June 21, 2022
When Justice Samuel Alito’s would-be opinion overturning Roe v. Wade leaked to the press, it sent abortion-rights advocates reeling. If the opinion holds, it will end a constitutional right that has been the law of the land for nearly half a century.
March 8, 2022
There have always been reasons for an employer to think very carefully before including a binding arbitration clause in its employment agreements, and a Fourth Circuit Opinion decided last week – …
December 28, 2021
In the next three decades, trillions of dollars are expected to transfer from Baby Boomers to their children in what’s being called the Great Wealth Transfer. For those of us whose parents are still…
November 19, 2021
This morning the House passed the latest version of President Biden’s $2 trillion social spending and climate package today, also known as the Build Back Better Act, but the threat of massive tax…
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.
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.
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.
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.
November 14, 2019
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals provides helpful guidelines to homeowners and HOAs in addressing the boundaries of reasonableness when reviewing solar panel installations in Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green Homeowners Association, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 736.
November 12, 2019
In June, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a new regulation, Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”) to address a long-standing concern among consumer advocates and some financial professionals that existing regulations do not impose requirements on broker-dealers to make recommendations that are in a client’s 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.
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.