New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 28

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast is presented by John Eory, a member of the firm's Family Law Group, and discusses the case of Lewis v. Harris which was argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court last week. This case brings a long history with it to the Court and is being watched nationally as a case which may direct how courts view legislation which bans same-sex marriage.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 28 here.(12.2MB)

Want to watch a webcast of the argument of Lewis v. Harris before the Court? Download it here.

Technorati Tags: : :

Tags:

Child Support Judgments May Not Guarantee Payment

no picture
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Jensen, et al

In the recent decision of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc v. Jensen, et al, the court ruled the judgment held by the father against his former wife for child support arrearages and which operated as a lien on his former spouse's residence did not take priority upon the foreclosure of the residence. This ruling comes despite the fact that the father's judgment was recorded first and would presumably serve the best interests of the child involved. The Court based it's decision on N.J.S.A. 46-9-8 which states that a purchase money mortgage - which was held by the plaintiff in this matter- takes priority and will be paid before the child support judgment is satisfied. While this is a technically a correct reading of the statute, it runs contrary to the parens patriae obligation the court has to protect the best interests of the child.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

Duggan Discusses Eminent Domain in Debt & Equity Journal

no picture

In the February 13 edition of the Debt & Equity Journal, Timothy Duggan, chair of the Condemnation Group, discussed eminent domain and the Kelo v. the City of New London case. Mr. Duggan spoke about the effects the case had on cases in New Jersey. He had this to say, "In the past, the courts rubber-stamped a lot of redevelopment plans. Now they are actually striking down some submitted plans, especially those where the town did not follow state laws to the letter."

Technorati Tags: : :

Relocation Without a Plenary Hearing

no picture
Dole v. Dole

Virtually every relocation case (when the custodial parent is seeking to relocate with the children to another state) involves conflicting factual allegations and, often, diametrically opposed perceptions of the impact of such a move on the children. Our Courts have consistently held that such factual conflicts can only be resolved after a plenary hearing in which the Court takes testimony and makes findings of fact, and cannot be decided simply upon the parties written submissions.

In Dole v. Dole, Judge Jack Sabatino, a Family Part Trial Judge temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division, wrote a carefully worded opinion that permitted a mother to relocate the children without a plenary hearing. Judge Sabatino acknowledged that that most cases would require a plenary hearing, but if there are no legitimate factual issues, the Court should permit the move without requiring a hearing.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

Collection of Counsel Fees - Better Late Than Never

no picture
Pellettieri Rabstein Altman v. Proropapas

It is generally acknowledged that the collection of attorney fees from a defaulting client is a contract action that is subject to a six year statue of limitations.

In Pelleteri, Rabstein and Altman v. Proropapas the defaulting client sought to dismiss the law firm's action to collect their fees on the basis of the six year statute of limitation. The defendant alleged that the fee agreement was executed more than six years prior to the initiation of the law firm's action to collect the fees.

The Appellate Division held that the six year statute of limitations was the proper statute, but that the six years runs from the date of the last payment or the termination of services whichever occurs later and not from the date the agreement.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 27

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast is presented by David Byrne, Co-Chair of the Community Associations Group, and discusses the New Jersey Appellate Court's landmark decision in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers, v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 27 here.(9.4MB)

Technorati Tags: : : : :

Legislative Update on Eminent Domain

no picture

During the early part of 2005, there has been very little activity in the arena of federal legislation that was proposed following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London to address abuses that have occurred in the exercise of the eminent domain power. House bill H.R. 4128 (PDF), also known as the Private Property Acts of 2005, which passed that body on November 3, 2005, has not been further acted upon by the Senate. Interestingly, the most recent movement in Congress, albeit small, has been directed toward House bill H.R. 4088 (PDF) known as the Protect Our Homes Act, which was referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity on January 4, 2006. This proposed legislation, if enacted into law, would eliminate a State's or local government's eligibility to receive federal financial assistance under any program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development when any such government entity failed to abide by the prerequisites to condemnation therein set forth.

In New Jersey, there has been a flurry of recent activity in the area of eminent domain reform, with legislative proposals being directed towards how and when local governments may take private property located within redevelopment zones. For example, on January 10, 2006, Senators Gill and Allen reintroduced their bill from last legislative session as Senate bill S501, which would amend the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1, et. seq., to prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire residential property. This proposed legislation would also require the designation of redevelopment areas by ordinance rather than by resolution. A companion bill in the State Assembly has also been introduced (A537), which on February 6, 2006, was transferred to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee. Senate bill S156 reintroduced from last session by Senator Connors is a bit stronger than S501/A537 and, if enacted into law, would amend the LRHL to prevent the use of eminent domain to acquire both residential and other private property. The Connors bill also proposes, among other things, that every redevelopment entity make "a declaration of public purpose" prior to undertaking any action to acquire any property by condemnation within an area in need of redevelopment.

Another example of proposed legislation at the state level is Assembly bill A1220, which is intended to amend the LRHL to make all condemnation effected thereunder for private economic development subject to voter approval. This bill, which is was reintroduced from last session by Assemblyman Diegnan, would also require all area in need of redevelopment designations to be approved by the Department of Community Affairs before they could become effective.

In addition to specific legislative proposals, some State legislators have taken the position that the whole concept of using government power to acquire property for such purposes as redevelopment needs to be further evaluated, and that government must be prevented from engaging this sort of condemnation activity until this study has been completed. Recently introduced in the State Senate is a bill (S211) that proposes to place a moratorium for a period of 24 months on the use of eminent domain for "any purpose other than the direct use of the property by the State, county, or municipality, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, as appropriate." Senate bill S211 would also create a new body known as the Eminent Domain Study Commission, "which shall conduct an examination of the use and application of eminent domain in the State[,]" and "issue a final report to the Governor, and to every member of this Senate and the General Assembly[.]" A companion bill introduced in the Assembly as A2423 would increase the moratorium period proposed by the Senate to 48 months.

The employment of a constitutional amendment is one other approach that certain members of the State Legislature are considering to effect eminent domain reform across New Jersey. Specifically, Senators Inverso and Allen have reintroduced their proposed amendment to Article VIII, Section III, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution to limit the exercise of eminent domain to "essential public purposes" and specifically excludes redevelopment activities "undertaken by a private corporation". This proposed amendment was referred to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on February 6, 2006.

It is uncertain what the fate of the aforesaid proposed legislation, moratorium and constitutional amendment will be in the coming months. However, it is interesting to see the impact that one Supreme Court decision has had on political landscape.

Technorati Tags: : : : :

Palimony - Is it Better to Live Together?

no picture
Lavine v. Konvitz

It is if you want to make a claim for palimony. In Lavine v. Konvitz the parties had been engaged in 70-year "relationship" - 70 years!

When the relationship ended, the plaintiff sought continued support from the defendant in the form of "palimony". Recognizing that New Jersey accepts the concept of palimony and acknowledging that the parties had a long-term exclusive relationship in which the plaintiff had surrendered opportunities to work or develop her own career, the Court held that "cohabitation" was an essential element of a palimony claim and denied the plaintiff's claim for palimony because the parties had not lived together.

The query: How much cohabitation is required - Vacations? Weekends? Weekdays?

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

Byrne Quoted in Star Ledger

no picture

David Byrne, Co-Chair of the Stark & Stark Community Associations group, was recently quoted in an article in the Star Ledger entitled In Camelot, Rules Hardly Seem Ideal regarding regulations imposed by homeowners associations. Byrne discussed the enforcement of such rules in private communites.

You can read the article here.

Technorati Tags: :

When is a Child Emancipated?

no picture
Dole v. Dole

In New Jersey there is a presumption that a child is emancipated, and no longer entitled to child support upon reaching age 18. Most divorce agreements or judgments set forth specific circumstances under which that presumption may be rebutted. It is common to provide that a child who is continuing their education beyond the age of 18, for example, shall not be deemed to be emancipated.

In the recent Appellate division decision in Dole v. Dole the parties had agreed that the child would not be considered emancipated until she was 23 without providing that she ed in an educational program. The child was post 18, not enrolled in an educational program and not working.

The Appellate Division ruled that the father was required to continue paying child support until the child reached age 23 per the terms of the parties agreement.

The Court reasoned that it was against public policy for the parties to agree to emancipation age of less than 18, but were free to contract to a later age.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

In Franchising: State Law Really Does Matter

no picture
Keshock v. Carousel Sys., Inc.

A recent case highlights a significant advantage New Jersey franchisees have over franchisees in Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, all contracts (including UFOC's) are subject to implied covenants of "good faith" and "fair dealing." This means that a franchisor's conduct in performing its duties under the UFOC (such as training, advertising, etc.) is subject to a higher standard than simply what is written in the UFOC. For example, if a franchisor states that it will use its "best efforts" to obtain an appropriate location for a franchisee, those "best efforts" will be judged on a "good faith and fair dealing" standard. In contrast, Pennsylvania has no "good faith and fair dealing" requirement regarding performance of UFOC obligations (See recent confirming decision in Keshock v. Carousel Sys., Inc., No. 04-758, 2005 WL 1198867). The bottom line is that franchisees and franchisors in Pennsylvania need to take extra care in drafting UFOC's.

Technorati Tags: :

Wastewater and Water Quality Management Regulations

no picture

We reported on the wastewater and water quality management regulations in August 2005 on these pages, when the regulations were nothing more than a rumor. Albeit the rumored regulations were potentially devastating. As anticipated the regulations were indeed proposed in the waning days of the leadership of the DEP by Commissioner Bradley Campbell. These regulations were every bit as damaging to the housing industry on our ability to obtain affordable housing as predicted and worse.

Commissioner Campbell reportedly received some 10,000 emails in the two weeks after his proposal and heard from many thousands more thereafter. In light of the tremendous opposition to the regulations by industry, municipal, housing and other groups in the weeks after proposal of these regulations, Governor Codey extended the existing water quality management regulations, which were set to expire, effectively quashing the water quality management proposal. However, the companion wastewater management regulations, although hanging on life support by all reports, had not been withdrawn and could have been enacted at any time without further notice to the public. Happily, the proposed wastewater management regulations have now been withdrawn.

Certainly, the housing community and residents of this state can take a breather from this assault on affordable housing, we should not be resting easy either. As noted above, the current water quality management regulations are still set to expire in May and therefore newly inaugurated Governor Jon Corzine and new DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson will have their opportunity to put their stamp on this important area of regulation during the early days of this administration, perhaps setting the tone for the next four years.

We encourage you to stay tuned. We know we will.

Technorati Tags: : :

Changed Circumstances in a Divorce

no picture

In considering an ex-husband's allegations of "changed circumstances" justifying a modification of his alimony payments, the Court held that the fact that the application for modification and allegation of a reduction in income came only 20 months after the divorce was sufficient evidence to deny the request. The Court reasoned that a period of 20 months was not sufficient to a finding of a permanent and significant change justifying a change of the alimony payments.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 26

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast is presented by Allen Silk, Co-Chair of the Business Succession Planning Group, and discusses the importance of succession planning for your business.

Most individual business owners do not have sufficient plans in place to address the many issues which will arise upon their death or severe disability. This podcast outlines the things that business owners should be thinking about now to ensure the smooth transition of their business should a catastrophic event occur.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 26 here.(7.5MB)

Technorati Tags: : :

New York Considering No-Fault Divorce

no picture

When it comes to getting divorced, it appears that New Jersey is a much more progressive state than New York.

New York is just now contemplating no-fault divorces, something that has been around in New Jersey for quite some time. While we do have fault grounds available as a cause of action in New Jersey, as well (i.e. adultery, extreme cruelty, desertion), we also have a cause of action for 18 month separation, which is considered the "no-fault" ground. If the parties have been separated for 18 months, either party may file a Complaint for Divorce so stating, and no other cause need be asserted.

In New York, under current law, you must assert a fault ground (cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, abandonment) for a period of a year. Since many parties to a divorce action may not wish to wait to file their complaint after 18 months of separation, New Jersey also gives the option of filing for the cause of extreme cruelty after only three months.

Even though New York is contemplating many changes to their divorce law, it will take some time. The Matimonial Commission (NY Times registration required), which was appointed in 2004 to issue a report, has done so, recommending the streamlining of court cases with strict time limits for less contentious divorces, an emphasis on mediation, and amending procedures for choosing and training judges, among other changes. However, this report must now be reviewed by the Legislature which in turn must take action.

Tags:

Florio Appointed President of CA-PAC

no picture

Christopher Florio, co-chair of Stark & Stark's Community Associations group, has been appointed president of the Community Associations Political Action Committee (CA-PAC). The CA-PAC was formed in 1997 by the Community Associations Institute of New Jersey (CAI-NJ) in order to raise funds to enable the industry to enhance legislative efforts. CA-PAC is dedicated to ensuring that legislators are aware of the issues that are important to community associations.

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders--Balancing the Children's vs. the Parents' Rights

no picture
Finamore v. Aronson

In the recent case of Finamore v. Aronson, the New Jersey Appellate Division balanced a spouse's right to protection under a Domestic Violence Final Restraining Order against the other parent's right to attend their children's activities.

The wife had obtained a Restraining Order prohibiting her former husband from being "anywhere in her presence." She then sought to prohibit the husband from attending the children's athletic, school and extracurricular activities at which she was also present.

Judge Maira Lihotz, writing for the Appellate Court stated that the Court issuing a restraining order must balance a party's right to protection from violence against the children's rights to have the other parent attend and see their activities.

The Court reasoned that the risk of violence had to be assessed in the context of the event and environment, and that the issuing had the statutory authority to describe or delineate the areas of no contact.

Technorati Tags: :

Tags:

Associations Must Review Speech Limitations Placed on Community Members

no picture
Committee for a Better Twin Rivers, et al. v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, et al (A-4047-0352)

The New Jersey's Appellate Court has issued a landmark decision stating that New Jersey's Constitution and its protections "can be available against private entities, as well as governmental entities, when the private entities have 'assumed a constitutional obligation not to abridge the individual exercise of such freedoms because of the use of their property'".

In Committee for a Better Twin Rivers, et al. v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, et al (A-4047-0352), owners sought an order permitting "the posting of political signs" on their property "and on common elements under reasonable regulation." The trial court rejected that claim and found that the association is "not subject to the constitutional limitations imposed on state actors ...." and was therefore permitted to limit the actionable speech of its community members. The trial court upheld the association's ban on political signs and applied the "business judgment rule" as the standard of review for "duly enacted policies and decisions" of association boards.

The Appellate Court, noting the increasing number of New Jersey residents living in private community associations, reversed the Trial Court's ruling and found that New Jersey's Constitution and its protections are available to citizens (including association residents) and can be used against private entities (community associations) in certain circumstances. The Court discussed the long line of cases by which New Jersey's Constitution was found to be applicable to private property and referenced its previous decisions (the 1995 Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Ass'n v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association and the 1996 case of the same name, which involved the access to flyers, and other promotional materials by opposition candidates to the condominium's board) in which the Court held that the "constitutional right to free speech could outweigh the property rights of a private condominium even in the absence of an express or implied invitation to the public or the speaker".

In the Twin Rivers case the Appellate Court felt that an association's suppression or control of certain "expressive" exercises "relating to life in the community or elsewhere" should not be considered as a contract dispute / matter of business judgment. This part of the case was sent back to the Trial Court to review the facts of this particular association's regulation of expressive activity, not as it relates to the business judgment rule, but in relation the limitations imposed by New Jersey's Constitution.

As a result of the Appellate Court's decision in this case, and until altered by the New Jersey Supreme Court or otherwise, associations must tread carefully when considering rules and/or regulatory schemes connected to members' expressive exercises (i.e., flyers related to board elections, hanging flags outside of a home, petitions to remove trustees, limit or expand board or member powers).

While it is likely that associations can impose reasonable rules "governing the time, place and manner for the exercise of ... expressional rights", associations must balance the law's protections afforded to private property and expressive exercises upon such property. A guide can be found in a 1980 New Jersey Supreme Court case which directs the private association or entity to account for the: (1) nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property; (2) extent and nature of the public's invitation to use the property; and, (3) the purpose of the expressional activity undertaken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property.

Associations should undertake a review of all existing rules utilized to regulate and/or control the expression of its members and consider their enforceability under stricter constitutional limitations and not under the more lenient business judgment rule.

Technorati Tags: :

Physicians Need Internal Controls On Information Transmission

no picture

A growing employment law problem revolves around situations where a doctor's staff agrees to send a medical certification to an employer on behalf of an employee, but then inadvertently fails to forward the certification to the employer, resulting in the termination of the employee for "job abandonment." This could lead to a negligence claim against the medical practice. To avoid this potential pitfall, medical practices need to tighten their controls on medical certifications and carefully document how and when such information is transmitted to employers. Regular monitoring/auditing of these controls should effectively prevent liability.

Technorati Tags: :

Duggan Quoted in Trenton Times on Property Revaluation

no picture

Timothy Duggan, a shareholder in the Property Valuation group, was quoted in the article "Revaluations 'Bad for Your Taxes'" in the February 5 edition of the Trenton Times. The article discusses the reactions of homeowners in Mercer County towns whose homes are currently being reassessed. Mr. Duggan commented on the uncertainty homeowners face, not knowing how the revaluations will affect their property taxes.

Read the article here.

Technorati Tags: : : : :

Registered Investment Adviser 13F Disclosure Requirements: Hedge Funds Included

no picture

Any investment adviser with $100,000,000 in discretionary assets under management must file a Form 13F (PDF). The initial 13F is due by February 14th following the initial year when the assets under management reach this total. Thus, the first time the discretionary assets under management are $100,000,000 on the last trading day of the year, a 13F is required by February 14th of the following year. Thereafter, a Form 13F is required within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. It is strongly suggested that these due dates are scheduled at the beginning of each calendar year to prevent a late filing. The last 13F filing required relates to the last quarter of the calendar year after the calendar year in which the adviser does not have discretion over $100,000,000. Thus, if on December 31, 2005, an adviser's discretionary assets dipped below $100,000,000, and remained below $100,000,000 during 2006, the last required filing is due February 14, 2007.

In determining the total amount of assets under management, an adviser should include each securities portfolio over which it has discretion, including those of sub-advisers whom the adviser maintains control over.

Lastly, hedge funds and/or their managers are not exempt from the 13F filing requirement. Thus, any hedge fund that exercises investment discretion over or owns $100,000,000 or more invested in securities traded on stock exchanges and the NASDAQ must report its holdings via a Form 13F.

Technorati Tags: : :

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 25

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss recent legal developments impacting franchisors and franchisees.

John MacDonald and Adam Siegelheim of Stark & Stark's Franchise Group discuss a recent securities fraud claim brought by Krispy Kreme franchise owners and the Third Circuit's recent decision which found that arbitration forum-selection clauses in franchise agreements are enforcable.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 25 here.(15MB)

Technorati Tags: : :

New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination Applies to Condominiums

no picture

It is clear that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination is applicable to New Jersey's condominiums. Last week, Stark & Stark Community Association attorneys David Byrne and Richard Linderman won a summary judgment motion on behalf of a Northern New Jersey condominium, securing an order dismissing an owners' lawsuit against the condominium that claimed they were the subject of discrimination.

The Plaintiffs, of Asian Indian descent, claimed that the condominium violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination by treating them differently than other members of the community not of Asian Indian descent. In their lawsuit the plaintiffs claimed the condominium prohibited two owners from using the community's recreational amenities as a result of persistent rule violations and direct threats against the condominium's pool company. However after two years of discovery and many depositions the owners, in response to a summary judgment motion, were only able to argue that they were discriminated against when a "Caucasian" family was allowed to use a floatation device in the pool after the use of a similar device by the plaintiffs was prohibited.

The Court found that one alleged instance of discrimination, without party names, proof or details, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the condominium's part. Instead, the plaintiffs were required to provide specific instances of race-based conduct or disparate treatment. Mere conclusory allegations were not sufficient.

This decision shows that condominiums need not fear unsubstantiated allegations of racial discrimination in the enforcement of its covenants and rules.

Technorati Tags: :

The Annual Review Requirement of Adviser Policies and Procedures

no picture

Rule 206(4)-7 requires SEC-registered investment advisers to undertake an annual review of its policies and procedures. Advisers were required to adopt and implement written policies and procedures by October 2004. The goal of adopting policies and procedures was, and is, to effectively ensure compliance with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Following their adoption, advisers were given eighteen months to conduct a first annual review of the polices and procedures ensuring the goal of preventing violation of the Advisers Act was being achieved. Assuming Advisers waited until the October 5, 2004, deadline to implement their policies and procedures, the first annual review deadline is April 5, 2006. For many reasons, both regulatory and policy, it is the Chief Compliance Officer ("CCO") who shoulders the burden of the review. Though the CCO may delegate certain responsibilities of the review, it is recommended that the CCO have intimate knowledge of the firm's operations in order to effectively manage and implement the review process.

The goal of the annual review should be twofold. First, a CCO wants to review the policies and procedures for effectiveness in fulfilling their goal of Advisers Act compliance. Following confidence that given the adviser's business operations the policies and procedures continue to effectively reflect the latest regulatory environment, the second goal of the CCO should be to ensure the office mirrors the written policies and procedures that are in place, and vice versa. The CCO should document all steps of the review process.

First, determine the effectiveness of the adviser's written policies and procedures. The goal is to ensure they generally address the minimum areas of concern the SEC outlined and that any area specific to the adviser's business is addressed. Minimally, confirm the following are addressed:

1) Portfolio management process, including allocation of investment opportunities among clients and consistency of portfolios with clients' investment objectives, disclosures by the adviser, and applicable regulatory restrictions;
2) Trading practices, including procedures by which the adviser satisfies its best execution obligation, uses client brokerage to obtain research and other services ("soft dollar arrangements"), an allocates aggregated trades among clients;
3) Proprietary trading of the adviser and personal trading activities of supervised persons;
4) The accuracy of disclosures made to investors, clients, and regulators, including account statements and advertisements;
5) Safeguarding of client assets from conversion or inappropriate use by advisory personnel, including related custody issues;
6) The accurate creation of required records and their maintenance in a manner that secures them from unauthorized alteration or use and protects them from untimely destruction;
7) Marketing advisory services, including the use of solicitors;
8) Processes to value client holdings and assess fees based on those valuations;
9) Safeguards for the privacy protection of client records and information; and
10) Business continuity plans.

After confirming the written policies and procedures adequately address these areas, the CCO should ensure that each section specifically focuses and explores the areas of the advisers business that are particularly implicated and, thus, require further attention. The CCO should go through each of these sections and ask, "Is our business particularly concerned by this section," or, "Has our firm entered a new line of business that requires a particular section be expanded to discuss the particular procedural safeguards the firm has put in place to address the particular regulatory concern encompassed by such business." Thus, for example, does the adviser's written policies and procedures of an adviser whose business aggregates trades, comprehensively discuss the procedures in place for the proper allocation of those trades?

Second, the adviser wants to ensure the firm's day-to-day business mirrors the written policies and procedures. This is accomplished by incorporating safeguards in each area of regulatory concern that physically demonstrates the adviser is cognizant of its regulatory duties as it performs its advisory business on a day-to-day basis. Mirroring the written policies and procedures with the firm business can include simple checklists in place to ensure an area of the written policies and procedures manual is actually being addressed in practice, or it can include an audit of a particular area of the business to ensure that compliance is occurring. Whatever the process in place, the CCO should record the actual process and include the particular "check" within the manual. For example, if it is a checklist, on a regular basis the CCO should review the checklist and include copies of the checklist or signoffs in the manual. Or, if it is an audit that is required, include a written audit summary in the manual following its occurrence. Continuing with our example above, where we confirmed that an adviser whose business aggregates trades has addressed the procedures in the manual for the proper allocation of those trades, the adviser should mirror the manual with a specific process documenting that the proper allocation of trades has been incorporated. This can include any review process, checklist, etc. These internal processes ensure the regulatory language of the manual has a physical presence to capture the relevant regulatory concern. In addition, it provides a simple process with which to perform the annual review. In this way the CCO can review a particular area of the written policies and procedures once every couple of weeks, and thus spread out the annual review process over the course of a year.

Technorati Tags: : :