In what is many times considered a ministerial task, the careful preparation and review of UCC-3 termination statements in transactions between debtors and lenders should not be taken lightly. Secured creditors and their professionals would be wise to make sure that the identification of security interests to be terminated in any filing is completely accurate, and does not include security interests not intended to be released. Neglecting to carefully review UCC-3 termination statements could have a disastrous affect, as illustrated by the recent decision of the Delaware Supreme Court, which effectively converted a $1.5 billion dollar secured loan to an unsecured loan.
This week, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) released a memo that highlights some of the House GOP’s agenda for 2015.
Not surprisingly, the memo focuses on House Republicans’ efforts to reign in what they see as an out of control federal government:
Digitaliseringen af dialog med forskellige offentlige myndigheder foregår i ”højeste gear”. Med virkning fra 1. november 2014 skal alle borgere sørge for, at det offentlige kan korrespondere med dem på digital måde, medmindre man særskilt har indgået anden aftale.
Are we going two steps forward and one step back? Two steps back and one step forward? The anecdotes reported in an article by Staci Zaretsky, “Stop Treating Women Lawyers Like Crap,” published in Abovethelaw.com last week, are wince-inducing and suggest that there has been no progress for women lawyers at all. I question the notion, as well as Zaretsky’s assertion, that “women lawyers aren’t taken seriously, and they certainly aren’t treated with respect by their fellow lawyers in this profession.”
Recent enforcements in home health fraud have highlighted the need for home health companies of every state to engage the State Medicaid payment agency in pro-active affirmative discussion to work together to identify issues related to fraud and abuse. Such discussions will provide home health companies further insight regarding compliance with federal and state fraud and abuse laws. That being said, recent enforcement actions have shown that home health companies may be liable under fraud and abuse laws, despite efforts to comply with such laws.
Epstein Becker Green and EBG Advisors, as part of the Thought Leaders in Population Health Speaker Series, will host a complimentary webinar titled The Impact of Value-Based Purchasing and Other Employee Initiatives on Population Health. This session will discuss several approaches for population health managers to reduce costs and improve health care.
The webinar, scheduled for November 20, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. ET, will be led by Laurel Pickering, MPH, President & CEO of Northeast Business Group on Health, and David Lansky, PhD, President & CEO of Pacific Business Group on Health. Adam Solander of Epstein Becker Green will moderate the session.
We’re often asked about the current state of play with UK pre-nups and, as a wealth lawyer, I’m always interested to know how bullet-proof trusts are, should a beneficiary divorce, and whether there are any alternatives to trusts that might offer better protection.
So I’ve teamed up with my colleague Teresa Cullen, our family partner, and we’ll be exploring exactly these issues in our seminar here at Fladgate, 16 Great Queen Street, London WC2B, on 13 November 2014.
Further details below. If you’d like to join us, please RSVP to register your interest.
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. This was significant for tax purposes because the subsequent Internal Revenue Service Revenue Bulletin provided that same-sex individuals who are lawfully married under the laws of a particular state carry that same status for federal tax purposes.
But confusion remained as to how these couples would file their state taxes in states that did not recognize same-sex marriage. The problem, as explained by the Tax Foundation, was that when states require taxpayers to reference their federal returns when filling out their state return, this creates a situation where the couples are both single and married filers, depending on the level of government. Action that the United States Supreme Court took on Oct. 6, 2014 is now forcing resolution of the problem.