Business Law Journal

In the midst of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, many state and local governments are recommending or imposing restrictions on gatherings of people, including at places of business. In some cases, certain businesses such as bars and restaurants are being required to close or modify their business operations. Additionally, many individuals are staying home and avoiding public places.

As more and more businesses shut down or scale back due to the Coronavirus pandemic, Federal, State and local governments are quickly realizing that these businesses and their employees are facing devastating financial consequences. 

As the COVID-19 Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak spreads, more and more public gatherings and events have been cancelled or postponed, including major sporting events like the NCAA Final Four tournament, and the NBA, MLS, and MLB seasons.  In addition, some businesses are directing their employees to work from home or temporarily shutting down all together in order to combat the spread of COVID-19. 

Owners conducting business through a legal entity often do so to limit personal liability and to protect assets unrelated to the business from commercial risks.  However, once formed, owners sometimes jeopardize those exposure limiting objectives by filing away their incorporation documents and neglecting corporate formalities.  That approach may work fine until, of course, an adverse party argues that the business entity should be disregarded as an ‘alter ego’ of the owners. 

As the 2020 election draws ever nearer, nonprofit organizations should consider reviewing the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) rules relating to permissible and impermissible political activities such as endorsing specific candidates, general advocacy, and lobbying to influence legislation.  While employees of an organization may wish to “support the cause” by taking political action on behalf of the organization, and/or the organization itself may be inclined to spend funds to oppose or support certain ballot measures, organizations should take note that participation in some types political activities may jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.

Click here for more.

Taxation issues around virtual currencies have abounded since the inception of these so called “digital dollars,” such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero.  Though a single Bitcoin may no longer be valued at nearly $20,000 as it was in late 2017, the overall increase in value of many virtual currencies has created an incentive for holders of these virtual currencies to donate amounts of virtual currency to charitable organizations, for the same reasons appreciated property is often donated generally.  However, until recently, there was little to no IRS guidance in place for charitable organizations receiving donations of virtual currency.

In Techno Lite, Inc. v. Emcod, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the finding that an employee can be liable for fraud when said employee violates his promise not to compete with his employer while still employed.  Though public policy in California places strict limitations on non-compete agreements after an employee has left employment, this shield was never meant to become a sword by which an employee could undermine his employer with impunity even before his employment ends.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect on January 1, 2020.  Is your business prepared and in compliance with the new law? 

On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cannot recover the salaries of its attorneys or paralegals as “expenses” in district court cases filed under 35 U.S.C. § 145.

In Magic Carpet Ride LLC, et al. v. Rugger Investment Group, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s decision to grant summary adjudication on a breach of contract claim where the defendant was eight days late in depositing a required lien release.   Even though the contract stated that “time is of the essence” and the late deposit violated the strict terms of the contract, the Court of Appeal clarified that it could be considered substantial performance, creating a triable issue of material fact which made summary adjudication improper.