Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Pending Legislation to Attract Corporations to Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

A bill was recently passed in the House of Representatives that proposes giving Pennsylvania’s Superior Court and county courts the authority to establish commerce court divisions in Pennsylvania. The commerce division would utilize two of the court’s fifteen judges and three senior judges with jurisdiction over business cases – including corporate acquisitions, mergers, dissolution, liquidations or other matters concerning corporations, as well as limited liability companies, trusts, sole proprietorships and corporate partnerships.

Pennsylvania court officials have agreed to institute a pilot program if the bill, sponsored by State Representative Seth M. Grove, R-York, passes in the Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stuart Greenleaf said that he plans to propose his own more expansive legislation, which proposes an entirely new independent business court. He has stated that the costs of this new court would be offset by the benefit to the state’s economy. Greenleaf reports that his legislation has been in the works for several months and he plans to introduce it soon.

These proposals are aimed at making Pennsylvania more hospitable for businesses. Representative Grove’s bill seeks to imitate the model of Delaware’s Chancery Court, which has helped make Delaware the nation’s business capital. More than one million businesses and half of all publicly traded U.S. companies are registered in Delaware. Businesses are drawn to Delaware because its Chancery Court offers quick resolution of conflicts and certainty of outcomes.

Delaware’s Chancery Court handles shareholder lawsuits, disputes between board members, challenges to mergers and acquisitions and other civil matters. Cases in the Chancery Court are decided by judges, not juries, and a written opinion is issued for each case. These opinions provide a body of case law that can aid litigants in resolving their cases.

Critics of Pennsylvania’s plan argue that the bill is unnecessary because Pennsylvania courts already have the power to create specialized court programs, such as a commerce division. For example, we have seen programs spring up to address criminal charges against veterans and the mentally ill. Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, where most of the state’s business disputes occur, already have divisions dedicated to addressing these types of cases.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Business Transactions and Contract Disputes

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green provide traditional trial work, contract work, as well as counseling, planning and advice to all forms of businesses. Our attorneys keep up with fast paced developments in the law to provide your business with effective legal representation. With offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients in Philadelphia and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Sizeable Settlement for Colorado Sexual Harassment Victims

By ,

SPG

A Colorado potato packing plant has settled a lawsuit alleging a history of sexual harassment. According to the suit, female employees were subjected to sexual harassment at the MountainKing Potatoes plant in Monte Vista, CO for more than a decade. The plant’s operators will distribute a sum of $415,000 among 13 employees represented in the suit, and an additional $35,000 to cover legal fees for Colorado Legal Services, who helped some of the women file their complaints.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit against Smokin’ Spuds, Inc. and Farming Technology, Inc. on behalf of four female employees, alleging that a male supervisor had harassed women at the plant since 2001. The 13 employees in the suit were subjected to repeated inappropriate touching, lewd comments and propositions. The suit also claims that three of the women were fired after complaining about the harassment.

The supervisor was terminated as part of the settlement and the plant’s operators will provide discrimination law training and post signs notifying workers of their rights. They have also sent letters of apology to each of the women involved in the suit.

EEOC Increases Efforts to Protect Agricultural Workers

Agricultural workers seem to be at high risk for this type of harassment, as many are not aware of their rights and cannot afford legal representation. The MountainKing suit is one of several recent harassment cases in growing and packing facilities across the United States, including a $17 million settlement involving a produce packing operation in Florida. These cases seem to disproportionately affect immigrant women who cannot advocate for themselves, either because of a language barrier or simply because they do not know what resources are available to them.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect Rights of Sexual Harassment Victims

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of employment discrimination and harassment cases. We will give your case the personal attention you deserve and prepare a sound legal strategy to aggressively defend your rights. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we help victims of sexual harassment throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to review your case with a knowledgeable sexual harassment lawyer.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution

By ,

SPG

Relationships inside the boardroom are not unlike those encountered in everyday life. Petty squabbles and hurt feelings can occur in business just as they do in a friendship or in marriage. Unlike personal relationships, however, commercial disputes between vendor and supplier or hostility between board members can sink deals and jeopardize long-term fiscal growth. When business entities are at an impasse and litigation seems likely, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) can prove beneficial, Philadelphia business transactions lawyers say.

Alternative dispute resolution in a business context traces its roots to family law, where couples found success navigating the emotional minefield of divorce by resolving – collectively – to stay out of the courtroom. The same principles apply in commercial disputes. Just as divorcing spouses must find a way to move forward and effectively co-parent for the sake of their children, partners, board members and former clients often must continue to coexist for the sake of their respective businesses.

When parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution to resolve their business dispute, they must first retain lawyers trained in the alternative dispute resolution approach. Although counsel may be present at most meetings their role is largely supervisory. Allowing negotiations to be primarily conducted by the parties themselves helps ensure a settlement that all sides find satisfactory.

There are yet other advantages to alternative dispute resolution. Because parties are not pressured to assemble a team of lawyers nor pay court costs, ADR is a more economical approach to dispute resolution than litigation. Arbitration also presents a cost-savings over litigation, but the uncertainty of an arbitrator’s ultimate award may be untenable to some parties. Successful mediation, likewise, is dependent upon the skill and fairness of a mutually-agreed upon mediator.

Alternative dispute resolution, by contrast, offers participants greater control over the outcome – at less cost. Keeping a dispute out of the courtroom also helps ensure privacy, which can often be an issue when ownership of trade secrets or other confidential business information must be decided. ADR also helps repair and restore business relationships previously believed to be irreparably damaged, as parties work together to resolve their differences.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can Handle all Your Alternative Dispute Resolution Needs

Commercial disputes are common in the business world but often can be resolved without litigation. Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are well-versed in alternative dispute resolution. Call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to learn more about how we can help your business move forward. At our Philadelphia offices, we proudly serve corporate clients throughout the surrounding areas.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers Discuss: Cleaning Company Sued for Violating FLSA

By ,

SPG

The owner of Heits Building Services of Central and Northern New Jersey is facing a federal lawsuit for violating labor laws at the expense of the company’s workers. Giuseppe Grammatico has been accused of selling “franchises” to individuals, then treating them like employees instead of independent contractors.

According to the lawsuit, Grammatico heads Grammatico Enterprises Inc. which provides cleaning services through Heits Building Services for customers around New Jersey. He has been charging workers $8,250 to acquire their own cleaning franchise and clean for his clients. However, rather than being treated as independent franchise owners, all monies and contracts were handled by Grammatico.

As pled in the lawsuit, Heits Building Services assigned contracts to franchise owners, collected payments from clients and paid workers their wages after taking a percentage for “management fees.” Workers were prohibited from contacting new clients and were also required to use cleaning products purchased from Heits. The suit also claims that workers did not receive overtime pay.

The lawsuit accuses Grammatico of implementing this particular business model to avoid paying fair wages and overtime. Grammatico denies this claim and purports that many other businesses classify franchises the same way. Moreover, the defendant asserts that his business model benefits franchise owners by providing them with the necessary training and support they need to be successful.

The Labor Department disagrees. In recent years, both federal and regional authorities such as New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Labor Division have grown increasingly aware of the uptrend in what is known as employee misclassification. The independent contractor misclassification is one of the most increasingly common type of labor violations. Employee misclassification deprives workers of wages and benefits and contributes to an unfair business advantage for companies that misclassify workers. If the Labor Department wins the lawsuit against Grammatico, affected workers should recover back wages for unpaid overtime and unpaid Social Security contributions.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Employees in Fair Labor Violation Lawsuits

Our team of Philadelphia overtime lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have represented employees in FLSA claims for unpaid overtime. Please call 215-574-0600 or contact us online today to schedule your consultation.  

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers: Proposed Civil Asset Forteiture Ban

By ,

SPG

Proposal to Ban Civil Asset Forfeiture to Come Before Pennsylvania State Senate Committee

In July of 2015, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill requiring prosecutors to convict an individual of a crime before the State could take his/her property permanently through civil forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is used by police and prosecutors to take property from individuals suspected of a crime. Previously, this meant that the state could take property from an individual, even if that individual had never been convicted. Types of forfeitable property include cash, cars, homes, and other personal property.

Sentiment has been moving away from Pennsylvania’s use of civil forfeiture. In November of 2012, Judge Dan Pellegrini of Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court stated that Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture law amounted to “little more than state-sanctioned theft.”

The Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Individuals Suspected of a Crime

If you or a family member is suspected of a crime and need experienced legal representation the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help.  For more information contact us online, or call 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Bucks County Court Allows Plaintiff to Pierce Corporate Veil

By ,

SPG

A Bucks County Court of Common Pleas judge awarded a packaging company more than $138,000 in compensation against a limited liability company, and allowed the plaintiffs to pierce the corporate veil to recoup the money. Plaintiff, Power Line Packaging Inc., is a small, family-owned manufacturing and repackaging company focusing on personal care products. Judge Gary Gilman awarded plaintiff money after finding that Defendnats Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition LLC and its principals intentionally made misrepresentations to plaintiff and were unjustly enriched.

Hermes Calgon was formed as a limited liability company by previous executives of a company that owned several personal care product brands. Hermes Calgon approached Power Line to develop a line of products for Shoppers Drug Mart, which is a large retailer in Canada. The defendants claimed that Shoppers Drug Mart had already placed orders with the company. Based on the representations, Power Line bought materials to create the product line, and developed product line formulas at the defendants’ request.

Power Line was never told payment was contingent on the placement of purchase orders or payments from Shoppers. Shoppers advised the defendants that the company needed to review the product pricing strategy, but defendants did not notify Power Line of Shoppers’ position. In June 2009, the defendants were told that Shoppers would not purchase the products. Power Line sued the defendants, arguing that the defendants repeatedly reassured Power Line they would pay for the purchase and storage of materials related to developing the product line.

“The court held that if you’re going to form an LLC, you need to follow the formalities of that company, and if those formalities are not followed, the individuals forming the LLC may be subject to liability[.]”

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Lawsuits against Limited Liability Companies

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients is all areas of business law, including commercial litigation and employment law.  Contact us online, or call us at 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Shareholder Derivative Suits

By ,

SPG

A derivative action is a lawsuit brought by one or more shareholders of a corporation on behalf of the corporation. The action seeks to enforce a right the corporation has which the officers and directors are not enforcing. In order to bring a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the corporation, a shareholder must first make a written demand to the board of directors requesting that the board take action to enforce the corporation’s right.

Once the shareholders make demand upon the board of directors, the board of directors needs to decide if they are going to have the corporation sue. Sometimes the board of directors will decide itself whether to sue or not, and other times it will put together a special litigation committee to make the decision. If the board decides not to sue, the shareholders can file a derivative lawsuit. However, the first thing the court will look at is whether the court should give deference to the board’s decision based on the business judgment rule. The business judgment rule applies when the board’s made a business decision, which was proper under the circumstances, not to sue. When the business judgment rule applies the court is prohibited from allowing the case to go forward.il

Philadelphia Business and Commercial Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Derivative Action Lawsuits

The Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent shareholders of a corporation in derivative action lawsuits.  If you need an experienced Philadelphia Litigation Lawyers, contact us online or call 215-514-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Anticipatory Repudiation of Contracts

By ,

SPG

Normally, contractual remedies flow from a breach of contract. However, remedies can also be available when anticipatory repudiation occurs. Anticipatory repudiation is when one party to a contract declares that they will not, or are unable to, perform their obligation under the contract prior to the obligation becoming due. In Pennsylvania, the declaration must be “an absolute and unequivocal refusal to perform or a distinct and positive statement of an inability to do so.”

When anticipatory repudiation occurs, the law provides the aggrieved party, the party that is not refusing to or unable to perform, remedies.   The aggrieved party can choose to wait and see if the other party will indeed perform under the contract. However, the aggrieved party could also seek remedies which are available for breach of contract, including damages or specific performance. Either way, the aggrieved party can also suspend his performance under the contract.’

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are Experienced in All Areas of Contract Law

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent clients in contract disputes.  If you need a qualified Philadelphia Contract Lawyer, contact us online, or call us at 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Conditional Class Certification for Collective Actions

By ,

SPG

Getting a conditional class certified in court requires the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rest of the opt-in plaintiffs were “similarly situated.” In Jarosz v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., PICS Case No. 14-1560 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2014), an employee claimed she was never properly compensated for performing work during her meal break, and that this was a policy throughout her work. The court decertified the potential class because the circumstances showed this meal break policy was not centralized. Factors such as employees from other departments and positions, as well as the fact that meal breaks were scheduled differently depending on the department, aided the court in reaching its decision.

This court’s decision is important to show that just being employed by the same employer is not enough for additional plaintiffs to opt-in to a class action (collective action) suit. The “similarly situated” standard is focus in this court’s holding. The certification of a class action becomes inappropriate when individual issues would overcome issues that the class as a whole would have.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green are Experienced in All Areas of Business Litigation including Class Action Lawsuits

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent clients in all areas of Employment Law, and handle class action lawsuits.  For more information contact us online, or call 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Increase in File Sharing Litigation

By ,

SPG

A new report by Lex Machina, an intellectual property litigation research company, has brought to light just how prevalent file sharing litigation has become lately in the world of intellectual property and copyright law. The analysis, which spanned more than five and a half years from the first quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2015, studied the trends of copyright cases that were filed in United States district courts during that period. The year 2011 witnessed an upsurge in file sharing cases and three years later, in the summer of 2014, file sharing cases outnumbered all other copyright cases by a significant margin.

Who are the Parties?

The most prevalent plaintiffs in the recent increase in file sharing cases are those in the music, software, publishing and fashion industries. Broadcast Music has filed close to 1,000 lawsuits since 2009 and Sony/ATV Song has filed just over 500. Warner-Tamerlane Publishing, Songs of Universal and EMI Blackwood have filed about 1,100 lawsuits combined. The top defendants have been retailers, recorded book publishers and music publishers. Ross Stores has had to defend itself against file sharing lawsuits 181 times in the past five years. TJX Companies, Universal Music, Amazon.com and Burlington Coat Factory have been contested just under 300 times combined.

How are the Cases Decided and How Long Does it Take?

The report highlights that fair use, a concept in U.S. copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without asking permission from the rights holder, is usually decided before a trial begins at summary judgment. About three out of four plaintiffs who won their cases did so at summary judgment. Of the lawsuits studied, the defendant succeeded in winning their case less than three percent of the time, but the plaintiff won their case 22 percent of the time, making them seven times more likely to have a successful outcome than the defendant in terms of file sharing cases. However, 64 percent of cases ended in settlement and almost 11 percent ended because of a procedural error by one of the parties.

The average time for a temporary restraining order was eight days, 1.2 months for a preliminary injunction and 7.5 months for a permanent injunction. In cases wherein a trial occurs, the average time it takes for a trial to begin is just over two years.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Intellectual Property Litigation Cases

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been fighting for our clients in complex business and copyright matters since 1958 – almost 60 years. Call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to talk to one of our knowledgeable Philadelphia copyright lawyers.