skip to main content
email print

Articles

Maryland Guardianships—  Don’t Get ‘Britney Speared’  

August 24, 2021

Britney Spears, the “Princess of Pop,” has had a royal mess on her hands ever since her father become her legal “conservator.” According to Britney, her father has so overstepped his authority to manage her finances that his behavior has amounted to abuse. The ordeal has become the stuff of tabloid journalism. Fans and detractors alike have been left wondering how Britney's legal rights could have been taken from her so abruptly—and whether the same could happen to them.  

Perspectives from the Arbitrator: Tips for a Successful Arbitration

June 1, 2021

A misconception has developed that arbitration is no quicker than litigation. However, arbitration can be an effective and efficient alternative to the time consuming and costly process of litigation. The following tips can shed some light on to why arbitration should be a consideration before litigation, and how to effectively use arbitration to a successful resolution of legal issues.

Potential Tax Changes in 2021 Loom Large for Estate Planning

January 7, 2021

The U. S. House of Representatives has retained its Democratic majority, the Senate now tilts blue in large part to a historic assist from Georgia, and Joe Biden’s presidential victory has been certified. Get ready for higher taxes.   

Supreme Court Rules That Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Prohibits Employment Discrimination

June 16, 2020

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, published a historic decision that greatly expands the definition of “sex” discrimination under the federal Civil Rights Act, also known as Title VII.  In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, penned the Court’s majority opinion holding that an employer who terminates an employee due to the employee’s sexual orientation or sexual identity violates Title VII’s prohibition on workplace discrimination because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

Regulation Best Interest: Higher Standards for Broker-Dealers, Strengthened Protections for Investor

February 27, 2020

On June 5, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a new regulation that requires stock brokers to base their recommendations to investors on what is in an investor’s best interest.  This new higher standard, referred to as “Regulation Best Interest”, is intended to narrow the gap that currently exists between the different standards of care that a broker and an investment advisor must abide by when making recommendations to an investor.  The SEC will begin enforcing Regulation Best Interest on June 30, 2020.   

The Requirements and Impact of the Insurance Data Security Model Law

October 10, 2019

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners recommended that states pass the Insurance Data Security Model Law. The Model Law requires businesses and companies in the insurance industry to take reasonable steps to protect sensitive information, investigate potential data incidents and breaches, and respond accordingly.

SEC Imposes New Requirements for Brokers and Advisers in Adoption of Regulation Best Interest

June 19, 2019

On June 5, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the Regulation Best Interest, setting a higher standard of care for broker-dealers, and their financial professionals, when making a recommendation to a retail investor regarding a securities transaction. The SEC also now requires that both broker-dealers and investment advisers provide the retail investor with a Customer Relationship Summary (Form CRS) to allow the retail investor to compare one financial professional’s services to another. 

Impact of PA Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding Stacking of UM/UIM Coverage has Become Much Broader

June 18, 2019

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the household vehicle exclusion holding that it violated the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Company.  Following the ruling in Gallagher, several class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of policyholders who have had their claims for stacking of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage denied under the household vehicle exclusion. Carriers have been defending those class actions suits arguing that those claims were denied prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gallagher.  Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania opened the door for even more litigation against carriers by holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gallagher could apply retroactively, leaving insurance companies with uncertainty regarding what risks they currently insure, what prior losses they may be liable for, and how to price their policies. 

>