Business Law Journal

In Zackary Diamond v. Scott Schweitzer, et al., California Court of Appeal recently addressed whether a broad release and waiver of liability form, signed by a patron to a racing event as a prerequisite to gaining access to the pit area, released the racetrack’s owners from alleged negligence claims arising from an injury sustained as a result of a punch by a third party.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that the waiver and release protected the racetrack’s owners from such claims and affirmed summary judgment in their favor.

On March 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court rendered a decision in Madrigal, et al v. Hyundai Motor America (S280598) regarding the following question: “Does a plaintiff who has rejected a 998 offer or allowed it to be deemed withdrawn for want of timely acceptance, but later agrees to settle before trial, necessarily avoid the postoffer cost-shifting effects of section 998?”  The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff does not necessarily avoid section 998’s cost-shifting effects.

In Amundson v. Catello, the California Court of Appeal reversed an order for the partition of property by sale, emphasizing that a clear ownership interest is required for standing to initiate a partition action. The recent decision also examined the limitations on an heir’s ability to act on an expected inheritance, reinforcing that property rights remain uncertain until probate and administration are finalized. 

Over the last several months, AALRR has tracked and reported on the changes to the Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements.  On March 2, 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a statement providing that it will not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the reporting requirements under the current deadlines. Additionally, Treasury will also not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners even after FinCEN’s upcoming rule changes take effect.  Click here to read our full alert.

An old advertising jingle urged consumers to “look for the union label.”  A union label, or “bug,” typically consists of a union symbol and a number which identifies a specific employer.  However, using a bug without permission can have legal repercussions. 

For those following recent developments regarding the Corporate Transparency Act, and its Beneficial Ownership Information reporting requirements, the last month has been a dizzying rollercoaster. As of the date of this alert, the nationwide injunction preventing the enforcement of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements has been reinstated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, meaning that “Reporting Companies” (as defined in the CTA) are currently not required to file BOI reports. However, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) continues to accept voluntary BOI submissions.

On December 23, 2024, with the looming January 1, 2025, filing deadline just days away, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a nationwide injunction which had temporarily prohibited the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations (including the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting rule).

On October 29, 2024, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) announced it was granting limited extensions for certain business entities with respect to the beneficial ownership reporting requirements as required under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). Notably, the limited nature of this relief appears to indicate that there will be no broad extension granted to the current January 1, 2025 deadline by which time Reporting Companies formed prior to January 1, 2024 must file their BOI Report. This article provides a background to the CTA reporting requirements and breaks down which business entities may take advantage of the extension. A more detailed discussion on the CTA and its general reporting requirements can be found here. 

In Camden Systems, LLC v. 409 North Camden, LLC, a California Court of Appeal recently affirmed that a limited liability company (“LLC”) “shall have all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business activities”, which included ratifying its prior acts. Moreover, the California Court of Appeal affirmed that a member does not have standing to challenge actions taken before it became a member of the LLC, of record or beneficially; and that LLC operating agreements may (with some limitations) deviate from and supersede statutory default provisions.

With the growing popularity and prevalence of generative artificial intelligence, courts are increasingly being called upon to decide novel legal issues based on never-before-seen phenomena that are challenging the traditional paradigm applied to human-generated content.  And copyright law is no exception.