Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act

no picture

“GINA” (the “Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act”) was signed into law on May 21, 2008 by President George Bush.  It became effective a few days ago on November 21, 2009, at least with regard to its employment provisions (its health insurance provisions have been in place since May 21, 2009). 


Employers need to know that GINA prohibits them from requiring genetic test information from job applicants.  More importantly, and less obviously, the Act prohibits potential employers from seeking out and gathering information – even information in the public domain such as on the Internet - regarding job applicants.  While inadvertent acquisition of genetic information regarding a job applicant is not a violation of the Act, employers do not want to get into a situation where they need to explain why they have gathered genetic/medical information about their employees. 


The information about the employee’s close relatives can also be violative of GINA if that information is acquired for the purpose of learning about genetic health-related problems or conditions.  A quick Google search of a potential employee’s name can sometimes produce such information, whether be in the form of a Facebook entry, an obituary, or other seemingly benign sources.  The EEOC, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, the Department of Treasury, and similar state agencies will all have a hand in enforcing GINA.  Like HIPPA, GINA is easy to violate if an employer is unaware of its requirements.  Employers should seek guidance in updating their internal employment procedures and policies to avoid an expensive GINA violation.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Presents Seminar on New Jersey's Community Associations and Foreclosures

no picture

David J. Byrne, Shareholder and Co-Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Community Association Group presented materials related to foreclosures, rent receivers and mortgage foreclosures, during a seminar entitled New Jersey's Community Associations and Foreclosures.  The presentation was held at the New Jersey Exposition Center in Edison, New Jersey on Saturday, November 14, 2009. 

 

Mr. Byrne focused his presentation on when New Jersey's community associations should file their own foreclosures, and how those foreclosures are prosecuted.  He discussed community association rent receiverships, and how they serve to aggressively and creatively aid a community association in its collection of unpaid assessments.  Mr.  Byrne also discussed how community association should be handling and protecting themselves in the face of mortgage foreclosures.

 

You can listen to the full presentation online here

New Jersey State Courts Consider Granting Mass Tort Designation to YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® Cases

no picture

As we have discussed in previous posts, studies have shown that the ingredients contained in YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® have been linked to various forms of severe Yaz side-effects. Reportedly, these side-effects include: heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (also known as DVT or blood clots), internal organ damage (including gallbladder damage), myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. Recently, a large number of YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® cases have been designated as Mass Tort or Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) cases.

The New Jersey State Courts are currently contemplating granting Mass Tort designation to YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® cases currently pending in New Jersey. The makers of YAZ®, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, are headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey. The makers of Ocella®, Barr Pharmaceuticals, are headquartered in Montvale, New Jersey. Similar cases have received MDL treatment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and Mass Tort treatment in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Mass Tort would eventually be venued in Atlantic, Bergen or Middlesex counties. 

YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® Cases Transfered to MDL in the United States Distric Court

no picture

Since the beginning of October 2009, over 350 YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® cases from various jurisdictions throughout the country have been transferred to the MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On November 9, 2009, motions were filed to appoint Plaintiffs’ lead counsel and a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. The Court will hold a conference in the coming weeks to address the newly transferred cases and pending motions.

Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation Team pursues claims throughout the nation against drug manufacturers, so they can be held accountable when the drugs they market are proven to be defective or cause catastrophic injury to the people who use them. If you feel you have experienced any side-effects from taking YAZ® or Yasmin® (or the generic brand, Ocella®), you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/ Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the YAZ®, Yasmin® or Ocella® manufacturers.

RIAs drive explosive growth of the Broker Protocol

no picture

Stark & Stark Employment Group Chair, Thomas B. Lewis, was quoted in the November 17, 2009 RIABiz.com article, RIAs drive explosive growth of the Broker Protocol. The article discusses the recent rise in firms who have signed the Protocol for Broker Recruiting and what this truce will mean for changes in wirehouses across the country. Mr. Lewis states that he expects the growth in the number of firms signing the Protocol to continue, and states that as more sign on, there’s even more incentive to join.

 

You can read the full article online here.

Stark & Stark Shareholders Present Collections Seminar on New Jersey's Community Associations

no picture

A. Christopher Florio, Shareholder and Co-Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Community Association Group, and David J. Byrne, Shareholder and Co-Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Community Association Group, presented materials related to community association foreclosures, rent receivers and mortgage foreclosures, along with money judgment collection actions and asset executions, during a seminar entitled "Protecting Associations & Improving Collection Efforts in a Difficult Real Estate Market & Challenging Economy", held November 11, 2009. 
 
Mr. Florio and Mr. Byrne focused their presentation on when New Jersey's community associations should file their own foreclosures, and how those foreclosures are prosecuted and managed.  They discussed community association rent receiverships, and how they serve to aggressively and creatively aid a community association in its collection of unpaid assessments.  They also discussed how community associations should be handling and protecting themselves in the face of mortgage foreclosures given our current economic climate.

You can listen to the full presentation online here

Contracts - Construction: Validity of Paid When Paid Provision

no picture

In the matter of Brolley Electrical v. Ernest Bock and Sons, Inc., the Court reviewed the validity and enforceability of a “paid when paid” provision within a construction contract.  The contract provided that payment by the owner to the general contractor being a condition precedent prior to the general contractor is obligated to pay the subcontractor. 

 

The contract further provided that should the general contractor not receive payment from the owner that the general contractor would not be obligated to pay the subcontractor for the work performed.  In validating the enforceability of the “paid when paid” provision, the Court explained that where the condition precedent to payment was clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and the Court must strictly construe the terms of the contract . 

 

The Court distinguished this decision from other opinions by stating that the condition precedent language within the present “paid when paid” clause rendered the clause wholly enforceable in nature and did not require payment until corresponding payment is received by the general contractor.  For these reasons, the Court ruled that the “paid when paid” clause and the conditioned precedent language was enforceable, and therefore, no payment was due to the subcontractor until and unless payment is received by the general contractor from the project owner.

Extended and Expanded Homebuyer Tax Credit

no picture

The popular federal tax credit of up to $8,000 provided to first-time home buyers who purchase a home in 2009 due to expire November 30th has been extended until April 30, 2010.  In addition, a new tax credit up to $6,500 will be available to certain "step-up" (or downsizing) homebuyers who are current homeowners who have resided in their homes for at least five years.

 

The original 2009 tax credit was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  On November 6, 2009, President Obama signed the "Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009" into law.  The first-time homebuyer tax credit is equal to 10% of the purchase price of a home, up to a maximum credit of $8,000.  It is available to certain first-time home buyers who purchase a main residence on or after January 1 and before December 1, 2009.   This tax credit has now been extended to April 30, 2010.  Closing must occur by April 30th, or a binding contract must be entered into by that date with closing to occur within 60 days.  First-time home buyers who purchased their main home in 2008 are entitled to a credit of up to $7,500. The new credit for step-up homebuyers starts on December 1, 2009.  This article is limited to a discussion of the tax credit available for 2009 purchases, including the recent extension and expansion of that credit.

 

There are some limitations on the available credit as extended.  First, the credit is only available for homes costing up to $800,000.  Homes costing in excess of $800,000 are not eligible.  Purchasers under the age of 18 cannot claim the credits.

 

There are income limits as well.  Under the original provisions, you were  allowed the full amount of the credit, i.e., $8,000,  if your modified adjusted gross income was $75,000 or less, if single, and $150,000 or less, if married filing jointly.  These income levels have been increased by the recent legislation so that you are allowed the full credit with an income up to $125,000 for single filers and $225,000 for married filers.  The credit is not available to taxpayers with incomes greater than $145,000 for single filers and $245,000 for married filers.  Between these two income levels for each type of filer, the credit is gradually phased out.  

 

The credit is available to first-time home buyers who are purchasing a main home, i.e., principal residence, whether it is a house - new or resale - mobile home, condominium, cooperative apartment, etc.  The purchase must occur by April 30, 2010, or the purchaser must have entered into a  binding contract by midnight April 30, 2010 with closing to occur within 60 days.   The purchase date is the closing date, when title transfers to the buyer.  For someone who is constructing their main home (not buying it from a home builder), the purchase date is the date you first occupy it.

 

If the home ceases to be your main home within three years of the closing date, it is possible that the credit will be recouped by the government.

 

A first-time home buyer is someone over age 18, who has not owned another main home during the 3-year period immediately preceding the closing date of the qualifying purchase.  If you or your spouse owned a main home during the three preceding years, then neither will qualify for the credit. 

 

The new tax credit of 10% of the purchase price of a home, up to $6,500, is available starting December 1st to homeowners (and their spouses) who have lived in their current home for five consecutive years out of the eight years preceding the closing on their new home.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Serves as Panelist for Legal Workshop

no picture

Allen M. Silk, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate Group, will serve as panelist for the Agudath Israel of New Jersey’s Legal Workshop. The workshop will take place at the Park Terrace Hall in Lakewood, New Jersey on Thursday, November 12, 2009, from 5:30 - 8:30 PM.

 

The workshop will focus on issues affecting not-for-profit organizations or institutions and will cover topics under both federal law as well as New Jersey state law. The topics that will be discussed will include: organizational structure and the kinds of activities in which an organization may (and may not) engage; the taxability of unrelated business income; tax exempt qualification and activities that may jeopardize such qualification; record keeping requirements; filing requirements, including a discussion of the yearly 990 filing; required corporate formalities; criminal law issues including money laundering, tax evasion/tax avoidance, benefits fraud and the “know your customer” requirement; required filing of forms for cash deposits and suspicious activities; and banking & licensing requirements including activities that may require an organization to be licensed as a bank, money service business, money transmitter, and check casher.

 

For additional information contact the Agudath Israel of New Jersey at ykupfer@agudathisrael.org or call 212-797-9000 ext. 306.

Cape May Homeowners Sue Over Change in Campground Rule

no picture

A group of homeowners in the Carol Lynn Resorts campground have sued the property owners, the State of New Jersey and Woodbine Borough over alleged changes to the park rules and regulations.  The owners allege that the owners of the campground have recently changed the rules that call into question whether or not they can use the facility as a year round residence rather than a seasonal vacation spot. The owner of the property denies any such change to the rules and regulations and claims that even though the Department of Community Affairs grand fathered many of the residents in, and permitted them to live year round in the facility, and the borough approved an ordinance also permitting residents to live year-round in the facility, some homeowners were not satisfied. 

 

The dispute seems to stem from an interpretation of documents, although in the opinion of the property owner, there is no ambiguity and no resident will be asked to leave.  It seems as if in this case, as is bound to occur when a property or Association falls under multiple jurisdictions, that the various levels of government bureaucracy can not communicate sufficiently to provide a simple answer to whether or not residents are permitted to live year-round in the facility, and whether the property owner has a right to dictate otherwise.  It will be interesting to follow the results of this case, as there are many Associations across New Jersey that may or may not be incorporated, or officially recognized as a Homeowner's Association, and may not know under which agency's jurisdiction they fall under. 

It's Payback Time on Promissory Notes

no picture

Stark & Stark Employment Group Chair, Thomas B. Lewis, authored the article, It's Payback Time on Promissory Notes, for the November 2009 edition of On Wall Street Magazine. The article discusses the recent trend in unhappy advisors seeking new firms in the wake of a down market and their old firm's enforcement of collecting promissory notes.

 

Mr. Lewis states a common misconception that advisors believe their firms will accept 50% repayment of a promissory note, when in reality, this is not the case. Mr. Lewis goes on to discuss the new procedures put in place by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the possible defenses advisors could use in promissory note arbitration, and a discussion on how the Protocol for Broker Recruiting will impact the future of promissory note collection.

 

You can read the full article online here.