BPU's Office of Clean Energy Temporarily Suspends Acceptance of Applications for Home Performance with EnergyStar Program

no picture

The Office of Clean Energy Program, which offers homeowners (including all electric utility customers and users of oil or propane heating systems) whole-building home energy assessments and financing for recommended energy efficiency measures through its Home Performance with EnergyStar has temporarily suspended taking new applications as of May 8, 2010, due to the tremendous influx of applications under the program.  New funding may become available latter this year.

Mere Status as a Tenant Not Sufficient to Require Notice of Public Hearing

no picture

On May 19, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling in Iron Mountain Information Management v. City of Newark, reported at 405 N.J.Super. 599 (2009), that a commercial tenant, who had an option to purchase the building it leased was not entitled to receive individual notice of a local planning board’s public hearing on a proposed blight declaration under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. __ N.J. __, __ (2010) (slip op. at 6).  In so ruling, the high Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the lack of personal notice in this context violated due process.  As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Iron Mountain makes all the more interesting its decision to let stand the holding in GF Princeton v. Ewing Township Planning Board after it had initially granted certification. No. A-1522-07T3 (App. Div.) certif. granted 200 N.J. 503 (2009) appeal dismissed as improvidently granted 201 N.J. 270 (2010).

In GF Princeton, the Appellate Division vacated land use approvals granted under the Municipal Land Use Law on account of the joint applicants’ failure to provide a non-applicant with personal notice of the public hearing "as a matter of administrative due process and basic fairness" in light of the non-applicant’s long-term ground tenancy (which included recorded easement rights) and its recorded ownership interest in buildings and improvements located on the property that was the subject of the application.  However, the Appellate Division was careful to limit its recognition of a right to notice outside of MLUL requirements to those having the kind of interest the said non-applicant had. Id. at 10-14.  In short, the GF Princeton case makes clear that a commercial tenant, who also has easement rights and an ownership interest in buildings and improvements is not a mere tenant and where such rights and interests lie in the very property that is the subject of an application for development, administrative due process and basic fairness require that the holder of such rights and interests be accorded notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In addition to the greater substantiality of plaintiff’s interest in GF Princeton, another difference between the two cases, which may have led the Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiff in Iron Mountain (and stay its hand in GF Princeton), was the extent of the proceedings at issue.  The hearing before the planning board on the application for land use approvals in GF Princeton was the only opportunity the plaintiff had to present opposition, whereas in Iron Mountain the plaintiff’s right to be heard was not limited to proceedings under the LRHL but, rather, extended to proceedings under the Eminent Domain Act of 1971, which in the event of condemnation would provide the plaintiff with the legal wherewithal to challenge the municipality's right to acquire the property. Id. at 12.

The rulings in Iron Mountain and GF Princeton do not provide developers, applicants or municipal agencies with a bright line test for the provision of notice in instances not covered by express statutory language.  However, based upon the rationale of these cases, it is fair to say that any person who holds an ownership interest in property that is the subject of a public hearing may be entitled to notice of such hearing if (1) the outcome of the proceedings at issue may affect such person’s property interest, (2) the proceedings constitute the only opportunity for such person to be heard on the matter and (3) the party charged with giving notice has actual or constructive knowledge of such person’s ownership interest.

Governor's New Policies Spell Trouble For Public Union Members

no picture

Members of public unions (i.e., police, fire, Turnpike, etc.) are in for a rough ride this year as the full impact of Governor Christie’s policies start to be felt.  Not only are there significant cutbacks in spending, but it is becoming apparent that management will be much more aggressive with disciplinary sanctions than ever before.  For instance, be prepared to see minor infractions treated as major disciplinary offenses.  Also, be prepared to see penalties which previously were handled by a 1-5 day suspension proceedings now being used to justify 30-day suspensions.  Union members would be well advised to treat all disciplinary charges very seriously, as they will no doubt be used to “fill up” the record against certain employees within the “disclosure” period of the contract - and then be used at subsequent disciplinary hearings as evidence a “history” of disciplinary problems.

Now That You Have Created a New RIA, Do Not Forget That You Are an Employer Too

no picture

Opening your own RIA can be an exhilarating experience.  No more administrative red tape, no more administrative paperwork - and the knowledge that you have escaped what is often times the bureaucratically oppressive climate of the major wire house.  Now it’s just you and maybe a few partners, some sales assistants and a secretary.  You can finally concentrate on your advisory practice.  But you maybe forgetting one thing – you are now an employer.  As a result, you are subject to a myriad of state and federal laws governing the employer/employee relationship between you and your staff. 

 

Gone is the large Human Resources Department that dealt with most of the mundane issues and requirements of being an employer.  As a result, you will need to add the “employer hat” to the set of responsibilities that you gained when you left the wire house.  You are now responsible for issues ranging from sexual harassment policies to proper overtime pay.  Keep in mind the often lengthy hour requirements of your practice (not to mention the occasional “difficult” client situations of advisory firms can create employment issues that, if not quickly and effectively dealt with can and will lead to major problems for your fledgling firm.  The good news is that you can prevent many problems by taking some simple steps:
 

Step 1 – Make sure you have an appropriate employee handbook crafted to the securities industry (the more specific to your practice – the better), that clearly lays down the ground rules of the employer/employee relationship;
Step 2 -   If your new RIA is a very small organization, keep this in mind when you establish to whom the employees will report HR problems – in other words, have a plan to follow when problems crop up (and they will);
Step 3 – Apply your employment policies consistently and fairly in the office; and
Step 4 – Use an outside, third-party legal opinion when you make decisions regarding employee changes such as new employee hires, employee promotions/demotions and employment termination.  Don’t scrimp here – it may be a very costly mistake later on.

 

Following these steps will go a long way to ensure that wearing your “employer hat” does not interfere with running the important part of your business.
 

A Case Study on the Importance of Forum Selection in Mass Tort Litigation

no picture

Craig S. Hilliard and Martin P. Schrama, Shareholders in Stark & Stark’s Litigation Group, authored the article, A Case Study on the Importance of Forum Selection in Mass Tort Litigation, for the May 17, 2010 New Jersey Law Journal Complex Litigation & E-Discovery supplement.

 

The article discusses the importance of choice of forum in mass tort litigation. Mr. Hilliard and Mr. Schrama stress the importance of considering a prospective forum’s discovery standards and practices,. They state that discovery rules and practices can dictate the type and quality of evidence that will be discovered and used in that case, and therefore, the choice of forum is especially critical in mass tort actions, where a plaintiff’s counsel sometimes has the choice to file in a state court mass tort (or other) proceeding or in a federal court multi-district litigation (“MDL”).

 

You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

Green Building Performance Goals - Defining and Setting Consumer Expectations

no picture

When a builder enters into a contract for the construction of a building, the builder needs to set realistic green building performance goals that are within the builder’s reasonable control. It is also advisable to establish a mutually agreeable method for measuring building performance after construction is complete.  Builders should never represent in a contract that an energy efficient home will produce specific energy costs or savings, since the truth of such claims is dependent on factors outside of the builder's control, such as fluctuating utility costs and homeowner usage patterns.

Taking time at the outset of a project to define and set expectations for green building performance goals in the contract is a crucial ingredient for avoiding disputes at the end of construction.

Court Distinguishes Standard of Review for Blight Declarations and Redevelopment Ordinances

no picture

According to the Appellate Division, the findings underlying a municipal governing body's decision relating to the adoption of a redevelopment plan by ordinance, including any determination regarding the plan's consistency or inconsistency with the master plan, must be adequately supported by the record.  However, unlike a redevelopment area designation (or “blight” declaration) - which requires substantial evidence to be sustained, the standard of judicial review for these enactments and related determinations is whether they are arbitrary and capricious.  This was the primary ruling, among others, in the recent case decision of POWERHOUSE ARTS DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, which is currently available on Westlaw at 2010 WL 1946664 (N.J.Super.A.D.) and has been approved for publication.

Stark & Stark Attorney To Present SCORE Seminar on Legal Considerations for Small Businesses

no picture

Cary S. Kvitka, member of Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate and Franchise Groups, will present a seminar entitled, Legal Considerations for Small Businesses, for the Greater Princeton Area SCORE. The seminar will be held Tuesday May 25, 2010 from 6:45 – 8:45 PM at the South Brunswick Public Library.
 
The seminar will discuss the legal implications, benefits and detriments of buying an existing business, buying a franchise, and starting a business from scratch.  Mr. Kvitka will also focus on some issues that commonly arise with new businesses, including intellectual property issues and how to negotiate commercial leases.
 
You can register for the seminar online here, or for more information please call 609-393-0505.

Bulk Sale Notification in Real Estate Sales

no picture

Selling a home which you recently rented out because of the difficult real estate market? Well, you may discover that at closing, the state of New Jersey may want to escrow part of your closing proceeds to cover any existing tax debt or estimated taxes on any gain from the sale. 
 

Due to recent changes in the New Jersey Bulk Sale Law (N.J.S.A. 54:50-38), transfers of income producing real estate are likely to generate a notification by the buyer to the Division of Taxation of the transfer, thereby providing the State with the opportunity to inquire into possible tax debts of the transferor, and perhaps requiring a possible escrow of sale proceeds at closing.
 

Bulk Sale notification previously pertained to the sale of assets of a business which were not sold in the ordinary course of that business. Now, as a result of a change in the law, and a recent interpretation of the amended Bulk Sale notice law, the State of New Jersey is applying the Bulk Sale Law to transfers of income producing real estate.
 

Effective August 1, 2007, the Bulk Sale law in New Jersey was modified to provide, among other things, that whenever a person, subject to any state tax, shall make a sale or transfer of any part of his business assets, otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, the person taking title shall notify the Division of Taxation of the proposed acquisition at least 10 days prior to taking possession. According to the statute, failure to comply with the notice requirement will cause the purchaser to be personally liable for the payment of any State taxes due from the seller.  This would include taxes, fees, interest and penalties imposed by any State tax law. To protect himself from this potential liability, the person taking title will want to file a bulk sale notice.
 

Technical Bulletin TB-60, issued by the Division of Taxation on July 3, 2008, defined a “bulk sale” to mean any sale or transfer of a person’s business assets, not made in the ordinary course of business. “Business assets” include “realty if the primary use of the realty is to support a business on its premises.” “Business” means any endeavor from which revenue is realized for the purpose of generating a profit or loss.
 

According to TB-60, for a bulk sale notice to be effective, it must be filed by the purchaser/transferee, on the appropriate Division of Taxation form, include a signed agreement between the parties setting forth the terms of the transaction and be received by the Division at least 10 days before the proposed transfer. The Division will review the transferor’s account to identify outstanding liabilities.  Within 10 days, the Division will forward a notice to the attorney or designee for the transferee of the amount, if any, to be held in escrow at closing. The amount to be escrowed will include existing tax debts, delinquencies, assessments and importantly, tax on the gain from the transfer of the property. The transferor may file an Asset Transfer Tax Declaration form to assist the Division on calculating the estimated tax on the gain. This may cause the escrow amount to be adjusted. Payment of the taxes identified as due, would then be made from the escrow.
 

Thus, if a rental property, even though residential in nature, is sold, the Division of Taxation seeks to be notified 10 days in advance, and if a buyer does not, the buyer risks becoming liable for the tax debt of the seller.

New Jersey's Renewable Energy Incentive Program

no picture

The Renewable Energy Incentive Program (REIP), which is part of the Board of Public Utilities’ Clean Energy Program offers New Jersey utility customers, who contribute to the societal benefits charge authorized by Section 12 of the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (N.J.S.A. 48:3-60), access to the renewable energy certificate (REC) market and rebates for the installation of renewable energy systems, such as solar, wind, and sustainable biomass facilities at existing residential and non-residential buildings and in connection with new construction located in Smart Growth areas (i.e. Planning Areas 1 and 2 and designated centers).  For example, persons who submitted complete and qualifying rebate applications for solar installations during Funding Cycle 2 (which began on May 3, 2010) prior to May 12, 2010 were eligible to receive $1.35 per watt for residential projects and $0.80 per watt for non-residential projects.

Due to the large number of applications received by the Board of Public Utilities at the outset of Funding Cycle 2, new applications for solar rebates are no longer being accepted. However, additional monies may become available for solar rebates when Funding Cycle 3 opens on September 1, 2010.

 

NJ Energy Star Homes Program Offers Builders Generous Financial Incentives

no picture

The NJ Energy Star Homes Program offers builders generous financial incentives to construct residential dwellings that are at least 15% more efficient than homes built in accordance with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2006) provided that they are located in a Smart Growth Area (i.e. Planning Areas 1 and 2 and designated centers) and score 85 or less on the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Index.  Dwellings that meet these and other technical requirements place within the Tier 1 category of the NJ EnergyStar Homes Program.  Builders of Tier 1 dwellings are eligible to receive $2,500.00 for each single family home, $1,300.00 for each townhouse and $700.00 for each multifamily unit.  Larger per unit amounts are available for homes that satisfy the more rigorous Tier 2 and Tier 3 (a/k/a NJ Climate Choice) category requirements.

Live Interview from the 2010 International Franchise Association Convention

no picture

This installment of the New Jersey Legal Update podcast is an interview, live from the 2010 International Franchise Expo in Washington DC, with Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark's Franchise group, and Fred Kriss, Founder of FranchiseRight.  Mr. Siegelheim and Mr. Kriss discuss a new incubator program developed by FranchiseRight which assists business owners in deciding if they should franchise their business and how business owners can raise the capital needed for franchising. 

You can download the full podcast here. (11 MB)
 

New Time of Application Rule Will Help Developers

no picture

On May 5, 2010, Governor Chris Christie signed Senate bill S82 into law, as P.L. 2010, c.9, amending the Municipal Land Use Law to require that land development regulations, except those relating to heath and public safety, “[w]hich are in effect on the date of submission of an application for development shall govern the review of that application for development and any decision made with regard to that application for development.”  This new “time of application” rule will have the salutary effect of giving developers a measure of certainty as to the local regulatory landscape at the time they finish their land use planning and file their applications for development approvals.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Smith Barney Raiding Case

no picture

Thomas B. Lewis, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Employment Group, was quoted in the May 5, 2010 Dow Jones article, Finra Panel Throws Out Smith Barney Raiding Case. The article discusses the recent decision by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel to throw out a case in which Smith Barney alleged raiding by a group of top-producing brokers and a boutique wealth management firm.

Mr. Lewis states that the order stating that Smith Barney will have to pay for hearing fees sends a message to both parties that the claims never should have been brought. “Hearing fees are traditionally split between the parties,” he says.

You can read the full article online here.

Bill Extending New Energy Efficient Home Credit through December 31, 2010 Awaits Reconciliation and Signature by President

no picture

Originally created by Energy Policy Act of 2005, the New Energy Efficient Home Credit provides a $2,000.00 tax credit to a person who constructs a qualified new energy efficient home and a $1,000.00 tax credit to a person who constructs a qualified manufactured home provided that in either case:

(a) such person shall own and have a basis in the home during its construction

(b) the home is located in the United States and meets certain energy saving requirements

(c) construction is substantially completed after August 8, 2005 and

(d) the person who constructed the home sells or leases the home to another person for use as a residence after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 2010. See 26 U.S.C. § 45L. 

Although the New Energy Efficient Home Credit expired on December 31, 2009, it may be extended for another year.  Recently, Congress passed H.R. 4213 - the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010, which, among other things, extends the deadline for this tax credit through December 31, 2010.  However, this new legislation must still go through reconciliation and be signed by the President.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Interviewed on Ask the Experts

no picture

Gary S. Forshner, Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use Group was a featured panelist on WMTR’s Ask the Experts radio show, hosted by Jessie Frees, as they discuss the 2010 New Jersey Builders Association’s Atlantic Builders Convention. Mr. Forshner was joined by Eileen Monesson, Atlantic Builders Convention Committee Chair; and John Hooper, a South Jersey builder and Chairman of the New Jersey Builder's Association's Green Building Committee.
 

The panelists discussed the show highlights, special events and educational seminars offered at the convention. Mr. Forshner commented on the recent regulatory and legal changes impacting the real estate industry throughout the state of New Jersey.
 

You can listen to the full interview online here.

So You Thought You Had A Lease?

no picture

Jeffrey S. Posta, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights Group, authored the article, So You Thought You Had A Lease? for the April 2010 Lease Enforcement Attorney Network Newsletter.

 

In the article, Mr. Posta states that there is uncertainty in the law about whether a transaction is a sale or a true lease, and stresses that this distinction is especially important when and if the owner/lessee of an asset files for bankruptcy. Mr. Posta advises lessors desiring true lease treatment to carefully document their transactions in order to protect their interests.

 

You can read the full article online here.

Buying Assets From a Troubled Company

no picture

Rachel Lilienthal Stark, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate and Banking & Financial Services Group authored the article, Buying Assets From a Troubled Company, for the April 2010 edition of Mercer Business Magazine.

 

The article discusses the opportunites available to acquire assets from companies that are not able to maintain their businesses, either because they have lost customers or because they are not able to get financing. Ms. Stark addresses the question of how to benefit from those opportunities without taking on unnecessary risks.

 

You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

Modification of Custody & Parenting Time

no picture

In all cases where custody and/or parenting time is an issue, the New Jersey Court Rules require the Judge to refer the all parties to mediation through the Court to address these issues.   If that mediation is unsuccessful, the parties may participate in Custody Neutral Assessment, or a Custody Evaluation.  If the parties are unable to arrive at an agreement between themselves after these evaluations are completed, the Court will determine the Custody and Parenting Time Arrangement.


Once an Order is entered regarding custody and parenting time, either by the Court or with the consent of the parties, that Order will control.  However, a modification of a custody and parenting time Order is  permitted in certain circumstances.


In order to modify a custody and parenting time Order, the party seeking the modification must first establish that circumstances have changed since the custody and parenting time order was first entered, and that that, as a result of that change, the present Custody and Parenting Time Order is not in the child(ren)’s best interests.


Otherwise stated, the party seeking to modify must  prove three things:  1) the current parenting time arrangement, 2) the change in circumstances that occurred after the initial Order was entered, and 3) the new circumstance has made current parenting time arrangement contrary to the children’s best interests. 

 

Although modifications are permitted to Custody and Parenting Time Orders, you should consult with a divorce attorney at the outset of your case to help negotiate your Custody and Parenting Time Agreement.

Tags:

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Reuters.com Article

no picture

Thomas B. Lewis, Shareholder and Chair of Stark & Stark's Employment Group, was quoted in the April 30, 2010 Reuters.com article, Deutsche team goes to Barclays after suit settled.

 

The article discusses the recent move of a team of top advisers from Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown to Barclays Wealth on April 16, 2010. Issues quickly surfaced as Deutsche Bank AG alleged that the team had not given 60 days notice, as required by their employment contracts. Mr. Lewis states that neither Deutsche Bank nor Barclays are signatories to the Protocol of Broker Recruiting, and adds that, "These firms don't want to join the Protocol because they're afraid they will lose people en masse.”

 

You can read the full article online here.