New Jersey Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : New Jersey Law Blog

This week's podcast will be of a Estate Planning and Long Term Care Insurance seminar which we held in our office on Tuesday September 27, 2005.

The seminar included a presentation by Allen Silk and Rosemary Durkin, members of the Firm's Trusts & Estates group. Also presenting at the seminar was Richard Oring of Oring and Company who discussed long term care insurance.

You can listen to the presentation here (67MB).

You can also download PDF versions of the PowerPoint slides which were used.

Protecting Your Family: Estate Planning

Long Term Care

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an article on Bankrate.com on September 28, Tim Duggan, Chair of the Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights group, commented on collateral valuation in bankruptcy under the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Act.

Read the article here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

U.S. Senators Bill Nelson (D-Fla) and John Cornyn (R-TX) have co-sponsored a federal bill that seeks to limit the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. Known as the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005", S. 1313, the proposed legislation prohibits the United States Government and any state or local government that obtains federal funds for a development project, from taking private property for "economic development". The sponsors are seeking "to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain." The sponsors also stressed the importance of States reviewing their owns laws and consider taking voluntary action to limit the power of eminent domain.

The statute is a good start, but far from adequate. First, "economic development" is not defined and is left open for the courts to define. Second, the law only applies to takings "through the use of federal funds." Condemning authorities can circumvent this limitation by using federal funds for voluntary acquisitions (ie. those property owners that sell before a condemnation action is started), and use state and private funds for the contested takings. Further, what is the penalty if the condemning authority violates the statute? Does the condemning authority lose federal funds for the entire project, or only the acquisition being challenged?

Federal and state lawmakers are clearly concerned about the Kelo decision and are seeking to restore the constitutional protections that are being stripped by the United States Supreme Court. However, the constitutional rights must be balanced against the benefits derived from the successful redevelopment plans which have helped numerous cities jump start their local economies. The good news is lawmakers are reacting an taking a good look at the use of the power of eminent domain.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Each spouse is entitled to an "equitable" share of the assets acquired during the marriage. "Equitable" does not necessarily mean equal. The Judge will decide or you will reach an agreement as to your share based upon a number of factors including the length of the marriage, the age and physical and emotional health of the parties, the standard of living established during the marriage, the nature and value of the particular asset, the method in which the asset was acquired, and you and your spouse's particular need with respect to the asset, and any other factors which may be relevant to your particular case.

Your attorney will review the facts surrounding the acquisition of all of the marital assets with you and make recommendations concerning the distribution of each asset depending upon the factors affecting that asset and the overall case.

• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks

This weeks New Jersey Law Journal's supplement on Real Estate and Title Insurance features an artice by Gary Forshner and Vincent Mangini, members of the firm's Real Estate group. The article, Court Greenlights Ambush Acquisitions, discusses the Appellate Division's recent decision in Mt. Laurel Tp. v. Mipro Homes.

You can read the article here (PDF).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Monday September 26 at 8:00 PM on WFMZ-TV 69, Christopher Naughton's Law Journal celebrates its 15th year with the program "Windows Closing! The New Bankruptcy Bills Are Now!" with debtors' attorneys Eric Leinbach, New Jersey Bar Bankruptcy Chair Barry Frost of Teich Groh, and creditor's counsel Timothy Duggan of Stark & Stark. Joining the discussion is Nathalie Martin, Professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law and resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute. The program examines how new bankruptcy laws taking effect on October 17, 2005 will not only affect those in debt--including survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--but the bankruptcy practitioner as well.

In addition to requiring extensive paperwork and mandated credit counseling for bankruptcy petitioners, the law also limits the protections of homeowners who have refinanced their homes, and broadens the definition of "non-dischargeable" debts to include monies owed to "governmental units."

You can read more about Monday's program here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week's New Jersey Legal Update will discuss tips for commercial landlords to follow when a tenant files for bankruptcy.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Thomas Onder a member of the Firm's Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 12 here.(9.2MB)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In April 2005, the NASD Office of Hearing Officers concluded that a broker/dealer Branch Manager acted reasonably under the circumstances of a mutual funds switching case and reasonably exercised supervisory discretion during the course of supervising a registered representative who was independently charged with excessive trading of mutual fund shares. This case is encouraging to line-supervisors because it underscores the fact that a branch office manager is not required to be "prefect", and it is a helpful case because it offers insights into properly managing a branch office.

The facts themselves are relatively simple. The registered rep at this branch office engaged in over sixty transactions involving purchase and sales of various mutual funds over a period of eleven months, generating approximately $53,000 in commissions - many of the transactions involving sales charges since the customer held the funds for relatively short periods of time ranging from two weeks to nine months. The broker/dealer had various systems screening devices to pick up fund switching and breakpoint avoidance, but the registered rep had learned to navigate through the system to avoid detection. And because this rep escaped detection (at least in the short-term), his supervisory branch manager was tagged for failing to supervise.

In the end, the branch manager prevailed. Here are some of the key items that bolstered his credibility. First, he cooperated fully in the NASD investigation. In fact, NASD staff acknowledged this on the record. Second, the branch manager had a reputation for abiding by all of his firm's procedures, and even implemented various supervisory steps at the branch office that went beyond his firm's requirements. Third, his firm gave him full support, supplying the branch manager with important key witnesses. These three things combined to leave the NASD Panel with impression that the branch manager was "a knowledgeable, careful, and responsible professional". This is a good start when you are defending yourself in an Enforcement proceeding.

So why did NASD think that this branch manager failed to supervise his rep? It is not unreasonable for a regulator to view sixty transactions involving purchase and sales of various mutual funds over a period of eleven months, generating approximately $53,000 in commissions, to be excessive trading of mutual funds. These facts speak for themselves. And when a supervising principal fails to detect that excessive trading is going on, it is also not unreasonable for a regulator to conclude that there is a failure of supervision taking place.

So what did the branch manager do or not do? First, the branch manager did what he was supposed to do. He reviewed the blotters on a daily basis. The problem, it turned out, had nothing to do with the branch manager's methodology, but rather with the system. The daily blotter reflects only activity that occurred on a particular day - and, unless the switch took place on the same day, the switch would go undetected until the three-month commission report was released to the branch manager. In other words, there was nothing in the computer system that helped the branch manager to correlate a recent trade back to a previous trade. Also, the registered rep would switch between open-end funds to close-end funds. Since the firm regarded the close-end funds as the equivalent of an equity security, the transaction failed to trigger a mutual fund switch letter since the system viewed the customer as trading a mutual fund for a stock.

When the issue of breakpoints was raised by Enforcement, it appears that the Hearing Panel took a reasonable approach. The branch manager testified that funds within the same family have different breakpoints and, unless a branch manager knew and retained every breakpoint number, an individual review of a particular transaction would not be meaningful in the context of discount potential. It appears that the Panel gave considerable weight to an incident where the branch manager required his rep to "double up" a customer's purchase so that the customer could get a breakpoint. Another important piece of evidence was the fact that witnesses on both sides acknowledged that the advantage of achieving breakpoint discounts must be balanced against considerations of quality and diversity when choosing mutual funds. But apparently the most important fact seems to be the rep knew that the firm's breakpoint system whenever a mutual fund transaction came within 5% of a breakpoint. Evidently, the rep scrupulously avoided this 5% threshold in order to steer clear of detection. Again, it was the system that failed, more so than the branch manager. But this alone would not have saved the branch manager. Supervisory principals need to ask questions. Here, the branch manager asked questions, then went back again, and again - each time asking logical questions that were deemed consistent with the supervisory experience of the industry member or members of the Panel. Even though the branch manager's questions ultimately failed to uncover the rep's wrongdoing, this was not held against the branch manager. Perfection is not required; instead, a supervision that is reasonably undertaken to detect and prevent violations of securities laws is the duty required. This was plainly evidenced by the fact that the branch manager made a point of meeting with the target customer who was the object of the rep's mutual fund switching. The branch manager interviewed the customer at length, listening to the customer's complaints about performance and commissions. The branch manager explained to the customer that declines in fund NAV was consistent with the declines in 2001 overall market. But the branch manager listened to the customer's complaints about commissions, subsequently interviewing the rep and personally directing the rep to avoid further trading. Furthermore, the Panel credited the branch manager with giving the customer good advice when he told the customer to hold onto his income funds and stop trading.

Eventually, the customer's complaint was reduced to a letter that found its way to the firm's law department. Enforcement argued that this letter should have prompted the branch manager to "take some additional supervisory action" towards the rep. However, the Panel disagreed, finding that it is common practice throughout the industry that when a complaint reaches the law department, the law department takes over, advising managers to not talk to the customer directly about the details of the complaint. In short, the need to centralize responses from the law department removes the need for manager, such as this branch manager, to undertake any supervision over and above the supervision already undertaken.

While it is unfortunate that this branch manager was forced to defend himself, the good part is that valuable lessons can be learned from this case. The first lesson when defending yourself is to establish credibility at the outset. The second lesson is making sure that fulfilled your supervisory responsibilities to the letter and spirit of the law before you come to court. This case appears to have been well argued, strenuously, on both sides. Since this case represents one of those not-too-frequent cases where the branch manager prevails, it therefore well worth reading all of the details.

You can read a copy of the Hearing Panel Decision here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a curious decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division which is usually very strict regarding the enforcement of delinquent child support, the Court recently held that a personal injury attorney was free to distribute the proceeds of a settlement to a client who was delinquent in the payment of child support under the judgment of a sister state.

Under the facts of the case, the out of state judgment was not recorded as a lien in New Jersey, but the personal injury attorney had actual notice and knowledge of the child support delinquency.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 2, 2005, the Appellate Division handed down its decision in Mount Laurel Township v. Mipro Homes, L.L.C., et. al. 379 N.J.Super. 358 (2005), which addressed the propriety of using the powers of eminent domain solely for the purpose of stopping future development. In this case, a municipality added a 16.3-acre parcel to its recreation and open space plan after discovering that the landowner intended to develop the site with new housing. The municipality first attempted to purchase the subject lands by negotiating with the landowner and, after all such efforts failed, proceeded to condemn the site. When the municipality sought to acquire the subject property by eminent domain, the zone in which the said lands were located had not been designated as open space in the municipal master plan. Actually, just two weeks before the start of condemnation proceedings the municipal planning board had granted to the landowner final subdivision approval for the construction of 23 single-family homes.

The Appellate Division first addressed the issue of whether a municipality lacks authority to condemn private property for open space if the zone in which the property is located is not designated as open space in the master plan. The court framed the answer to this question by stating that a municipality's eminent domain power is separate from its zoning power, and that "[t]he statutes authorizing acquisition of land for open space establish separate administrative procedures designed to assure that a municipality's open space program reflects sound planning." Mipro Homes, 379 N.J. Super. at 369. The court further noted that, in this case, the municipality had obtained a grant for the acquisition of the subject property under the Green Acres Program, "[w]hich reflects a finding . . . that the Mipro site is suitable for open space acquisition." Ibid. at 370. The court, therefore, concluded on this issue that the municipal governing body "[h]ad authority to condemn the Mipro site for open space even though the master plan did not then identify open space as a planned use in the area where it is located." Ibid. at 370.

The Appellate Division then went on to answer two additional questions. One of these was whether an action to condemn property for open space may be maintained even if the municipality's motive in selecting particular properties for acquisition is to slow down residential development. The other related question was whether a municipality may exercise this authority notwithstanding the municipality's lack of a plan to devote such lands to an active recreational use. In crafting its response, the court first affirmed a municipality's general authority under current law to acquire property by eminent domain for open space and recreational purposes. The court then answered the second question first by stating "that the conservation of land for open space is a public use, even though the government agency acquiring the land has no plans to put the property to any active use." Ibid. at 373.

Finally, the Appellate Division went on to address "the primary issue presented by this appeal" and determined that the acquisition of open space for the express purpose of stopping development is a legitimate public purpose. According to the court, such "statutory enactments" as the Garden State Preservation Act, N.J.S.A. 13:8C-1, et. seq., "recognize that open space acquisition may serve the public interest not only by setting aside land for potential future recreational use but also by preventing development." Ibid. at 374. (emphasis supplied). The court in Mipro Homes further developed its rationale for this holding as follows:

We conclude that even if the primary goal of . . . [the] open space acquisition program in general, and the condemnation of the Mipro site in particular, is to slow down residential development in the municipality, this does not provide a foundation for finding that the municipality's use of eminent domain for this purpose constitutes fraud, bad faith or manifest abuse. [The municipality] had a reasonable basis for concern that additional residential development would aggravate traffic congestion and pollution problems in the municipality and impose added stress on its school system and other municipal services. . . . Moreover, although [the municipality's] governing body had made a policy decision to focus in its open space acquisition program upon parcels that are likely to be the subject of residential development, the properties it acquires under the program nevertheless serve the public purpose of preserving open space. Ibid. at 375-376.

The court in Mipro Homes hinted that if the subject property had been approved for a medical rehabilitation center, nursing facility or some other inherently beneficial use it might have reached a different result. Notwithstanding this potential limitation on the scope of its ruling, the court's distortion of the public use doctrine in Mipro Homes is unnerving, and could open the floodgates to unplanned (as well as emotionally and politically driven) land acquisitions by municipal governing bodies.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent amendment, effective August 1, 2005, to the local rules (New Jersey) of bankruptcy procedure impacts community associations. Local rule 3015-6 (PDF), as amended, provides that a filed proof of claim to a debtor's chapter 13 plan of reorganization is an objection to the confirmation of that plan if the amount of the proof of claim is greater than the amount provided for in the plan. For the objection to be effective, the association must file a proof of claim and serve the filed proof of claim on the debtor, debtor's attorney, chapter 13 trustee, and any party in interest at least seven (7) days prior to the confirmation hearing set forth in the Notice of Hearing and Confirmation or Notice of Modification of the Chapter 13 Plan. Note though that an association's filed proof of claim does not object to anything other than the amount provided for in the debtor's plan. Further, the local rule is ambiguous as to whether the proof of claim would be an objection if the debtor fails to list the association in the plan of reorganization

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss retaliation in the workplace and what it means for New Jersey employers.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by David Krulewicz a member of the Firm's Employment group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 11 here.(14MB)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 26, 2005, in Decker v. Borough of North Haledon Planning Board, et. al., an unreported opinion (Docket No. A-4801-03T3), the Appellate Division held that a local planning board could not deny an application for a variance based upon a perception that another agency having jurisdiction over the proposed development "will not competently discharge its statutory responsibilities" with respect to a required permit or approval.

In Decker, the applicant sought approval for a four-lot residential subdivision, lot size variance and de minimis exception from the Residential Site Improvement Standards. The planning board, which had expressed concerns over the impact that the proposed development might have upon a waterway running through the property and the potential for flooding, denied the application based upon the applicant's refusal to perform bank stabilization work in conjunction with the applicant's procurement of a required stream encroachment permit. According to the Appellate Division, the planning board "improperly" imposed this condition upon the applicant "in spite of its recognition that the regulation of that waterway is beyond the [b]oard's authority and subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)."

Although the majority in Decker acknowledged the views of it's "dissenting colleague" respecting the "special deference" that should be given to "a local board when it denies a variance" it could not uphold the denial in this case "where, as here, the local board's action is so openly predicated on mistrust and fear that a State agency will not competently discharge its statutory responsibility its action is arbitrary and no longer entitled to deference."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The statutory standard for the modification of Limited Duration Alimony (NJSA 2A: 34-2c) has been to apply retroactively.

Prior to the adoption of the Limited Duration Alimony statute term or limited duration alimony could not be ordered by the Court, but was often agreed upon by the parties and then incorporated into the judgement.

The issue presented was when a Court is now called upon to review agreement which predates the statute, should the statutory standards be applied?

Judge Jane Grall, an experienced Family Court Judge before her elevation to the Appellate Court, ruled that regardless of the date of the agreement or the judgment incorporating it, a motion to modify it must be governed under the standards of the statute.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Chalk one up for the property owner in a case where a court dismissed a township's complaint (without prejudice) and stopped a redevelopment project located in Bloomfield, New Jersey. However, stay tuned because the Township has appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court.

This case is important for several reasons. First, two weeks before the condemnation action was filed, the property owner filed an action in Lieu of Prerogative Writ (separate lawsuit) to challenge the redevelopment plan. The Township filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the complaint in lieu of prerogative writ was filed too late. The court agreed with the Township and dismissed the prerogative writ action. However, despite the fact that the property owner filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ that was dismissed, the Superior Court nevertheless allowed the property owner to challenge the redevelopment plan at the time of taking (ie. in the condemnation action). There are now several law division cases that support the argument that a property owner can challenge a redevelopment plan when a condemnation action is filed. It is important to note thatr waiting until a condemnation action is filed to challenge a redevelopment plan may not be the best course of action since it is very important to get involved in the process at an early stage. The most beneficial time for involvement is at the time the municipality is undertaking the study to determine if an area is in need of redevelopment.

The second important aspect of this case is the trial court's interpretation of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL"). The Township argued that the property qualifies for designation as an area in redevelopment under criteria (d) & (e) of the LRH, which require:

D - Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.

E - A growing lack or total of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real property therein or other conditions, resulting in a stagnant or not fully productive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare. (Emphasis added).

The court reviewed the LRHL and held that the Township must not only show that the property meets the description in criteria d & e, but there must be substantial evidence that the condition noted is detrimental to "the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community." The trial court rejected the Township's argument that proof of any of the enumerated conditions automatically constitutes proof of a detriment to the community. The court ultimately found that the record was devoid of any proof that the property is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. This case is important since it appears to be placing a new burden on a condemning authority seeking to redevelop property. Under this decision, the condemning authority must not only meet the criteria under the LHRL, but it must also specifically prove how those conditions affect the safety, health, morals or welfare of a community.

I believe this case will be a close call on appeal, and would not be surprised if the decision is reversed. I also believe many townships will consider this decision when adopting their own redevelopment plans and direct their planners to identify how the conditions affect the safety, health, morals or welfare of their community. However, older plans that have been on the books for a long time may be ripe for challenge under this causation challenge.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As of late, there have been quite a few reports of large private investment limited partnerships (i.e., hedge funds) which have defrauded its investors of millions of dollars. The defrauded investors (i.e., limited partners of a renegade hedge fund) include high net worth (and supposedly sophisticated) investors as well as funds of hedge funds (which, by their very nature, should be managed by sophisticated and savvy managers). Yet, these very investors (who are supposed to be sophisticated enough that the government and the SEC afford less protection and oversight) have not been keen enough to notice (or inquire) into certain signs or warning signals that could help an investor to steer clear of making an investment in a hedge fund that is fraudulent. Remember that while hedge funds are by-and-large fairly private and secretive, as a prospective investor the investor can demand that it be permitted to conduct the due diligence it requires to be comfortable in making (and maintaining) an investment. Such due diligence should include looking for warning signs and making inquires about the prospective hedge fund and its manager, including the following:

Insisting on seeing the certified audited financials for at least the three most previous years for the hedge fund, if the fund has a track record;

Investigating the hedge fund, its manager entity and each of the individuals associated with the manager. At a minimum check the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Association of Securities Dealers and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Also, do a simple Google check. Additionally, you may want to pay an investigative service to do research and background checks on these entities/persons; when you consider how much you may be investing in the hedge fund, such an expense for research may be well worth it;

Getting referrals from the managers of the hedge fund and check them;

Watching out for conflicts of interest, particularly if the hedge fund uses an affiliated broker dealer or the audit firm the hedge fund uses is affiliated in any way with the fund. Also, insist that an independent outside administrator be used;

Confirming that the pricing mechanism of the securities held by hedge fund are industry standard and be concerned if the manager of the hedge fund has carte blanche to determine the net asset value of the securities holdings;

Determining if the hedge fund allows certain of its securities positions to be separately accounted, because this may be a way for the hedge fund to report overall performance numbers that may not include separately accounted for securities that are doing very poorly;

Considering only investing in a hedge fund whose manager (or sub-advisor or the parent of the manager entity) is registered as investment adviser with the SEC (or the state equivalent) and who treats the hedge fund as a client for purposes of the investment advisers act. With the onset of the new SEC rule requiring many hedge fund managers to register as an investment adviser, this precaution may not limit the hedge fund universe as much as one might expect;

Considering a face to face visit with the hedge fund managers; and

While the above advice applies surely to making the initial decision to invest in a hedge fund, also consider doing many of the aforementioned tasks annually.

Even if an investor does everything possible and completes an intensive due diligence, there is simply no way to guarantee that the manager of a hedge fund does not intend to defraud the investor. However, by following the above due diligence (and taking other precautions that the investor or its advisers may determine) the investor should be able to substantially reduce the risk that the hedge fund it is investing in will abscond with the investor's money.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss recent state and federal court decisions which will impact property owners, builders and government development agencies. The decisions discussed include:

San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco
Mount Laurel Township v. Mipro Homes, LLC
Decker v. Borough of North Haledon Planning Board

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Vincent Mangini, a member of the Firm's Real Estate group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 10 here.(16MB)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Often, unpaid assessments, fines, etc. are paid by owners via "bank" or "cashier's" check. These checks are almost cash, as they are checks that are actually drawn on the bank's accounts, not the owners. The owner's funds have been collected by the bank and have cleared. These types of checks are preferrable methods of paying large arrearages because there is no risk of them being returned for insufficient funds.

However, because these checks are almost cash, a manager's, or board's loss of them can be quite perilous. Under current law, if and/or when the owner properly delivered the bank check, her underlying obligation to the association or cooperative was discharged pursuant to Section 3-310 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Securing a replacement check is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code §3-312 Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Cashier's Check, Teller's Check, or Certified Check. The purpose of §3-312 is to allow an association or cooperative, who loses such a check a means of obtaining a refund of the amount of the check within a reasonable time period as well as offering full protection of the obligated bank.

A claimant, or person who claims the right to receive the amount of the bank check must assert a claim through a communication to the obligated bank describing the check with reasonable certainly and requesting payment of the amount of the check. The communication must contain or be accompanied by a Declaration of Loss with respect to the check.

Such Declaration of Loss required by the Code is a written statement or affidavit, made under penalty of perjury to the effect that the declarer lost the possession of the check; the declarer is a person entitled to assert such claim (either the remitter or payee of the check); the loss was not the result of a transfer by the declarer or a lawful seizure; and the declarer cannot reasonably obtain possession of the check because the check was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. Delivery of this declaration warrants truth of the statements.

Furthermore, the communication must be received in a time and manner affording the bank a reasonable period to act before the check is paid and the claimant is able to provide reasonable identification if requested by the bank. §3-312. The obligated bank may not impose any additional requirements on the claimant to assert a claim under the Code.

The claim becomes enforceable at the later of (i) the time the claim is asserted, or (ii) the 90th day following the date of the check. Once the claim becomes enforceable, the obligated bank becomes obliged to pay the amount of the check to the claimant. If the obligated bank pays the claimant, the bank is discharged of all liability with respect to the check.

So, as long as the association or cooperative follows these steps, a lost bank or cashier's check can be overcome.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss expanding your business through franchising.

This week's podcast is presented by Adam Siegelheim, a member of the Firm's Franchise group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 9 here(10MB).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The August edition of Investment Advisor magazine has published an article by Thomas Giachetti, Chair of the Firm's Securities Compliance & Arbitration group. Come Right In discusses issues pertaining to an advisor's compliance-readiness as well as some of the more substantive issues that are currently the focus of SEC examiners.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks