Do You Have The Waiver and Release You Need?

no picture

Having the right waiver and release can help you to quickly save money and find peace.  If you fail to obtain a required waiver or release, you can suffer from liens, disputes and lawsuits.

Black’s Law Dictionary states that a waiver or release involves giving up or abandoning of a claim or right.  Often, waivers and releases are included as part of settlement agreements.  Since it is also possible to give up claims and rights by conversations or conduct, it is essential to ensure that you do not unintentionally lose your claims and rights.  Waivers and releases can also be contained in other documents and good leases, construction contracts, and other agreements will include lien and claim waivers and releases.  In addition to obtaining releases, it is important to obtain both lien and claim waivers, since simple lien waivers may not prevent the filing of claims.  

Waivers and Releases Can Cut Costs 

Waivers and releases can help you to quickly prevent liens and claims, and resolve disputes and lawsuits.  They can also save you time and money by deterring defaults with tough language to inspire compliance, such as increasing payments and attorneys’ fees and costs for violations.  Waivers and releases are effective at cutting costs and reducing risks because they are generally enforced when they are voluntarily and properly prepared and exchanged unless there is a defense to the making of the document, or they are prohibited by laws, such as laws relating to residential tenants and consumers.  It is also important that documents be exchanged at the right time.  For example, construction lien and claim waivers may not be enforceable if they are not exchanged when required by law.  Similarly, certain rights and judgments may not be enforceable unless they are obtained to settle a pending claim, such as an eviction action.  In order to fully benefit from these valuable documents, it is essential to consider all possible issues, including all potential parties (such as subsidiaries and affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, partners, employees, agents, members, managers, successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives) and all potential issues (including past, present, and future claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, debts, sums of money, promises and damages, regardless of whether asserted, unasserted, known or unknown). 

Waivers and Releases Can Create Opportunities  

Well drafted waivers and releases can also grant you additional new rights to help you reach your current and future goals.  For example, they can be used to quickly obtain missing rights, such as rights to develop and improve properties.  They can also be used to creatively and quickly resolve other issues that you may not be willing or able to cost-effectively resolve at a trial, such as other current problems, future potential problems and payments, confidentiality, jurisdiction, venue, and governing law. 

Obtain the Waivers and Releases You Need

It is critical to consult counsel to ensure that you have the waivers and releases you need to succeed.  Many issues must be addressed, including what waivers and releases you need, when you need them, and if and when they are enforceable.

Properly Serving As a Power Of Attorney

no picture

At some point in our lives, many of us are chosen to serve as a Power of Attorney for an elderly or an incapacitated person who may need assistance with their day to day affairs, whether due to infirmity, immobility, or issues with their mental capacity.  Prior to taking actions utilizing the Power of Attorney, it is a good idea for an individual to have ground work laid out to properly memorialize any actions taken while utilizing the Power of Attorney to avoid potential future legal action.  As a litigator who works extensively in probate litigation, I have seen many instances where a lawsuit is filed due to alleged abuses of a Power of Attorney.  As such, below are some simple rules to follow when utilizing a Power of Attorney. 

The first suggestion would be to utilize accounting software, such as Microsoft Excel, in order to create a spreadsheet wherein you would track any and all transactions when utilizing the Power of Attorney.  Each transaction can be recorded in an Excel spreadsheet, and furthermore, all relevant receipts can be indexed which are related to the expense.  It is suggested that you spend the time to organize and categorize any and all expenses, as well as the accompanying receipts and keep them organized in a notebook which corresponds with the Excel spreadsheet.  In this notebook, it would also make sense for you to maintain copies of all bills which facilitated and required the payment.  The use of an Excel spreadsheet when coupled with the retention of original bills and receipts is a very strong step towards alleviating any confusion concerning the use of the Power of Attorney should an accountant be required. 

Another important consideration would be to ensure that the party you are assisting has a separate bank account that is not co-mingled with any assets of your own.  Is it is important while utilizing a Power of Attorney that you do not co-mingle any of your assets, or the assets of the person you are assisting.  Maintaining separate and distinct accounts is a good way of ensuring that there is no co-mingling of funds, and as well, alleviates allegations as to the misuse of an account.   In this same breath, it is suggested that a party save any and all bank account statements and keep them in the same notebook which contains the accounting and the Excel spreadsheet that was discussed above.

If there are concerns that a sibling or other family member may challenge your expenses under the Power of Attorney, it is suggested that you continuously invite them to review any expenses on no less than a quarterly basis.  By providing them with this opportunity it may resolve any issues which might lead to future litigation.  Above all else, in order to avoid litigation it is essential that while serving as a Power of Attorney that you maintain transparency with all accounts and that you maintain and organize your records.

An Unfair Will Doesn't Mean an Invalid Will

no picture

Just because a Will may be unfair to different members of a family its lack of perceived fairness does not invalidate the Will in the absence of additional evidence.  It is well settled that if the testator has the capacity to execute a Will, then in that event, it is not the duty of the Court to rewrite the Will, but instead, to enforce it in its current format.  The test of capacity to execute a Will is quite a low standard.  In general, the testator need only understand the property which he possesses and which he wishes to dispose of and the individuals to whom he wishes to bequeath this property.  Provided the testator meets this simple two pronged test, and the distribution is not the subject of an outside influence which is unlawful in nature, then the bequest will stand.  This might be despite the fact that the decedent’s bequest may be extremely unfair to other potential heirs of the Estate.

Often times, a party may seek counsel due to a Will which they feel is unfair or improper.  Usually, this occurs when a change is made in the Will not long prior to the death of the decedent.  Unfortunately, the minimal test of capacity allows the decedent to execute a Will which may drastically differ from his or her previous wishes and one which the Court will uphold if the testator possesses the capacity on the date it was executed.  There are other ways to challenge a Will based upon allegations of undue influence which thereby caused the decedent to execute a Will which was not in accord of his true intentions, but instead, reflects the wishes of another person who has benefitted by same. The test of undue influence, however, is entirely separate and distinct from capacity to execute a Will.

With regard to capacity, if the Court finds that there is sufficient capacity and there is no evidence of any other improper influence, the Will will be enforced in its present format no matter how unfair it may be to the other members of the decedent’s family.  As such, simply because a Will is unfair does not mean that it is invalid.  Obviously, if a party encounters a Will which is grossly unfair and was created not long prior to the death of the testator, then in that event, this individual can consult with an attorney to see whether there are ways to attack the validity of the Will based upon either an allegation of lack of capacity or undue influence.

The Joint Accounts and Multi Party Deposit Account Act

no picture
Often times, in order to simplify writing checks on behalf of an elderly individual or one whose capacity may be failing, individuals may agree to open a joint account which would then permit the person who is providing assistance to write checks on behalf of the individual who actually has deposited the funds into the account.  This typical joint account with right of survivorship is subject to the Multi Party Deposit Account Act.  This Act has important implications with regard to matters wherein the subject account may be a substantial asset of the Estate once the true owner of the account passes away.  It is for these reasons that you should be aware of the Multi Party Deposit Account Act.
 
Under the Multi Party Deposit Account Act, the joint account belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contribution by each to the sums on deposit unless the terms of the contract indicate a different intent or there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the account was created. In other words, if one party deposits all the account funds into the account during their life, then in that event, this party owns all the funds contributed to the account. At the time of death of one party to the joint account, however, there is a reputable presumption that a right of survivorship was created in the remaining party. This means that the sums remaining on deposit at the death of a party through a joint account belong to the surviving party, or parties, against the Estate of the decedent unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intention at the time the account is created. As such, the account would pass to the survivor under the account, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the account was created as a matter of convenience to assist the decedent during his life, or there is other evidence which demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the account was not to pass to the survivor upon the death of the decedent. Clearly, this is important when considering how funds may pass to the Estate.
 
In a recent decision, the Court also found that not only may it consider evidence at the time the account is created, but moreover, that the Court may also consider evidence after the account was created to determine whether or not the account was one of merely convenience, or the account passed to the survivor at the death of one party to the account. The standard is whether there is evidence of a clear and convincing nature which demonstrates that the right of survivorship has been invalidated by prior intentions of the true owner of the account. The case law differs, however, whether the account was created as a means of convenience in lieu of the operation of the Power of Attorney or a similar instrument. As discussed above, recent case law has held that the intention of the owner to the account may be revealed at a time long after its creation if the parties’ conduct throughout the time that the account was maintained demonstrates its convenient nature. Regardless you should always be aware of the impact of The Multi Party Deposit Accounts Act as it relates to what assets may compromise an Estate. 

New Rules for Commercial Arbitration

no picture

Many franchise agreements require mandatory arbitration of disputes, and a substantial number fall under the supervision of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA has issued revised Commercial Arbitration Rules that will apply to cases filed as of October 1, 2013.

These significant changes were meant to address common criticisms of arbitration, including burdensome discovery, lack of arbitrator control, and increased time and expense. The goal is to make arbitration better-managed, faster and more cost-effective.

The revisions include:

  • A mediation step for all cases with claims of $75,000 or more (subject to the ability of any party to opt-out). New Rule R-9 makes mediation mandatory. Absent an agreement of the parties to the contrary, the mediation is to occur concurrently with the arbitration and in a manner that does not delay the proceeding. A party may unilaterally opt-out from mediation.
     
  • Arbitrator control over information exchange (discovery). The new Rules direct the arbitrators to convene a preliminary hearing as soon as practicable following the appointment of the tribunal, and include a checklist of possible items to be discussed during the preliminary hearing (R-21); allow production of electronically stored documents to be completed in the manner most convenient and economical to the producing party (R-22); allow the arbitrators to allocate the costs of producing documents (R-23); and give the arbitrators the authority to impose sanctions to address abusive conduct (R-58).
     
  • The availability of emergency measures of protection. An “emergency arbitrator” may grant interim relief before the arbitral tribunal is constituted (R-38). A party may request the AAA to appoint an emergency arbitrator, prior to the constitution of the tribunal. Within one business day, the AAA must appoint a single emergency arbitrator, who must then establish a schedule for the consideration of the application for emergency relief within two business days. This provision is not intended to prevent applications to courts for provisional relief.
     
  • Access to dispositive motions. The revised Rules expressly grant arbitrators the authority to hear dispositive motions, as long as the party who intends to bring the motion shows that the motion is likely to succeed in disposing of or narrowing the issues in dispute (R-33).

Since arbitration is a matter of contract between the parties, some of these Rules, like mandatory mediation, may be varied by the agreement. Agreements that have AAA arbitration clauses should therefore be reviewed and updated. New agreements should be drafted with these Rules in mind.

 

Contingency Fee and Other Alternative Fee Arrangements

no picture

Often oppressed minority shareholders cannot afford the cost to retain an attorney to stand up to the oppressor. The majority shareholder will use the company’s financial resources to pay their attorney while the oppressed minority shareholder will be forced to cover their attorney fees personally. Although, Courts have discretion to award counsel fees, rarely do they award them to the oppressed. 


Oppressed minority shareholder should not hesitate to ask prospective attorneys about handling their case on a contingent fee basis. Often, I agree to handle minority oppression claims with a contingency fee arrangement. Before doing so, I discuss the pros and cons of a contingency fee versus an hourly fee. Factors that should be considered are: the value of the client’s shares; whether or not the majority will litigate for a prolonged period of time; and the ability to pay legal bills during the course of the litigation. If you are an oppressed minority shareholder, you should discuss alternative fee structures such as contingency fee arrangements with your prospective attorney. I am always happy to discuss and consider a contingency. Perhaps, a contingency fee structure will give you give you the ability to stand up to the oppressor.

When Can Your Company Represent Itself in Court in the State of New Jersey?

no picture

In the courts of the State of New Jersey, adult individuals generally may prosecute or defend a civil action in person, however, state law generally prohibits any business entity other than a sole proprietorship from appearing in any court action in the State except through an attorney authorized to practice law in New Jersey.

Rule 1:21-1(c) prohibits, (With specific exceptions), a business entity other than a sole propriety from appearing or filing any paper “…in any action in any court of this State except through an attorney authorized to practice law in this State.”  Therefore, corporations must be represented in court by counsel. See Globe Media Grp., LLC v. Cisneros, 403 N.J. Super. 574, 577 (App. Div. 2008); Olympic Indus. Park v. P.L., Inc., 208 N.J. Super. 577, 580-81 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 104 N.J. 453, 517 (1986).  Rule 1:21(c) extends to all legal proceedings and, as such, requires corporations to be represented by counsel at mediations as well.  

The limited exceptions contained in the rule represent the full extent of conditions in which a business entity may appear pro se, including:  R. 1:21-1A (professional corporations for the practice of law); R. 1:21-1B (limited liability companies for the practice of law); R. 1:21-1C (limited liability partnerships for the practice of law); R. 6:11 (appearances in small claims actions); R. 7:6-2(a) (pleas in municipal court); R. 7:8-7(a) (presence of defendant in municipal court); and by R. 7:12-4(d) (municipal court violations bureau). 

This paragraph of the rule makes clear that any entity, regardless of its purpose or organization, must be represented in court by an attorney.  The bar on lay representation of corporations extends to all business entities other than those specifically listed in, and in all circumstances but for, those listed.  Such circumstances include when a plaintiff or defendant is a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, etc., and the claim is less than $3,000 (R. 6:11), when a partner in a general partnership is appearing pro se in a summary action for the possession of a premises (R. 6:10), and when a party is a Federal Government agency (R. 1:21-1(d)).

If your company has been sued or your company wishes to bring suit in the State of New Jersey you must contact an attorney to represent your company’s interests.     

The Economic Loss Doctrine

no picture

Although firmly established within New Jersey Jurisprudence, the “Economic Loss Doctrine” is often overlooked by overzealous Plaintiffs who attempt to file Tort Claims in simple Breach of Contract cases.  The “Economic Loss Doctrine” provides that if the factual foundation for the Cause of Action is contractual in nature, than in that event, the Parties are foreclosed from pursuing Tort Claims which are based upon the same facts.  The reason the “Economic Loss Doctrine” was enacted was to prevent creative pleading which only prolongs simple Breach of Contract cases where Parties have attempted to plead claims founded in Tort.  Pursuant to the “Economic Loss Doctrine” doctrine, the Courts have held that a Party cannot pursue a claim for Fraud in the performance of a Contract.  Instead, when the damages which are sought arise from a Breach of Contract and do not involve personal injury suffered aside from contractual damages, a Parties claims are limited to Contractual ones. 

In certain circumstances, a Party may be able to bring Claims for both a Breach of Contract and Tort Claims provided, however, the Claims are against an individual who owes both a fiduciary duty as well as Contractual duty.  Such Claims are typically limited to claims against professionals such as Attorneys, Accountants, or other learned professionals who are retained by a Party pursuant to a Contract.  The “Economic Loss Doctrine” provides that unless there is an independent duty owed at Law outside of the express terms of the Contract, the Party’s remedy lies in a Breach of Contract claim only.  As to professionals such as Lawyers and Accountants, however, if an independent fiduciary duty lies outside of a Contract, Tort Claims may be prosecuted against these individuals as well. 

When filing a Pleading for a Breach of Contract it is always important that a Party consider the application of the “Economic Loss Doctrine”.  Should a party overzealously plead Tort causes of Action even though the underlying basis is Contractual in nature, the Party may subject itself to counsel fees and sanctions should a defendant obtain a Dismissal of the improperly plead Tort claims.   As a defendant, it is always important to consider the “Economic Loss Doctrine” in order to prevent frivolous Claims from being plead which will only increase the cost of Litigation for all Parties.  As such, it is important for all Parties to remember the application of the “Economic Loss Doctrine”.

The New Jersey Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act

no picture

In December of 2012, the State of New Jersey adopted the New Jersey Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act.  This same Act has been adopted by a majority of U.S. States.  The purpose of this Act is to insure uniformity concerning potential Jurisdiction issues which may arise between the U.S. States with regard to guardianship and other protective proceedings initiated in either the State of New Jersey or any other State.  Often referred to as a “Granny Snatching Statute”, this Act has certain safeguards which prohibit a family member from quickly removing an elderly relative from this person’s domicile, and thereafter, initiating Guardianship Proceedings or other proceedings within a different State.  As mentioned above, the majority of U.S. States have adopted this Act to insure that their respective Courts treat any alleged “Granny Snatching” issues uniformly.

The Statute contains numerous Sections which define when a State may exercise Jurisdiction over a Guardianship or other Protective proceeding.  One of the important definitions in the Act the definition for “Home State”.  The Act requires that a person reside in a State for at least six (6) months immediately before the filing of a Petition for the appointment of a Guardian or a Protective Order, or if none, a State will have Jurisdiction if the Respondent was physically present including any period of temporary absence for at least six (6) months ending within the six (6) months prior to filing the Petition.  Another important definition of the Act is the definition of a “Significant Connection State”.  Under the Act this means a State, other than the Home State, in which Respondent has a significant connection other than mere physical presence and in which significant potential evidence concerning the Respondent is available.

Section 9 of the Act is the primary Section which the Courts must review for the purpose of determining whether they have Jurisdiction to Appoint a Guardian or issue a Protective Order. 

A State may have Jurisdiction if it is the Respondent’s Home State, as defined above, or if it is a Significant Connection State as defined above, and other conditions are met.  If the Respondent does not have a Home State, or the Respondent does have a Home State, however, no Petition for Appointment is pending; a Party may seek to commence protective proceedings if the State in which the Court is hearing the matter is a Significant Connection State.

Another important Section of the Act is Sub-Section 12.  This Section provides that if a Court has appointed a Guardian or Issued a Protective Order that it has exclusive and continuing Jurisdiction over the proceeding until such time as it is terminated by the Court or the Order expires by its own terms.  This Section is important, as it prevents other Courts from attempting to exercise Jurisdiction once an Order is in place.  Provided the Order is issued appropriately and involves the Respondent’s Home State or a Significant Connection State, any action brought in any other State would be barred. 

The Act also contains numerous other Sections which delineate how the Courts are to cooperate regarding any Inter-State Jurisdictional issues, and also provide a means for taking Discovery if there is an Inter-State Jurisdictional issue which merits consideration.  Finally, the Act has a Section which addresses Emergency Jurisdiction under circumstances which the Court deems are an Emergency even in the absence of a Significant Connection State or Home State, provided the  Respondent is physically present in that State’s Court system.  This Act also has other Sections which define how the Courts are to interact if more than one action is proceeding in more than one State. 

The main purpose of the Act, however, is to insure uniformity and to prevent “Granny Snatching” from taking place.  The time periods set forth under the “Home State” definition, as well as the Section which defines a Significant Connection State, allow the Courts to void attempted “Granny Snatching” should an action not be properly filed.  It is for these reasons that the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceeding Jurisdiction Act is a positive step forward for the State of New Jersey and other member States.  

Documenting Change Orders in Construction Projects

no picture
During any construction project, whether a simple residential project or a complex commercial one, there are often changes to the scope of work which differ from that originally set forth within the architectural plans.  These changes to the plans, whether they increase the cost or reduce the costs of the project are called Change Orders.  Virtually every Construction Contract has clauses which address the proper way to document Change Orders for both the benefit of the Contractor as well as the project owner.  Problems typically arise in the performance of  Contracts when either one or both of the parties fail to properly document change orders.  As a General Contractor or Sub-Contractor, it is crucial that you carefully and fastidiously follow the format as to what is required under the Construction Agreement for change orders.  Virtually every Construction Agreement requires that Change Orders be in writing and that they be signed by all parties prior to the performance of any additional work.  This is particularly important in the renovation of existing residences, as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act can expose a Contractor or Sub-Contractor to great harm should the change order not be properly documented.  The issue, however, is equally important in the context of a commercial project, as the Sub-Contractor or General Contractor may have a difficult time in obtaining payment from the project owner if the Change Order is not properly documented.  
 
In these tight economic times, it is important that every Contractor or General Contractor maximize their profits on a project.  One way to ensure this takes place is to properly prepare the Change Order requests in accordance with the Contract and to submit them for the owner’s approval prior to performing work.  This also gives all parties a fair opportunity to discuss any additional work prior to performance.  As such it is suggested that a Contractor or Sub-Contractor develop an internal form that it utilizes on every project with regard to Change Orders.  
 
Provided the form is properly drafted, it should suffice with regard to any contractual relationship; however, some slight modifications may be necessary under certain circumstances.  Although time is money, it is important that the Sub-Contractor or General Contractor take the necessary additional time to secure the owner’s written approval prior to performing any additional work.  This short period of inactivity will ensure full payment at the end of a project without any dispute as to the work that was performed.  Clearly, the last thing a Contractor needs is a dispute with regard to costly extras.  
 
Should a Contractor have questions with regard to the proper format of a Change Order and should a Contractor need help in litigating the validity of a Change Order, it is strongly suggested that they consult with an attorney.  Stark & Stark has attorneys with experience in this precise area of law.

Older Entries

May 24, 2013 — Documenting Back Charges in Construction Projects

May 2, 2013 — NJ Courts Re-Up "Ascertainable Loss" Standard in Consumer Protection Cases

April 9, 2013 — What is Corporate Deadlock?

April 3, 2013 — Oppression is Found

April 2, 2013 — Sandy Insurance Claims: Commonly Encountered Issues

March 29, 2013 — Stark & Stark Construction Litigation Attorney Published in US1

March 29, 2013 — Changes in the State Court Foreclosure Mediation Program in New Jersey

March 27, 2013 — Temporary Flight Restriction Violations

March 26, 2013 — Courts May Use Equitable Powers to Order A Mandatory Purchase of Stock if Oppression is Found

March 20, 2013 — The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Provides for Remedies to Redress Oppression

March 19, 2013 — Stark & Stark Shareholder in Firm's Litigation Group Published in US1

March 15, 2013 — The "Purpose" for Forming LLCs was Expanded by New Jersey's Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

March 13, 2013 — The Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Changes the Duration of the Company

March 7, 2013 — The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liabilty Company Act Broadly Defines the term "Operating Agreement"

March 5, 2013 — The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Act Codifies the Covenant of "Good Faith and Fair Dealing"

March 4, 2013 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Featured in The New York Times Article on Wedding Industry Trademark Lawsuits

February 28, 2013 — New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Now Provides the Remedies and Protections Afforded Oppressed Minority Shareholders

February 26, 2013 — New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liabilty Act Addresses Manifestly Unreasonable Operating Agreements

February 25, 2013 — New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act is Almost Upon Us

February 22, 2013 — Mark Your Calendars: The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act is About to Go Into Effect

February 19, 2013 — Mediator Fee Disputes Are Not Subject to Fee Arbitration

February 14, 2013 — Who Is Entitled to Participate in The Pre-Litigation Negotiations in an Eminent Domain Case?

November 9, 2012 — Hurricane Sandy and the Tax Assessor

September 5, 2012 — Gathering and Using Social Media As Evidence

September 3, 2012 — Hightstown Man Charged with Stealing $500,000 From 96-Year-Old Relative

August 27, 2012 — Attorney's Estate Tests Limits of Probating an Unsigned Will

August 8, 2012 — Referring Out a Will Contest to Avoid a Conflict of Interest

June 29, 2012 — Intestacy in a Will Contest

May 21, 2012 — Lightening the Burden Imposed by the Statute of Repose

February 9, 2012 — Do you Have a Duty to Preserve Evidence?

January 19, 2012 — The Entire Controversy Doctrine -Don't Waive Your Rights

December 29, 2011 — Condominium Board Members Must Treat All Unit Owners Equally

December 20, 2011 — Requirements for a Proper Privilege Log

December 7, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FINRA's Actions Against Former Citigroup Managers

November 11, 2011 — Attention Mediators: Be sure to finalize your settlement agreement in writing

November 8, 2011 — Expungement Statute Amended: New ruling allows permit of expungement after five years

October 17, 2011 — Settlement in Slimquick/Liquid Hoodia Class Action

September 29, 2011 — Trademark Infringement in Keyword Advertising

September 16, 2011 — Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases

September 15, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on AllianceBernstein's Decision Not to Sign Protocol for Broker Recruiting

August 16, 2011 — Lehman Pursues Former Brokers' Bonuses

August 12, 2011 — Under the Consumer Fraud Act, a Spiritual Loss Is Not an Ascertainable Loss

June 7, 2011 — A Note to New Jersey Shopping Mall Owners and Managers about Protesters and Solicitors

June 3, 2011 — Litigation Hold Letters - Do I Need to Comply?

June 1, 2011 — New Jersey Supreme Court "Splits the Baby" on the Entire Controversy Doctrine

May 25, 2011 — Conflicting Loyalties: When corporate counsel should not represent a shareholder

May 18, 2011 — Timing is Everything: The Paradox of the "Occurrence" in Coverage Litigation

March 10, 2011 — Protect your Identity: Exercise your Right of Publicity

March 8, 2011 — The Seller's Disclosure Statement

March 7, 2011 — Postings on Social Networking Sites are Discoverable

February 22, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on 'Garden Leave' for Brokers

November 24, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on US Attorney's Attempt to Stop Insider Trading on Wall Street

November 18, 2010 — The Class Action Decision in Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Reconfirmed by New Jersey Supreme Court in Lee v. Carter-Reed Co.

November 17, 2010 — Copyright and the Internet: Protecting The Content of Your Website

November 5, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on EMI Fraud Case

September 29, 2010 — Copyright Law Protection for Fashion Designs

September 21, 2010 — When Disputes Go From Dinner Table to the Conference Room

September 20, 2010 — How to Switch Firms... and Not Get Sued

August 31, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Obtains $3,000,000 Settlement in Shareholder Oppression Case

August 25, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FedEx Investigation

July 13, 2010 — J.P. Morgan Sues Former Adviser

June 29, 2010 — Closely Held Business - Loans to Directors, Officers or Employees

June 15, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Conflicts of Interest - Taking Advantage of a Business Opportunity

June 2, 2010 — Bad Contracts Between Shareholders - Unfavorable Loans and Lease Agreements

May 21, 2010 — A Case Study on the Importance of Forum Selection in Mass Tort Litigation

February 25, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Increase in Suits in Response to Protocol for Broker Recruiting

February 23, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Goldman Sachs Suit

February 19, 2010 — When A Subcontractor Should File & Perfect a Lien Claim

February 2, 2010 — Oppressed Minority Shareholders Should Be Afforded Protection

January 15, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Citigroup's Motion To Dismiss In Bonus Pay Class Action

November 18, 2009 — Contracts - Construction: Validity of Paid When Paid Provision

October 28, 2009 — Builders, Contractors and Homeowners: Beware Insurance Carriers Are Delegating Construction Deficiencies Coverage

October 27, 2009 — Constitution Law: Right to Privacy - Expungements

October 8, 2009 — Retrofitness Sued By New Jersey Fitness Club Owners

September 22, 2009 — Be Clear With Your Company Email Policy

September 4, 2009 — Federal Circuit Overrules Medinol Standard for Proving Fraud in Registering a Trademark

August 25, 2009 — Contesting a Will - State Court or Federal Court

July 21, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Withholding Information

June 11, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling Concerning to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

May 22, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Enforcement of Brokers Bonus Repayment

May 20, 2009 — Litigation Strategies For Business Seminar

May 13, 2009 — Contesting a Will In New Jersey

April 27, 2009 — Are You Oppressed? Truth and Consequences for Minority Shareholders

March 27, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Excessive Compensation

March 20, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Termination of the Minority Shareholder's Employment

March 12, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholders to Present Strategies For Commercial Litigation Seminar

March 9, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Breach of Protocol for Broker Recruiting by Smith Barney Employees

March 6, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Withholding Distributions

February 27, 2009 — A Panoramic Discussion of the Squeeze-Out Techniques Often Used By Majority Shareholders

February 19, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder to Present CLE Seminar Discussing Business Break-ups

February 2, 2009 — Squeezed Out By Your Business Partner?

October 29, 2008 — Protocol for Broker Recruiting

October 21, 2008 — Identifying When Your Trademark Has Been Infringed Upon

August 25, 2008 — Preventing Employee Theft

August 19, 2008 — Equal Protection: A State Employee Is Not a "Class-of-One"

August 15, 2008 — Claim of Undue Influence Resolved by Court Before Death of Testator

July 29, 2008 — Proper Registration of Fabric Dresses Sufficient to Defeat Fraud on the Copyright Office Claims

July 24, 2008 — Patterns, Lace and Fabric Designs Incorporated Into Dresses are Copyrightable

June 24, 2008 — Minority Oppression Claims: A Primer on Acting, Standing, Remedies and Valuation

May 16, 2008 — Case Questions Retroactivity of Change to Offer-of-Judgment Rule