Litigation Alert. Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Gift Clause Limits on Public Payments to Private Parties. Executive Summary
|
|
- Russell Tyler
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY TALLAHASSEE TAMPA TYSONS CORNER WASHINGTON, D.C. WHITE PLAINS Strategic Alliances with Independent Law Firms** MILAN ROME TOKYO ZURICH Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Gift Clause Limits on Public Payments to Private Parties Executive Summary On January 25, 2010, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision in Turken v. Gordon, et al, Ariz. S. Ct. No. CV PR, addressing the limits imposed by the Arizona Constitution s Gift Clause on public payments to private parties. In the context of a development agreement providing for a tax reimbursement payment to a private developer, the Court affirmed and clarified the parameters of the socalled Wistuber test, under which a governmental payment to a private party complies with the Gift Clause only if the payment both (1) has a public purpose and (2) is not grossly disproportionate to what is received in return. With regard to the first prong of the test, the Court reaffirmed a broad view of what constitutes a public purpose, one that evolves to meet the conditions of the time. The Court further reaffirmed the rule that the courts may not disturb elected officials determination that a specific purpose constitutes a public purpose absent proof that the elected body s discretion has been unquestionably abused. In Turken, the Phoenix City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing an agreement the stated purposes of which were the purchase of certain parking space use rights and the opportunity to realize certain retail development with attendant planning, tax and economic development benefits. The Court determined that the Council had not abused its discretion and, accordingly, held that the agreement satisfied the public purpose prong of the test. With regard to the second prong of the test, the Court rejected the argument that indirect benefits (e.g., projected increases in tax revenue) can automatically be counted as the consideration for a public payment. Rather, the Court held that only "the objective fair market value of what the private party has promised to provide in return for the public entity's payment" can be taken into account. Since the developer in Turken did not contractually commit to provide anything other than the parking space use rights, the value of those rights was all that could be counted as consideration for the City payment. The Court also questioned whether the value of the use rights could be anywhere near the amount of the City payment potentially required under the agreement, concluding that the agreement probably violates the Gift Clause. This is curious, as the City payment is entirely contingent and could be zero or any amount up to $97.4 million depending on whether and to what extent the developer manages to satisfy the conditions to payment, unless the Court also intended to say that, for this purpose, the highest possible public payment must be assumed. There is no explicit guidance on this point and, ultimately, the Court determined not to apply its new consideration test in Turken, reasoning that prior decisions may have led to confusion concerning what can be counted as consideration, and limited application of its decision to future transactions.
2 In terms of Turken s practical implications, the decision confirms, at minimum, that there is no Gift Clause concern in most instances where a public payment is made to a private party for public infrastructure. Beyond that, and using the circumstances presented in Turken as an example, the Court s reasoning suggests that, if the Turken developer had contractually committed to provide indirect benefits (for example, guaranteeing payment of projected new tax revenue), or to provide something that would result in the City s realization of indirect benefits (for example, promising to build the retail space), the value of such indirect benefits could have been taken into account for purposes of determining whether the agreement violated the second prong of the Gift Clause test. Discussion The Gift Clause provides that: Neither the State, nor any county, city, town, municipality or other subdivision of the State shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the State by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state. Arizona Constitution, Art. 9 7 (emphasis added). The Gift Clause challenge in Turken was based on a development agreement between the City of Phoenix and the developer of a large mixed-use project (CityNorth) wherein the City has agreed to pay the developer up to $97.4 million on account of: (a) the developer's grant to the City, for a 45-year period, of a non-exclusive public use right to 2980 parking spaces and the exclusive public use of 200 "park and ride" spaces in a parking structure to be constructed by the developer; (b) anticipated tax and economic development benefits from CityNorth based on a fiscal and economic impact analysis prepared by a third-party consultant; and (c) as required by state statute, independently verified findings that tax revenue generated by CityNorth will exceed the payment to the developer and that, without the payment, the developer would not have located CityNorth in the City in the same time, place or manner. The City's obligation to make the payment is expressly conditioned upon the developer's construction of certain minimum retail improvements within a specified period of time and the payment is capped at 50% of the applicable tax revenues generated from the project during a specified period of time (11 years and 3 months). Consequently, there is no possibility that the public payment will be made unless the additional retail space is provided or that the amount of the payment can exceed the amount of new revenue reserved to the City. The superior court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Gift Clause challenge, relying on the Wistuber test but counting the anticipated increase in tax revenues as part of the relevant consideration, as well as the plaintiffs allegation that the agreement violated the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Ariz. Const. art. 2, 13, and the Special Laws Clause, Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, 19. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting prior decisions to graft a third requirement onto the Wistuber test: under the realities of the transaction, a challenged governmental expenditure must not unduly promot[e] private interests. Turken, 220 Ariz. at 467, 207 P.3d at 720. The court of appeals identified six questions as pertinent to that inquiry and
3 concluded that the agreement violated the Gift Clause. The City and private developer petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court which granted review. In its decision, the Court affirmed and purported to clarify the parameters of the so-called Wistuber test, which holds that a governmental payment to a private party does not violate the Gift Clause if it (1) has a public purpose, and (2) is not "grossly disproportionate" to what is received in return. Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District, 141 Ariz. 346, 687 P.2d 354 (1984). Addressing the first prong of the test, the Court stated [i]n taking a broad view of permissible public purposes, we have repeatedly emphasized that the primary determination of whether a specific purpose constitutes a public purpose is assigned to the political branches of government, which are directly accountable to the public and that [w]e find a public purpose absent only those rare cases in which the governmental body's discretion has been 'unquestionably abused'". [ 27-28] Considering the facts presented by Turken, the Court determined that, as there is no question that the City could have erected a parking structure of its own without violating the Gift Clause, [i]t follows that the City may instead pay for spaces for public use. [ 23] The Court also affirmed that the public purpose prong of the Gift Clause test can be met by indirect public purposes such as those cited by the City (providing the financial support necessary for the developer to complete the planned retail development so as to realized the expected increase in the City s tax base, denser development, decreased pollution and increased employment opportunities). Under this rationale, the Court found that the Turken agreement thus satisfies this prong of the Wistuber test. [ 29] Addressing the second prong of the test, the Court affirmed that the proper inquiry is whether a government payment is grossly disproportionate to what is received in return from the private party. The Court also clarified that, in order for the private party's performance to be counted as consideration for this purpose, it must be "bargained for as part of the contracting party's promised performance" and only "the objective fair market value of what the private party has promised to provide in return for the public entity's payment" can be taken into account. [ 33] The Court also suggested that, where a public payment is made without competitive proposals, there may be heightened scrutiny of the value of the consideration. [ 32] Notably, the Court rejected the argument that indirect benefits can automatically be counted as consideration, distinguishing Turken from prior decisions where intangible or indirect benefits were provided in return for a public payment on the basis that, in those cases, the intangible or indirect benefit was bargained for and promised in return for the public payment, e.g., Wistuber (consideration for a public payment was certain duties performed by a teachers union representative in lieu of teaching); and Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents, 149 Ariz. 319, 718 P. 2d 478 (1986) (consideration for the conveyance of a public hospital to a nonprofit corporation was the perpetuation of an educational relationship). We note that this requirement narrows the scope of permissible consideration more than was necessary under these facts in that, having agreed that the indirect benefits constituted a valid public purpose, the Court could have determined that, since the public payment was structured so that no monies would be paid to the developer unless and until the City received the benefit of its bargain, the proportionality requirement was met. The Court did not address this point in the decision nor was it briefed so it is not known whether this interpretation was considered by the Court. Rather, since the developer in Turken did not contractually commit to provide anything other than the parking spaces, the Court s new consideration test meant that only the value of the parking space use rights could be counted for purposes of determining whether the City payment is "grossly disproportionate" to what it got in return.
4 In that context, the Court also said it was difficult to believe that the value of the parking space use rights was anywhere near the payment potentially required under the Agreement and concluded that the Agreement therefore quite likely violates the Gift Clause. [ 43] This is curious since the amount of the City payment will not be established until a future date; at this point, it could be zero, if the developer fails to timely construct the retail space, and otherwise any amount up to $97.4 million depending on the developer s success in generating activity that will lead to the City s receipt of the desired tax revenue. The Court did not provide explicit guidance on this point including whether it intended to say that, for this purpose, the highest possible public payment must be assumed. Instead of remanding the matter to the superior court to determine the value of the parking space use rights and apply the new consideration test, the Court limited its clarification of the consideration test to transactions occurring after the date of this opinion, stating that the consideration prong of the Wistuber test has been widely misunderstood and that our cases have never squarely addressed that issue. [ 45, 49] Consistent with this reasoning, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and affirmed the superior court s dismissal of Turken s Gift Clause claim. The Court also remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiffs other claims, that the agreement violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, Ariz. Const. art. 2, 13, and the Special Laws Clause, Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, 19. This GT Alert was prepared by Rebecca Lynne Burnham, Rob Mandel and John Overdorff. Questions about this information can be directed to: Rebecca Lynne Burnham (burnhamr@gtlaw.com) Rob Mandel (mandelr@gtlaw.com) John Overdorff (overdorffj@gtlaw.com) Or your Greenberg Traurig attorney
5 Albany Amsterdam Atlanta Austin Boston Chicago Dallas Delaware Denver Fort Lauderdale Houston Las Vegas Los Angeles London* +44 (0) Miami New Jersey New York Orange County Orlando Palm Beach County North Palm Beach County South Philadelphia Phoenix Sacramento Shanghai Silicon Valley Tallahassee Tampa Tysons Corner Washington, D.C White Plains This Greenberg Traurig Alert is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenberg Traurig contact if you have questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer s legal qualifications and experience. Greenberg Traurig is a service mark and trade name of Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Greenberg Traurig, P.A Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. *Operates as Greenberg Traurig Maher LLP. **Greenberg Traurig is not responsible for any legal or other services rendered by attorneys employed by the Strategic Alliance firms.
Global Benefits & Compensation
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA
More informationALERT. FDA Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Mobile Medical Applications. Health & FDA Business November 2013
ALERT Health & FDA Business November 2013 FDA Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Mobile Medical Applications On September 25, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA ) released final guidance
More informationCorporate & Securities. Creditor Remedies against Members of LLCs
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA
More informationPossible Refund Claims for California LLC Fees Based on Unconstitutionality
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SILICON
More informationALERT. New Proposed 752 Regulations to Alter Partnership- Level Debt Allocations. Tax March 2014
ALERT Tax March 2014 New Proposed 752 Regulations to Alter Partnership- Level Debt Allocations On January 29, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department issued a notice of proposed rule-making,
More informationAdditional Requirements for Lenders and Mortgage Servicers
ALERT Financial Services Litigation July 2013 Florida s New Fast Track Foreclosure Law Creates Additional Requirements for Lenders and Mortgage Servicers According to the Florida House of Representatives,
More informationWealth Management. Distributions by Private Foundations and Donor Advised Funds: Procedures for Determining Recipient s Public Charity Status
Wealth Management December 2007 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA
More informationAlert. Litigation May 2014
Alert Litigation May 2014 Statute of Limitations Update in Florida Foreclosure Actions: Fifth District Court of Appeals Holds that Each Default Creates a New Case of Action I. The Opinion On April 25,
More informationTelecommunications / Real Estate
Telecommunications / Real Estate December 2007 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY
More informationNew PCAOB Rules Limit the Tax Services Accounting Firms May Provide to Public Company Audit Clients
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SILICON
More informationRecently Released IRS Guidance Offers Opportunity to Accelerate Losses Inherent in Accounts Receivable
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SILICON
More informationFinancial Institutions
Financial Institutions April 2008 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO
More informationALERT: Tax. Banks and Other Lienholders Need to Defend Against IRS Levy Even if They Have a Superior Lien or a Right of Setoff
ALERT: Tax September 2006 the Internal Revenue Service reaffirmed that there is no defense to a federal tax levy served on a party with an interest in the property superior to the federal tax lien, or
More informationTrusts & Estates. Many Estate Planning Opportunities May End in 2012 The Time to Act is Now
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY+ MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY
More informationWaivers of Certain Fraud and Abuse Laws Permitted in CJR Model
Health & FDA Business Alert Waivers of Certain Fraud and Abuse Laws Permitted in CJR Model November 2015 On Nov. 16, 2015, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Final Rule implementing
More informationI. TAX EXEMPT BOND PROVISIONS
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX
More informationHealth & FDA Business
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA
More informationWealth Management. Supreme Court and IRS Take on Deductibility of Trust Investment Management Fees
Wealth Management September 2007 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION by TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL September 6, 2006 No. I06-003 (R06-024) Re: Amending Contracts of Certain School Employees to
More informationThe Pension Protection Act of 2006 New EOLI Legislation Potentially Taxes Typical Insurance Arrangements
ALERT: Tax December 2006 EOLI Legislation Potentially Taxes Typical Our previous Alert, The Pension Protection Act of 2006 Changes Affecting Life Insurance Products, reviewed legislation under the Pension
More informationFinancial Institutions
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY+ MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY
More informationALERT: Tax. Background
ALERT: Tax December 2006 Death of Private Annuities? The IRS and Treasury Department Issue Proposed Regulations on the Taxation of Certain Private Annuity Transactions* The new PA regulations, however,
More informationERISA Alert. Plan Sponsors Impacted by Hidden 401(k) Fee Litigation
ERISA Alert October 2007 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA
More informationSEC Adopts Regulation Crowdfunding to Facilitate Early Capital Raises
Corporate & Securities/Capital Markets GT Alert November 2015 SEC Adopts Regulation Crowdfunding to Facilitate Early Capital Raises On Oct. 30, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted
More informationFinancial Institutions
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX
More informationPatent Reform: What MedTech Companies Need to Know
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM Patent Reform: What MedTech Companies Need to Know David J. Dykeman, Esq. Patent Attorney & Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP Boston, MA (617) 310-6009
More informationCalifornia Business Tax Incentive Legislation
ALERT Tax July 2013 California Business Tax Incentive Legislation California has completely overhauled its tax-related economic incentive laws by repealing nearly all existing incentives, and replacing
More informationTaxes and the New Social Security Tax in 2013
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LONDON* LOS ANGELES MEXICO CITY+ MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY
More informationAn International Law Firm of More than 1750 Attorneys
FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR LATIN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS (II) SPONSORED BY CITI Judith O Neill, Chairman Telecom Dept. NY. Office Greenberg Traurig, LLP Tel: +212 801 9387 Email: oneillj@gtlaw.com Presented
More information~-:DEC -6 AM 9: I 6. RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT. b (. ~~}~t~~h~ t<r 1 UTY
1 GUST ROSENFELD P.L.C. One S. Church Ave., Suite 0 2 Tucson, Arizona 01-12 Tel.: () 2-00 Fax: () 2- Mark L. Collins, SB #002 (mcollins@_gustlaw.com) Robert M. Savage, SB #02 (rsavage@gustlaw.com) Attorneys
More informationTHE NEW TEXAS FRANCHISE TAX
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SILICON
More informationApplication of Section 409A to Private Company Stock Options and Other Equity Awards
January 2006 ALBANY AMSTERDAM Stock Options and Other Equity Awards ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees
APRIL 13, 2012 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT & LABOR UPDATE California Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees In one of the most anticipated
More informationLIFE SETTLEMENTS: SUMMARY OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
WEALTH MANAGEMENT: SPECIAL REPORT Minimize taxes Provide for family Form family offices Manage trusts Administer estates LIFE SETTLEMENTS: SUMMARY OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS In This Report Page Develop business
More informationAkerman Practice Update
Akerman Practice Update Corporate & Bankruptcy April 2010 Third Circuit Court of Appeal s Interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code Adversely Affects Secured Creditor s Right to Credit Bid DALLAS DENVER FT.
More informationItalian Tax Reform. New legislation on abuse of law and statute of limitations. Abuse of law and tax avoidance. Introduction
27 August 2015 Practice Group(s): Tax Italian Tax Reform New legislation on abuse of law and statute of limitations By Vittorio Salvadori di Wiesenhoff The Italian Government has recently approved a new
More information2015 California Employment Law Legislative Update
Labor & Employment Alert November 2015 2015 California Employment Law Legislative Update At Greenberg Traurig, we live our motto built for change and apply it for the benefit of the businesses we serve.
More informationOffice of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Final Recordkeeping Rule for Internet-Based Job Applicants Takes Effect
February 2006 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX
More informationClient Alert. New Treasury Regulations Make it Easier to Issue Tack-On Bonds or Loans. But New FATCA Regulations Add Complexity.
Number 1417 October 6, 2015 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate & Tax Departments New Treasury Regulations Make it Easier to Issue Tack-On Bonds or Loans But New FATCA Regulations Add Complexity The
More informationGovernmental Affairs. 2008 Election Overview: A Look Ahead to the 111 th Congress
ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA AUSTIN BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PALM BEACH COUNTY PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX
More informationInsurance Coverage for Losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Practical Advice for Policyholders
October 2005 ALBANY AMSTERDAM Insurance Coverage for Losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Practical Advice for Policyholders ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc MEYER TURKEN; KENNETH D. ) Arizona Supreme Court CHEUVRONT; JAMES IANNUZO; JUSTIN ) No. CV-09-0042-PR SHAFER; ZUL GILLANI; and KATHY ) ROWE, ) Court of Appeals ) Division
More informationTransfer of Limited Partnership Interests
Transfer of Limited Partnership Interests Thomas Redekopp February 2015 2015 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris Firm and
More informationTAMPA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Albany Southwest Airlines 73W 332 0900 1150 1,130 143...7 Albany Southwest Airlines 73W 1811 0900 1150 1,130 143 12345.. Albany Southwest Airlines 73W 6066 1110 1400 1,130 143...6. Atlanta Delta Air Lines
More informationORANGE COUNTY, et al.,
_1 No. 80,685 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. ORANGE COUNTY, et al., Respondents. [June 17, 19931 KOGAN, J. We have for review Orange County v. Florida Departmei?'; -- :IE - Revenue, 605
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal ) Arizona Supreme Court corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, ) No. CV-10-0218-PR a municipal corporation, ) ) Court of Appeals Plaintiffs/Defendants/
More informationInvestment Company Act of 1940 Private Funds
Investment Company Act of 1940 Private Funds David A. Sussman Steven J. Gray March 2016 2016 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP. Duane
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CITY OF PEORIA, a municipal corporation; and CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, v. Plaintiffs/Defendants/ Appellees, BRINK S HOME SECURITY,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.
More informationHome Schooling in California
michael e. hersher Home Schooling in California The recent decision of the California Court of Appeal in the Rachel L. case set off a storm of protest from the California home school community and drew
More informationFMLA AMENDED TO PROVIDE LEAVE TO
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ALERT February 2008 Issue 126 FMLA AMENDED TO PROVIDE LEAVE TO MILITARY FAMILIES The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) now grants FMLA leave rights in two additional circumstances that
More informationSEC Staff Addresses Third-Party Endorsements of Investment Advisers on Social Media Websites
April 2014 Practice Groups: Investment Management, Hedge Funds and Alternative Investments Private Equity SEC Staff Addresses Third-Party Endorsements of By Michael W. McGrath and Sonia R. Gioseffi On
More informationA BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Page 1 of 24 03 HB 770/AP House Bill 770 (AS PASSED HOUSE AND SENATE) By: Representatives Coleman of the 118 th, Porter of the 119 th, Fleming of the 79 th, Smyre of the 111 th, Skipper of the 116 th,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW PRICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IBM LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. vs.
COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO vs. Appellant, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 39 From an Order of the San
More informationFederal Court Enjoins Texas Medical Board from Enforcing More Stringent Telemedicine Rules
June 2015 Practice Group(s): Health Care Federal Court Enjoins Texas Medical Board from Enforcing More Stringent By Edward L. Vishnevetsky, Richard P. Church and Leah D Aurora Richardson On April 10, 2015,
More informationTexas Common Carriers May Soon Be Running In Circles
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Texas Common Carriers May Soon Be Running In Circles
More informationESTATE OF JOHN JENNINGS. WILLIAM CUMMING et al. entered in the Superior Court (Waldo County, R. Murray, J.) finding George liable
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2013 ME 103 Docket: Wal-13-175 Argued: October 7, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN
More informationVOLUME NO. 51 OPINION NO. 11
VOLUME NO. 51 OPINION NO. 11 CONTRACTS - When alteration is permissible; COUNTIES - Group health plans; payments to employees in lieu of participation; COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - Group health plans;
More informationARIZONA CIVIL COURT TX 2004-000487 03/28/2005 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT C.I. Miller Deputy FILED: ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE EDWINUS M VANVIANEN v. RCM BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC, et al. WILLIAM M KING UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationHEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
HEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The State, in its position as a payor on an account, which account exists
More informationZurich Staff Legal. Experienced. Collaborative. Focused on Results.
Zurich Staff Legal Experienced. Collaborative. Focused on Results. Staff Legal How We Deliver We are located where you need us, with more than 250 attorneys in our national network of 48 offices that cover
More informationDISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO. Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JOHN GLEASON, in his official capacity as Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel vs.
More informationNew Illinois Ethics Rules on Lawyers Reporting Up Responsibilities
New Illinois Ethics Rules on Lawyers Reporting Up Responsibilities August 13, 2009 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Rome San Diego
More informationDo we now have the long awaited answer to the question of whether police officers can take compensatory time off on demand?
Comp Time on Demand? Do we now have the long awaited answer to the question of whether police officers can take compensatory time off on demand? This summer the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MELISSA DUNCAN, a single woman,) No. 1 CA-CV 10-0265 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) DEPARTMENT D v. ) ) O P I N I O N PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE)
More informationIn re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from
More informationBANKRUPTCY CLIENT ALERT
BANKRUPTCY CLIENT ALERT May 17, 2010 Below from the Kutak Rock LLP bankruptcy group are summaries of two recent decisions relating to the Bankruptcy Code s provisions governing bankruptcy filings by municipalities.
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Antitrust & Competition
Number 1040 9 June 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Antitrust & Competition New Antitrust Rules for the Motor Vehicle Sector Challenges Ahead for Car Manufacturers, Dealers, Spare Parts Suppliers
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-810. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-7519-00)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationThe Court further held that the tax is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff.
from State and Local Tax Services US Supreme Court - Failure to provide a credit against Maryland s local portion of personal income tax for out-of-state income taxes paid is unconstitutional May 21, 2015
More informationTeva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation
January 28, 2015 Practice Group(s): IP Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation By Michael J. Abernathy, Suzanne E. Konrad, Rebecca M. Cavin
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al.
Supreme Court Case No. S195852 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TODAY S FRESH START, INC., Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al.,
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, HON. CHARLES SHIPMAN, Judge of the Green Valley Justice Court, in and of the County of Pima, v. and THOMAS
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP New Mexico Supreme Court Holds Online Retailer Has Substantial Nexus for Gross Receipts Tax Due to In-State Retailer
More informationFinancial Services/ Private Funds Advisory
Financial Services/ Private Funds Advisory August 5, 2013 Marketing Investment Management Services to Public Retirement Systems: Complying with Applicable Laws and Regulations It is well-known that high-profile
More informationComplex FMLA and ADA Issues: New Regulations and Case Law
Complex FMLA and ADA Issues: New Regulations and Case Law Presented by: Alia Wynne and Mauro Ramirez Phone: (713) 292-0150 www.laborlawyers.com Atlanta Charlotte Chicago Columbia Dallas Denver Fort Lauderdale
More informationOGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Attorneys at Law
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Attorneys at Law 10 Madison Avenue Suite 402 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: 973-656-1600 Facsimile: 973-656-1611 www.ogletreedeakins.com NEW JERSEY PAID
More informationSHAWNTELLE ALLEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, SCF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RALPH MORRIS, Defendanst/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0058
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JAMES BEEKMAN, Appellee. No. 4D13-4086 [August 19, 2015] Appeal and cross-appeal from
More informationLodging, Rental Car and Meal Taxes on Travelers in the Top 50 U.S. Cities
Lodging, Rental Car and Meal Taxes on Travelers in the Top 50 U.S. Cities July 2008 Prepared by: American Economics Group, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...3 TABLES: COMBINED TAXES ON LODGING,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
More informationClient Alert. New Treasury Regulations Put Issuers at Increased Risk for Cancellation of Indebtedness Income in Debt-for-Debt Exchanges.
Number 1399 September 20, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Tax Department New Treasury Regulations Put Issuers at Increased Risk for Cancellation of Indebtedness Income in Debt-for-Debt Exchanges In
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS
More informationFILED December 8, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
More informationNo. 03-50538 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHRISTIAN M. RANDOLPH,
No. 03-50538 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHRISTIAN M. RANDOLPH, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION, (MARY) ESTER DIAZ, LARRY ANDERSON, ELIZABETH GREGOWICZ,
More informationAkerAlert. The American Home Mortgage Case and Repurchase Agreements. Finance Law ADVERTISEMENT. march 20, 2008
AkerAlert Finance Law march 20, 2008 The American Home Mortgage Case and Repurchase Agreements By Jules Cohen, Esq. and Milton Vescovacci, Esq. In the field of mortgage warehouse lending, repurchase agreements
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendant/Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. Case No. JEA (formerly known as the Jacksonville Electric Authority), a body politic and corporate of the STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationCASE NO. 1D14-2653. Karusha Y. Sharpe, John K. Londot and M. Hope Keating, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CONSUMER RIGHTS, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: FRED R. HAINS PETER M. YARBRO Hains Law Firm, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MARIA A. MITCHELL, ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. )
More informationState & Local Tax Alert
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Michigan Court of Appeals Holds Certain Cloud Computing Not Subject to Use Tax On October 27, 2015, the Michigan
More informationBeyond Credit Reporting: The Extension of Potential Class Action Liability to Employers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
April 7, 2014 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Labor, Employment and Workplace Safety Consumer Financial Services Beyond Credit Reporting: The Extension
More informationATTORNEYS. Insurance Agents & Brokers Errors & Omissions. LewisBrisbois.com
ATTORNEYS Insurance Agents & Brokers Errors & Omissions Insurance Agents & Brokers Errors & Omissions The attorneys in our Insurance Agents & Brokers Errors & Omissions Practice Group practice in all our
More informationNinth Circuit Opinion May Open Litigation Doors Most Thought Closed
March 2015 Practice Group: Investment Management Ninth Circuit Opinion May Open Litigation Doors Most By Jeffrey B. Maletta, Mark P. Goshko, Scott E. Waxman, Clair E. Pagnano, Nicholas G. Terris, and Joel
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JOHN F. SULLIVAN AND SUSAN B. SULLIVAN, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PULTE HOME CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee. No. CV-12-0419-PR Filed July 31, 2013 Appeal from
More informationHow To Allow Sports Wagering In New Jersey
November 2014 This article originally appeared in World Sports Law Report Volume 12 Issue 11, November 2014. Betting: New Jersey s Attempts to Allow Sports Betting By Linda J. Shorey, Anthony R. Holtzman
More informationGroundbreaking Legislation on Property Tax and Sales Tax Exemptions for Illinois Hospitals
Groundbreaking Legislation on Property Tax and Sales Tax Exemptions for Illinois Hospitals June 14, 2012 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York
More information