Philadelphia Business Attorneys: 10 Missteps Businesses Make

By ,

Starting a new business is as exciting as it is demanding. With so many details to consider, it is not uncommon for eager entrepreneurs to overlook certain legalities that could potentially get them into major hot water. In these cases, even the most well-intentioned business owners could be breaking the law without even knowing it, putting themselves at risk of litigation, loss of business license, or even criminal charges.

When considering starting a business, it is extremely important to protect yourself and your business from legal troubles that could end up costing time, money, or your freedom. Seek the advice and counsel of an experienced and reputable business lawyer who can help you avoid these and other legal missteps.

Following are some common mistakes entrepreneurs can make:

  1. Failing to obtain all necessary state permits and licenses. Requirements can vary depending on the type of business, the location of headquarters and operations, and what government rules apply.
  2. Failure to make payroll tax deductions. Employers who fail to withhold federal income taxes and turn them over to the federal government are playing a dangerous game.
  3. Deducting personal expenses as business expenses. Determining what expenses are considered business and what are personal can be tricky, especially because many expenses are useful for both purposes.
  4. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Misclassification can lead to a myriad of legal problems down the road, including discrimination, wage and hour disputes, Workers’ Compensation, unemployment, and employee benefits.
  5. Classifying all employees as exempt, whether they are or are not. Both federal and state laws rely on a variety of criteria to determine whether an employee is exempt – salary is not the only factor.
  6. Failing to comply with federal and state wage and hour statutes. State laws may vary, so it is wise to keep yourself informed on statutes that apply to employee overtime and rest and meal breaks.
  7. Failing to implement appropriate workplace policies. Policies regarding discrimination and harassment should be prepared and communicated to employees in order to protect the company against an employee claim. Although many federal discrimination laws apply only to companies with 15 or more employees, there may be state discrimination or harassment laws applicable to companies with as few as four employees.
  8. Improper use of investor funds. Spending money given to you by people in trust could be jeopardizing your investor relations at best, or result in being faced with charges of embezzlement at worst.
  9. Selling recalled or counterfeit products. Both are illegal, whether you knew what you were selling was recalled or counterfeit or not.
  10. Not charging, reporting, or collecting sales tax. A business attorney can help to ensure that all state and local sales taxes are charged properly.

Philadelphia Business Law Firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Sound Legal Counsel for Businesses

Business law can be difficult and complex. There are rules; there are exceptions to the rules; and then there are exceptions to the exceptions. Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the knowledge and the experience to help your growing business succeed. We offer a wide range of business services ranging from contract law, employment law, trademark litigation and governmental over-reaching. We have the strategies to help you avoid litigation, and the knowledge and skills to protect you when litigation is necessary. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to learn how we can help you protect your business.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Report Breweries “Steamed” Over Use of Trademark

By ,

The City Steam Brewery Cafe in Hartford, Connecticut recently agreed to resolve a lawsuit with Anchor Brewing in California by changing the name of its beer.  According to the lawsuit, Anchor Brewing claimed that City Steam was infringing on their trademark by naming their product, City Steam beer.   Anchor claims that they have been selling its brand named Anchor Steam Beer for well over 85 years, and had the name trademarked in 1980.

The Connecticut based City Steam Brewery has been selling its City Steam beer since 1998 and refused to allow Anchor Brewing to strip it of its name.  The Connecticut company agreed to change the name of its beer to “Citysteam,” but would not relinquish the name of their restaurant, The City Steam Brewery Cafe.   Defense lawyers stated that the compromise is a win for their client.

According to a recent article on HartfordBusiness.com, the recent surge of newcomers in the craft beer market are running into lots of legal woes, especially regarding trademarks.  Most small brewers are mainly interested in getting their beer exposure in the overcrowded market, so they don’t take the time or money to trademark their brand.  Once their beer begins to gain recognition and its market increases, the bigger, established brewers challenge the newcomer with trademark litigation concerning brand confusion.  The recent case between City Steam and Anchor Brewing is expected to set a new precedent for prior ownership cases regarding trademarks.

Philadelphia Business Law Firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has a Strong Reputation for Successful Legal Counsel and Representation

For over 50 years, the Philadelphia business law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has successfully represented countless clients in some of the toughest cases.  The experienced and knowledgeable Philadelphia business attorneys at the firm are committed to providing only the highest quality service to their clients.  If you or someone you know requires the services of a Philadelphia business lawyer, call our office at 215-574-0600, or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

Our office is located in Center City Philadelphia allowing us to serve clients in Philadelphia and its surrounding areas, including Bala Cynwyd, Merion Station, Wynnewood, Darby, Narberth, Upper Darby, Sharon Hill, Cheltenham, Clifton Heights, Folcroft, Lansdowne, Drexel Hill, Elkins Park, Havertown, Glenolden, Ardmore, Gladwyne, Wyncote, Norwood, Holmes, Haverford, Delaware County, and Montgomery County.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Tech Giants Agree to $415 Million Settlement for Anti-trust Violations

By ,

Four of Silicon Valley’s largest tech companies, Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel, have agreed to a $415 million settlement over claims that they conspired with one another in their employee hiring practices in order to stifle competition and suppress wages.

The settlement puts an end to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2011 on behalf of more than 64,000 programmers and engineers against Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit. The lawsuit claimed the defendants entered into a series of agreements with each other not to recruit or hire each other’s employees. This included a strict policy to refrain from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees.

The plaintiffs alleged that the companies were in violation of state and federal antitrust laws that prohibit practices intended to limit employee’s power to negotiate for higher salaries.

Evidence of the pact included troves of embarrassing email conversations between high-ranking executive officers of the companies that detailed the anti-competitive agreement. In at least one such email, a top executive assured his rival of the swift termination of a recruiter who had dared to violate the pact. Other emails discussed the handshake agreement and its need to be kept quiet in order to avoid a lawsuit.

Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Intuit reached an earlier settlement of $20 million.  Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel agreed to the $415 million settlement after a previous $324.5 million proposal was rejected in August on the grounds that it didn’t offer enough money for the affected workers.

The companies likely agreed to the deal in order avoid the risk of further litigation. If no settlement was made, the case was set to go before a jury this spring. A loss could have resulted in damages exceeding $9 billion, in addition to marring the public’s perception of the tech powerhouses.

This most recent settlement amounts to approximately $6,400 per employee. The companies have also agreed to refrain from restricting hiring and recruiting practices among themselves.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle Business matters including Antitrust Litigation

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our Philadelphia business attorneys we handle all aspects of business law, including antitrust litigation, class action lawsuits and appeals, employment discrimination, and whistleblower actions. We combine our superior knowledge of the law with a fearless and unwavering commitment to justice in order to produce the best possible outcome for our clients.

Our office is conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, allowing us to represent clients throughout the region, including Philadelphia County, Delaware County, and Montgomery County. To discuss your case with one of our highly skilled and experienced Philadelphia business lawyers call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online to schedule your confidential consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Sprint Acquisition of RadioShack is Pending

By ,

RadioShack Corp. has been losing customers to online retailers and struggling to turn a profit in recent years.  According to Bloomberg, RadioShack Corp. is negotiating the sale of some of its store leases to wireless carrier, Sprint Corp., as part of a bankruptcy deal.   The balance of store leases unpurchased by Sprint would be closed. However, the terms of this acquisition could change or another bidder could surface before a deal is reached. The Sanpower Group, who took the chain of Brookstone stores out of bankruptcy, is also negotiating with RadioShack.

As a result of RadioShack failing to submit a business plan addressing compliance issues regarding New York Stock Exchange rules, the trading of RadioShack stock has been suspended. The value of RadioShack shares dropped off to 24 cents this week which amounted to a 90% loss of its value from 12 months ago.

Sources say that RadioShack’s largest shareholder, Standard General LP, has offered the struggling company a reorganization loan, the terms of which include the sale of assets in a bankruptcy.   A battle with lenders over control of the company could be avoided by liquidating the stores. One source claims that lender Salus Capital Partners LLC has presented RadioShack with an alternate financing plan. Spokespeople for RadioShack, Standard General LP, Salus at Integrated Corporate Relations Inc. and Sprint have all declined to comment on any alleged talks with RadioShack.

Sprint plans to acquire up to 2,000 of the 4,000 RadioShack locations. The CEO announced to investors at a Citigroup Inc. conference in January that Sprint has plans to expand the company by adding more retail locations to dramatically grow their distribution.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent the Best Interests of Corporations

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are skilled litigators and negotiators experienced in providing legal representation and advice to companies during bankruptcy and restructuring.  Our offices handle all types of business law and commercial litigation matters. We are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and we represent clients throughout the country including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, and Texas.  Contact a knowledgeable Philadelphia business attorney at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green by calling 215-574-0600 or submit an online contact form.

New Jersey Business Attorneys Report on Latest Baseball Antitrust Matter

By ,

Major League Baseball, one of the nation’s largest corporations, has found itself amidst a new round of antitrust litigation involving the move of the Oakland Athletics baseball team to San Jose, California.   According to the latest decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, efforts by Major League Baseball to block the team’s move to San Jose did not violate federal antitrust laws.

In 2010, the City of San Jose sought approval from baseball commissioner Bud Selig to move the Oakland baseball team to their city.  Selig denied this request effectively blocking Oakland from moving the baseball team to San Jose.  The City of San Jose proceeded to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Major League Baseball was denying the rights of baseball clubs and cities to negotiate relocations and stadium deals in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Congress passed the first federal antitrust laws (including the Sherman Act, Federal Trade Commission Act and Clayton Act) to protect economic liberty and free trade by proscribing unlawful mergers and business dealings.  Private parties, like Major League Baseball, may bring private causes of action against unlawful monopolies and business practices which restrain free trade.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte initially denied San Jose’s claims citing a 1922 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that created a federal antitrust exemption for baseball clubs on the basis that baseball clubs were not engaged in “interstate commerce.”  The City of San Jose appealed the lower court ruling.   Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling that Major League Baseball did not violate federal antitrust laws by barring the team’s move to San Jose.  The Oakland A’s announced last summer the signing of a ten year deal to remain in Oakland.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced New Jersey business lawyers handle all types of business law matters including antitrust and intellectual property cases.  We represent businesses of all sizes in legal matters pending in state and federal courts.  The Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to serve our business clients throughout the Delaware Valley. To schedule your free confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry form.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  New Complex Business Litigation Program begins in New Jersey State Courts

By ,

Business litigation in New Jersey just became more streamlined.  Beginning this January, New Jersey state judges have the option of assigning complex business, commercial and construction cases to New Jersey’s new Complex Business Litigation Program.  Based on recommendations of the New Jersey Supreme Court Working Group on Business Litigation, the Program aims to provide a streamlined judicial process for complex business matters.  Other states with similar business litigation programs include Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland.

To be eligible for inclusion in the Complex Business Litigation Program, the amount in controversy must be at least $200,000 (also called the “threshold damages amount.”)  Parties will use the Civil Case Information Statement to indicate whether the matter should be designated as a complex business matter.  Both jury and non-jury matters may be eligible for inclusion in the program.  The Complex Business Litigation Program may also oversee actions related to the establishment of a trust or the imposition of an equitable lien to satisfy damages.

Some types of cases will be excluded from the program including those matters handled by the General Equity Court, condemnation matters, cases where the government is a party, certain personal injury matters and cases involving consumers or labor organizations. If a case becomes part of the Complex Business Litigation Program it will not be subject to the Court’s mandatory civil mediation and arbitration programs.

One promising feature of the Complex Business Litigation Program is the designation of Complex Business Litigation Judges in each vicinage who will have received extensive training in complex business litigation matters such as the Uniform Commercial Code, securities, anti-racketing and business valuation.  These specially designated judges will be expected to issue a minimum of two written opinions annually to assist in the development of a body of law on complex business issues.

All complex cases filed on or after January 1, 2015 may be eligible for inclusion in the Complex Business Litigation Program.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of Business Law Matters and are licensed to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our Philadelphia business litigation attorneys are experienced litigators, negotiators and mediators prepared to represent clients in cases pending in the Complex Business Litigation Program. We proudly serve a wide range of business clients from small businesses to large corporations.  With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, our business attorneys represent clients throughout the Delaware Valley in business litigation and intellectual property, including trademark and copyright matters. Call the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today to schedule your free confidential consultation at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  Trademark Protection for the Virgin Name

By ,

Entrepreneur Richard Branson’s Virgin Group global conglomerate encompasses such well known entities as Virgin Records, Virgin Airlines, Virgin Galactic and Virgin Mobile. As his empire flourishes, Branson continues to seek trademark protection for the Virgin name in unrelated fields resulting in a flurry of trademark infringement litigation throughout the United States.

Since 2012, the Virgin Group has opposed or delayed over 60 trademark registrations in the United States, many against companies and non-profits providing services that do not overlap with the activities of the Virgin Group.  Most recently, the Virgin Group opposed trademark registrations for Virgin Valley Cab (a Northwest Arizona/Southeast Nevada taxi company), the Las Virgenes Educational Foundation (a Southern California education non-profit) and Virgin Vapor (a California manufacturer of liquefied nicotine for electronic cigarettes).  The Virgin Group has also expressed interest in opposing the trademark registration of CBS Studios’ television sitcom “Jane the Virgin.”

While the Virgin Group stands behind its actions in the name of protecting its brand, others view the flurry of trademark infringement claims filed by the company as “trademark bullying.”  Many small business owners engaged in costly and lengthy court battles with the Virgin Group, which has annual revenue of approximately $25 billion, agree.  Many of these small businesses are forced to concede to the demands of the Virgin Group as an alternative to costly litigation.  For example, small apparel retailer Virgin Threads eventually dropped its name as result of Virgin’s trademark infringement litigation.

The Virgin Group asserts that without the protection of its trademark name, consumers will be unable to tell the difference between their brand and the new ones.  For a company like the Virgin Group, who continues to enter new commercial fields, their name is one of the greatest assets.  Allowing other trademarks with the “Virgin” name arguably dilutes the power of the Virgin brand.

Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent Trademark and Intellectual Property Owners throughout the Delaware Valley

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our dedicated Philadelphia business attorneys aggressively represent intellectual property owners in a wide range of trademark, copyright and intellectual property matters including copyright and trademark registration, infringement and enforcement actions.  Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey. To schedule your free confidential consultation, call the Philadelphia intellectual property attorneys at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry form.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  Deal Reached between CBS and the Dish Network

By ,

Two major television programming providers, the CBS Corporation and the Dish Network Corporation, have reached a substantial deal for an undisclosed amount to provide CBS television programming to thousands of Dish Network subscribers.  CBS had previously pulled its programming from the Dish Network in several major markets including New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Boston, Denver, Chicago and San Francisco.

This deal will end ongoing litigation between CBS and the Dish Network regarding the use of AutoHop (which allows viewers to skip commercials) and Primetime Anytime programming features.  As a result of the deal, AutoHop will not be available for CBS programming during the “C7 window” which covers the period of time from the premiere of a show plus seven days.  The Dish Network will have access to Showtime video on demand content, authentication rights for Showtime Anytime (giving digital access to Showtime content) and future distribution rights for Showtime Networks.  Dish Network subscribers rely on CBS programming for coverage of high profile NCAA championship basketball and football games during this time of the year.

This is not the first instance of a network blackout faced by the Dish Network.  This past November several Turner Broadcasting channels including TBS, CNN and the Cartoon Network, were unavailable to Dish Network subscribers.  The Dish Network was able to successfully resolve its dispute with Turner Broadcasting to restore subscriber access to these channels as well.

Negotiating a business deal such as the one between CBS and the Dish Network can be a complicated process with legal implications for all involved parties.  Attempting to negotiate a business deal without sound legal advice can have devastating consequences. With the assistance of an experienced business attorney, the rights and obligations of your company can be protected during the course of negotiating a business deal.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced Philadelphia business lawyers work with large and small businesses in closing business deals throughout the country to ensure that the legal rights of our clients are protected while placing them in the most advantageous negotiating position.

The Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley in business matters including intellectual property cases involving trademarks and copyrights.  To schedule your free confidential consultation, call the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Report on Recent Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

By ,

Crayola, a division of Hallmark Cards, Inc., recently filed a lawsuit against Alex Toys LLC, a New Jersey toy company, alleging unauthorized trademark use on crayons.  According to the complaint, crayons sold by Alex Toys LLC bore wrappers labeled with the word “Crayola.”  Alex Toys LLC sold crayons bearing the Crayola trademark as part of their Colossal Art Set and in a bucket of crayons available on their website.

Crayola petitioned the court to prohibit further infringement, award monetary damages to Crayola, and order Alex Toys LLC to destroy existing products and promotional materials bearing the word “Crayola.”  In addition, Crayola requested that Alex Toys LLC be required to pay all legal fees incurred by Crayola for this lawsuit including attorney fees and litigation costs.

Philadelphia business attorneys at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are dedicated to protecting the intellectual property of our clients.  We have extensive knowledge and experience pertaining to all aspects of trademark infringement law.  Our lawyers are skilled negotiators, litigators, and consultants.  Contact us online or call our Philadelphia intellectual property attorneys at 215-574-0600 to find out how your company can benefit with Sidkoff, Pincus & Green on your side.

Pennsylvania Landlord-Tenant Law: Holdover Tenancy and Eviction

By ,

Under Pennsylvania law, a holdover tenant is an individual who “unjustifiably refuses to surrender possession of a leasehold premises at the end of the term of the lease.”  U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Schlavo Bros., Inc., 668 F.2d 172, 182 (3d Cir. 1981) (citing Restatement (Second) of Property, Landlord and Tenant § 14.1 n.1 (1977)).  A landlord may sue a holdover tenant for possession and recovery of damages suffered due to the tenant’s refusal to surrender the property.  See id.

“When a tenant holds over the landlord has a ‘choice of remedies.’  He [the landlord] might have looked upon the tenant as a trespasser and summarily ejected him, or he might have treated him in holding over as a tenant by sufferance, or he might have regarded the holding over as a continuance under the terms of the lease.”  H. F. D. No. 26, Inc. v. Middletown Merchandise Mart, 467 F.2d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 1972) (quoting City of Pittsburgh v. Charles Zubik & Sons, 171 A.2d 776, 778 (Pa. 1961)).  “Once a landlord has exercised his choice of remedies and determined how he plans to treat a holdover tenant, he may not alter his position.”  H.F.D., supra at 256 (citing Emery v. Metzner, 156 A.2d 627, 631(Pa.Super. 1959)).

A landlord who repossesses rental property through eviction suspends the tenant’s obligation to pay rent.  Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger & Mansueto, Inc., 344 A.2d 549, 551 (Pa.Super. 1975).  Once a landlord retakes possession from the lessee tenant, the landlord is precluded from a claim of holdover tenancy as a matter of law.  See Restatement (Second) of Property, Landlord and Tenant § 1.2 (stating: “[a] landlord-tenant relationship exists only if the landlord transfers the right to possession of the leased property.”).

Although the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship may restrict a landlord from asserting a claim of holdover tenancy, a landlord may pursue other legal remedies.  For example, a landlord who reclaims possession of the premises is still entitled to recover damages if the former tenant leaves behind personal property.  See Restatement (Second) of Property, Landlord and Tenant § 12.3 cmt. l (stating that landlord may recover from tenant cost of removing and storing personal property left behind, and for any other damages he sustains).

If you think that you might have a claim – as either a landlord or tenant – for legal remedies stemming from a landlord-tenant relationship, please contact the experienced lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green in Philadelphia, who are licensed to practice law in all courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.