Occupiers must be alert to changes to lending and insurance requirements as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The fire initiated the largest review of health and safety legislation in the UK since 1945. Two inquiries are currently underway which are expected to lead to substantial changes to building regulations and fire safety, with a public inquiry investigating the causes of the fire.
Monthly Archives: February 2018
Mrs Mary Sargeant’s case is a classic example of why advisers of bereaved widow(er)s are ideally placed to help their clients consider whether sufficient provision has been made for them under their deceased spouse’s Will. The problem, as Mrs Sargeant found out, is that this is sometimes not obvious even a number of months after their spouse’s death. However, the law places restrictions on how long bereaved spouses can take to try to improve their financial lot if insufficient provision has been made for them.
In a useful reminder for parties who might not otherwise consider themselves to be subject to English jurisdiction, in the recent case of Bestolov v Povarenkin, the High Court confirmed that, where a defendant is domiciled in England, the courts of this country have jurisdiction and moreover no discretion to decline jurisdiction.
The court held that the defendant was domiciled in England, although he was a Russian national who had always been resident in Russia, had a “family home” in Moscow, was tax domiciled in Russia, ran his business from Russia, spent about 200 days of the year in Russia and had no business assets in England.
New federal tax law spurring state action in the form of legislative mitigation, plaintiff coalitions
In early January, Governing revealed that 25 states are facing budget shortfalls going into 2018, but “[t]hat’s better than the 31 shortfalls [that the government relations firm MultiState] found last January.” The states with high concentrations of oil and natural resource states, mostly in the Midwest and the Northeast, are hardest hit.
The piece noted that for some, like Rhode Island and Vermont, lawmakers should be able to resolve the discrepancies relatively easily. But others, like New York, “may have to consider significant changes to solve their fiscal problems.” New York faces a large deficit, as we described in our piece this week covering Gov. Cuomo’s budget speech.
Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown gave his final state of the state speech. Just one sentence in, he asserted, “[s]imply put, California is prospering.” Personal income has grown to $2.4 trillion, from $154 billion in 1975, and 2.8 million new jobs have been created.
In 1975 the governor started the first of two terms that ended in 1984. In 2011, when he began his third term, California faced a $27 billion deficit, and the media disparaged the state without mercy: The New York Times called California “The Coast of Dystopia,” the Wall Street Journal foresaw a “Great California Exodus,” and the Economist of London pronounced the Golden State, “The Ungovernable State,” while Business Insider “simply said: ‘California is Doomed.’”
When Gov. Andrew Cuomo gave his state of the state speech on Jan. 3, 2018, he spent much of it lamenting the challenges that New York faces, which, he argued, are made much worse by the federal tax bill that caps the deduction for state and local taxes (the SALT deduction) at $10,000 when not incurred through a trade or business.
On January 17, 2018, a federal judge stayed enforcement of New York City’s (“City”) recently-enacted Fast Food Deductions Law (the “Deductions Law”). The order, entered by consent, was entered in a lawsuit challenging the law filed against the City by two leading foodservice advocacy organizations (Restaurant Law Center, et al. v. City of New York, et al., 1:17cv9128). The stay is currently in place until the earlier of the determination of the parties’ dispositive motions or March 30, 2018.
Is the NLRB’s General Counsel Planning to “Reorganize” the Labor Board’s Regional Directors and Field Offices?
Over the past several weeks there have been conflicting reports concerning what The New York Times described as “a proposal” by Peter Robb, who was sworn in as the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) General Counsel on November 17, 2017, to “demote” the Board’s Regional Directors and career “senior civil servants who resolve most labor cases,” and transfer their decision making authority to “a small cadre of officials installed above them in the National Labor Relations Board’s hierarchy,” apparently answerable to the General Counsel.