attorney Diana EspanolaForms 3921 for some employees.

In general, for each Form 3921, failure to furnish all statements in a timely manner, failure to include all required information, inclusion of incorrect information, or the filing of unofficial Forms 3921 that cannot be scanned by the IRS will result in the imposition of penalties on the corporation.

Transfers of stock under an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) are also subject to similar reporting requirements (using Form 3922) and deadlines.

Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton would be pleased to assist you in understanding and complying with these ISO and ESPP reporting obligations.

Please contact Robert M. Finkel, or Diana C. Española, to learn more.

This Tax Alert provides general information only. It is not intended to provide advice with respect to any specific set of facts, nor is it intended to advise on all developments in the law.

MBBP Welcomes Attorneys Brian Assessor and Callie Pioli 01/21/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, MBBP news.
add a comment

Brian J Assessor Web Hi Res Crop (M0716134)MBBP is pleased to announce that Callie Pioli and Brian Assessor have joined the firm as associates.

Brian is a Registered Patent Attorney, specializing in patent prosecution, patent searching, and related counseling. His practice focuses on counseling clients in developing and implementing strategies to protect their intellectual property, particularly in the areas relating to computer and electrical engineering. Prior to joining MBBP, Brian practiced patent law as an associate with a patent boutique firm specializing in patent prosecution. He primarily worked closely with clients with respect to the preparation and prosecution of utility patents.

Callie L Pioli Web Hi Res Crop (M0702163)Callie concentrates her practice in the area of intellectual property. Her focus is primarily on trademark law, including the selection, screening, prosecution, maintenance, and enforcement of trademarks both domestically and internationally. Callie’s interest in intellectual property began in 2011 when she worked as a Trademark Administrative Assistant at Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton. Prior to rejoining MBBP, she was a Law Clerk at Keegan & Werlin LLP, where she worked on a variety of corporate, transactional and nonprofit business matters.

Please feel free to contact Brian and Callie directly.

 

Española and Calla Have Been Elevated Within the Firm 01/21/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, MBBP news.
add a comment

Tax Attorney Diana EspanolaWe are pleased to announce that Diana Española and Jonathan Calla have been elevated within the firm. Diana has been elevated to Member, and Jonathan to Senior Attorney.

Diana joined the Firm in 2005 and was promoted to Senior Attorney in 2012. She concentrates her practice in the areas of tax and business law. She advises individuals, businesses and non-profit organizations on a range of tax planning issues including tax controversy and tax litigation.

Corporate Attorney Jonathan CallaJonathan, who joined the Firm in 2010, concentrates his practice in the areas of general corporate and securities law. He represents clients in connection with company formations, private equity transactions, financings and mergers and acquisitions.

Congratulations Diana and Jonathan!

Please feel free to contact Diana and Jonathan directly.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Seeks Carl Barnes Opinion in Matter of Control of Attorney-Client Privilege 01/21/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Corporate, Legal Developments, M&A, MBBP news, Public Companies.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Corporate Attorney Carl Barnes

MBBP Partner Carl Barnes was recently quoted in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article written by Patrick Murphy, entitled “Survivor of Merger Controls Attorney-Client Privilege.” The article discusses Novack v. Raytheon, a recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision holding that, under Delaware law and the terms of a merger agreement, control of the attorney-client privilege relating to pre-merger communications between BBN Technologies Holding Corp. and its counsel passed to the acquirer, Raytheon Company. The privilege could not, therefore, be asserted after the merger by the representative of BBN’s former shareholders. The Superior Court, applying Delaware law, simply followed the Delaware Chancery Court’s 2013 decision in Great Hill Equity IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP. As an M&A attorney for more than 30 years, Carl considered whether the same result would be reached under the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act. Carl stated:

Under Delaware law, the effect of a merger is the conveyance of all property, rights, privilege, powers and franchises to the surviving corporation.  On the other hand, G.L.c. 156D 11.07(a)(3) is more narrowly drawn, providing merely that the surviving entity is vested in all property owned and every contract right possessed by the entity that is merged into the survivor. There is probably more room for interpretation in Massachusetts than there is in Delaware, Barnes said.  But he said there is still a strong argument to be made under Massachusetts law that the control of the attorney-client privilege passed to the surviving corporation in a merger.It defies logic that the successor will get the property and contract rights, and nothing else.

 

For further analysis and practical recommendations for M&A lawyers in Massachusetts, see Carl’s own article, “Massachusetts Court (Sort of) Adopts Delaware’s Great Hill Holding Regarding the Attorney-Client Privilege in Mergers” or please feel free to contact Carl.

Our Greatest Hits of 2014! 01/21/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Employment, Immigration, Intellectual Property, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, M&A, MBBP news, Privacy and Data Security, Public Companies, Taxation.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

From the Top Ten Issues in M&A Transactions to the Life Cycle of an IRS Audit we’re recapping the most popular articles and blogs in 2014!

Other popular articles include:

Most popular posts from our 4 blogs:

These articles, along with our newsletters and other blogs can found here.

SEC Sends Individuals a Strong Reminder About Complying with FCPA. 01/15/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Legal Developments, New Resources, Public Companies.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Corporate Attorney Mark TaralloBy: Mark Tarallo 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is charged with enforcing the accounting provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act prohibits any officer, director, employee, or agent acting on behalf of a publicly traded issuer from giving anything of value to a foreign official in order to secure business from that official’s government.  Typically, enforcement actions result in penalties against the issuer.  However, for the first time since 2012, in November 2014 the SEC brought charges against individuals for violating the FCPA resulting in a cease and desist order and monetary penalties against the individuals.  The individuals provided certain officials of the Saudi Arabian government with expensive gifts and extensive travel (not in any way necessary to, or in connection with, the proposed business).  The individuals then falsified records in an effort to cover up their actions.  The SEC found that the individuals were responsible for the violations, and that the issuer had both a strong compliance policy and a training program in place for individuals dealing with foreign governments.  While the SEC indicated that the investigation is continuing, no charges have been brought against the issuer. The SEC order can be found here .

Publicly traded companies doing business (or attempting to business) overseas should make sure that they are familiar with the provisions of the FCPA and have a robust training and compliance program in place in order to make sure that all employees who may be dealing with foreign officials are well aware of their compliance and reporting obligations.

 

For more information on this topic, please feel free to contact Mark Tarallo.

Employment Law Alert: Massachusetts Maternity Leave Becomes Parental Leave in April 01/14/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Employment.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

2015-01-05_8-57-41

Before leaving office, Governor Patrick signed into law a bill that will affect Massachusetts Maternity Leave.  Starting April 7, 2015 the Maternity Leave Law will now be the Parental Leave Law and will allow for both parents to take advantage of leave benefits. To see what provisions have been added head over to our Employment Law blog.

Delaware Court Strikes Down Indemnity, Release Provisions in Merger Agreement 01/09/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in M&A.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

By Mark TaralloCorporate Attorney Mark Tarallo

A recent opinion issued by the Delaware Chancery Court may have a significant impact on the way acquisition transactions are structured.  The opinion considers a merger between a company called Audax Health Solutions (Target) and UnitedHealth/Optum (Buyer).  Cigna Insurance was a large shareholder of Target.  The merger between Target and Buyer was approved by written consent of 66.9% of the Target shareholders, and the certificates of Merger were filed, consummating the merger.  Cigna did not vote in favor of the merger.  The written consents incorporated a “Support Agreement,” pursuant to which the shareholders of Target granted a release and agreed to certain indemnity obligations.  Some of the indemnity obligations included an indefinite indemnity period with respect to some of the fundamental representations in the merger agreement between Buyer and Target.

After the consummation of the merger, Cigna requested in writing that it be paid its merger consideration.  Buyer refused, indicating that Cigna would be paid only upon executing and submitting the Written Consent/Support Agreement to Buyer.  Cigna refused to sign the Written Consent/Support Agreement and sued Buyer.  After hearing arguments from both Cigna and Buyer, the court issued its decision.  The two most significant components of the court’s ruling are as follows:

  1. Once the merger has been consummated, shareholders are entitled to their merger consideration, without the requirement of having to execute and deliver any sort of consent, waiver, Support Agreement, etc.  The court specifically ruled that the release is ineffective (so Cigna has the right to receive the merger consideration it is owed AND sue for some sort of breach that resulted in a reduced price) because no additional consideration is being offered for it.  The court ruled that with respect to a shareholder who has not voted in favor of the merger, once the merger is consummated all other obligations are extinguished and the shareholder is entitled to be paid the merger consideration without any further action by such shareholder.
  2. Because some of the indemnification obligations are indefinite as to time and amount, the court struck them down, taking the position that they violate Section 251 of the DGCL, since the shareholders cannot know with any degree of certainty how much of the merger consideration they will ultimately retain.

The name of the case is Cigna Insurance v. Audax Health Solutions, Inc., and the full text can be found here .

SEC Proposes Changes to Exchange Act Registration Thresholds 01/08/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Corporate Attorney Mark TaralloBy: Mark Tarallo

On December 17, 2014, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC) issued proposed amendments to the existing rules adopted under Section 12 (g) of the Exchange Act to reflect the new, higher thresholds for registration, termination of registration and suspension of reporting that were adopted as part of the JOBS Act.    In addition, the proposed amendments would revise the definition of “held of record” in Exchange Act Rule 12g5-1, in accordance with the JOBS Act, to exclude certain securities held by persons who received them pursuant to employee compensation plans and establish a non-exclusive safe harbor for determining whether securities are “held of record” for purposes of registration under Exchange Act Section 12(g).

Whether or not an issuer has “gone public,” any issuer that meets certain tests with respect to total assets and number of shareholders is required to file a registration statement and file regular periodic reports (such as forms 10-K and 10-Q).  The proposed amendments will adopt the standards set forth in the JOBS Act-an issuer must register if, as of the last day of its last fiscal year, it (i) had greater than $10 million in assets and (ii) had greater than 2,000 holders of record (or 500 persons who are not accredited investors) of any class of its securities.  In addition, the proposed amendments will revise the rules to make them consistent with the standards for termination of registration and suspension of reporting set forth in the JOBS Act.

The proposed amendments will also address the concept of securities “held of record.” In an effort to meet the goals of the JOBS Act of increasing the ability to raise capital while lessening the administrative burden on issuers, when determining whether or not an issuer must register, the issuer may exclude from the calculation of securities “held of record” any securities that are held by persons who received them pursuant to an “employee compensation plan” in a transaction exempted from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  This amendment may have a significant beneficial impact on technology companies and other issuers that grant restricted stock to all employees as a matter of course.

The SEC Release containing the full text of the proposed amendments can be found here .  The SEC is soliciting comments on the proposed amendments, and the comment period is open until March 2, 2015.

Any questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Mark Tarallo.

Employment Law Alert: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Integrity Staffing v. Busk 01/08/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Employment, Legal Developments, MBBP news, New Resources.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

2015-01-05_8-57-41The question of when an employee’s compensable work for the day begins and ends is one which can be more complicated than it seems at first glance. Does an employee who checks email before driving to work have to be compensated for that time? Will an employer have to pay an employee for the time it takes to park in a remote lot and take a shuttle bus to work? The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on this subject in its recent decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13-433 (December 9, 2014). Did the court decide  employees have to be paid for the time they spent waiting to undergo and then undergoing security screenings before leaving the workplace each day?

Please see this month’s Employment Law Alert for further details.

Feel free to contact any member of our Employment Law Group with any questions.

FDA Recommends Approval of Sandoz’s Biosimilar Drug, a First 01/07/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Life Sciences, Medical Devices.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

By: David FazzolarePatent Attorney David Fazzolare

On January 5, 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) announced its recommendation that the FDA approve Sandoz Inc.’s application to market Zarxio® (EP2006), a biosimilar version of Amgen, Inc.’s Neupogen® drug.  The Committee explained its recommendation in a 62-page, publicly-issued briefing document.  Zarxio® is the first drug reviewed by the Committee under new biosimilars provisions enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The Committee’s recommendation is therefore a key step forward not only for Zarxio®, but also for implementation of the new biosimilars provisions (known as the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or “BPCIA”).

Sandoz is not yet seeking interchangeability status for Zarxio®, a designation which allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars in place of prescribed reference biologics—i.e., Zarxio® in place of Neupogen®.  Sandoz told the Committee it plans to file for interchangeability only after Zarxio® is fully approved as a biosimilar.

The Committee’s recommendation, while a milestone for the drug and the FDA, does not automatically clear the way for approval of Zarxio®.  The Committee noted that the lack of comparative data available left some “residual uncertainty about whether ADA [anti-drug antibodies] incidence is similar in subjects administered [Zarxio®] and … Neupogen®.”  On January 7, 2015, the FDA will take testimony from experts, who may weigh in on this issue, and provide their own recommendations as to whether the FDA should approve Zarxio® as a Neupogen® biosimilar.  The FDA will then undertake a full review of Zarxio®.  In the background is Amgen’s pending federal lawsuit against Sandoz, brought on October 24, 2014, which alleges Sandoz’s conduct violated the procedures required by the BPCIA.  Amgen also submitted a citizen’s petition to the FDA on October 29, 2014, asking that the FDA require biosimilar applicants to fully comply with all BPCIA procedures.  How the Committee’s recommendation will affect these filings remains unclear.

For more information, please contact David Fazzolare.

M&A Today: First Issue of 2015 01/06/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in M&A.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

MA Today BannerWe’re starting 2015 with plenty of M&A news! Articles include:

To learn more on all these topics the full newsletter  can be found on our M&A Blog.

‘Employment’ New Year Resolutions 01/05/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Employment, Legal Developments.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

2015-01-05_8-08-39With the new year starting up, we have put together a handful of tips to ensure your employment practices are in order.  It is time to update handbooks and policies, make sure reviews are on schedule for the year and put a “WISP” (Written Information Security Plan) into place if you haven’t already.  Ring the year in right, ensure you and your employees are working in a happier, healthier company!

To view our Top Ten Tips for 2015.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of our Employment Law Group.

Last Minute Action by Congress Proposes to Extend Business-Favorable Tax Provisions through 2014 12/19/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Legal Developments, Taxation.
add a comment

By: Robert M. Finkel and Diana C. Española

Tax Attorney Robert FinkelThis week, Congress passed a tax package reinstating more than fifty tax breaks, or “extenders”, for certain business activities occurring in 2014. The extenders cover a range of entities and business practices.

President Obama is expected to sign the Tax Increase and Prevention Act of 2014 (H.R. 5771) into law (“TIPA”).

Action item: Businesses and individuals should review all reinstated extenders, but may find those highlighted here particularlyTax Attorney Diana Espanola relevant. Tax benefits may be available with year-end action.

Businesses and individuals that have already filed tax returns including 2014 should consider filing an amendment to take advantage of applicable extenders.

Read our full Tax Alert.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers

%d bloggers like this: