November 30, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Defective Product Injury Law

Most products we buy on the market usually work as advertised. Occasionally, this isn’t the case and something goes wrong.

Can consumers do anything about a product that doesn’t live up to its advertising? In a word, yes. If it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, the person who shelled out bucks for it may choose to hold the maker of that product responsible for either a total refund, repairs, or damages for personal injuries.

If the product caused an injury, the person who sustained that harm may be able to hold the product’s maker liable. If the product in question is unsafe or even defective, customers might be able to prove the company who made the item(s) should have been alert and aware of the danger. In knowing that danger, they should then have made certain to prevent those injuries from happening.

In circumstances like this, an injured shopper may wish to talk to a highly skilled Sacramento personal injury attorney to file a product liability suit to get compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical bills. The tricky part about these kinds of cases is that the prosecution has to prove it was the product that caused an injury and it did not happen as a result of the purchaser improperly using the item or a mistake made by the buyer.

People who were in the line of fire as the result of defective products should get medical attention right away and document the injuries they received in great detail. Photos are priceless and need to be taken at the scene of the accident and of the product. Make notes of the incident as well and try to ensure the offending product is kept intact.

By all means, speak to an expert Sacramento personal injury lawyer with extensive experience in this area of the law. While outlining a potential case for the attorney, give them the product that caused the injuries, provide the documentation, offer all the written material included with the product (instruction manuals, warranties, warnings, etc.) and get possession of all medical records relating to the injury, along with any bills for medical expenses.

Other things that consumers need to know when dealing with defective products are that product liability cases usually revolve around the fact that the product was defective and was the direct cause of an injury; that manufacturers really need to clearly label products with warnings about hazardous use; and that defective products need to be yanked off the shelves immediately. If this does not happen, the failure to do so may result in serious legal consequences for the manufacturer.

To learn more, visit Lawbarron.com.

November 25, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

California Strict Product Liability

In a nutshell, strict product liability means liability of all the people involved in the manufacturing process from start to finish to distribution.

Not a lot of people truly realize that strict product liability is as all encompassing as it is. It actually covers the point of origin of a product right on down the chain to the final distribution point of the article or item. In other words, this will include the maker of an item, the place where it was assembled, and the retail outlet where the product is eventually sold to the public.

Strict product liability actually goes even further than this in that if an item does have a defect that causes harm to a customer or a friend of a customer (who either borrowed the item or got it as a gift) then all of these people are considered to be defendants in a product liability suit.

Most people relate product liability to tangible products, or physical property, but this isn’t always the case. It may include real estate, books, navigational charts, gas and even pets. Interestingly, California law requires all makers of products to label them clearly with a printed warning, particularly if the product contains lead paint or other harmful pieces. Think small parts that kids could swallow.

To successfully prove a strict product liability case, the plaintiff must be able to show the product was indeed defective. In this area of the law, there are three kinds of product defects often launched in liability lawsuits: marketing defects, manufacturing defects and design defects.

A design defect is considered to be one that is built into the product. It (the defect) is in the design itself and is present prior to the manufacturing process. While the article may perform adequately for a consumer, it has the potential to be dangerous because of its flawed design.

On the other hand, manufacturing defects usually take place when the product is made, yet not all of the products made are defective. Marketing defects refer to poorly written instructions or the failure to warn a consumer about potential product dangers.

Product liability is a strict liability offense, and cases like this are not focused on how careful the defendant was or was not. Typically then, a defendant is liable when a product/item is defective – period. Speak to a well qualified personal injury lawyer who will be able to assist in receiving compensation for any injuries suffered.

To learn more, visit Lawbarron.com.

November 22, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Just the Basics

Which business entity do I choose?

Your business has been doing so well you are amazed. For the last couple of years it has continued to grow despite the severe recession. You’re rather proud of the fact that you ran it on a shoestring budget too, and kept just enough employees to do marketing and fill orders. Now that business is beginning to show a profit and you can actually take money out of it instead of plowing it back into the venture, you are beginning to worry about the fact you’ve been doing business under a fictitious business name. It’s time to make a call to a business attorney and find out how personally exposed you are and what you may do to protect yourself from business liabilities.

The first thing you find out is that you have been running the business as a sole proprietor despite having registered a fictitious business name. What that means is you have personal liability for all the obligations and other liabilities of the firm. It gets worse yet. The debts you’ve shouldered are business rather than personal or consumer debts. Your lawyer explains many of the protections you enjoy from consumer debts like credit cards or installment purchases don’t apply when you incur the debt in connection with operating your business.

Not without some trepidation, you ask the attorney if there is anything you can do to change the situation because you don’t want to start all over since you have a success on your hands. Fortunately for you the answer is there are a number of options that will let you change your company from a sole proprietorship to a business vehicle like a corporation or limited liability company. If this is done correctly, you can change the form of doing business tax free as well.

The attorney explains incorporating a going business or organizing it into a limited liability company is permitted in California and if properly done, neither the IRS nor the California Franchise Tax Board will see it as a sale from you to the business. Specifically, you may be able to contribute the assets of your business to the limited liability company in exchange for your membership interest without it being viewed as a taxable sale between you and your limited liability company.

What do you choose? You find out that corporations are an older form of business entity with less flexibility of operation over the limited liability company, the more modern form of business entity. On the other hand, when you do business in California in a limited liability form, it may be subject to a gross receipt tax which can be significant for a small business – if gross income attributable to California is more than $250,000, the fee will be imposed from a low of $900 to $11,790 if the total gross income exceeds $5,000,000.

Both entities are in common enough use that for most small businesses, institutional lenders are available to provide financing. For many tax professionals, the potential gross receipts tax is reason enough to opt for the use of a corporation which elects to Sub-Chapter S status. The advantage of an S election is that it avoids taxation at the corporate level, permitting items of income and loss to flow through directly to you, the shareholder. What is most important about either form of doing business is that it affords protection against personal liability.

Your lawyer says that as a practical matter, many lenders and landlords require personal guaranties by the shareholders or members of small business corporations or limited liability companies. Finally, in order to transfer the business into the selected business entity, your lawyer will work through each of your business assets and liabilities transferring title from you personally to the new entity.

Some of your liabilities, such as bank loans, may not be so easily converted into company obligations, at least without an accompanying personal guaranty. The good news is that once completed and all customers, vendors and other creditors are given notice of the change, future obligations or liabilities should belong to the company and will not be yours. Unfortunately, you learn that the legal and accounting costs are significantly more when incorporating a going business, or contributing the assets of a going business to a new limited liability company.

It is easy to see that our friend would have been better served had he spent a little more in the beginning to save significant legal and accounting outlays later, not to mention the time he may have to devote to gathering critical business information so that the process can be completed……at least that is what this lawyer thinks.

Roni Balint writes for the Law Office of Alan M. Insul. The content contained within this feature is not intended as legal advice and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. To learn more, contact Los Angeles business attorney and California corporate lawyer, Alan M. Insul by visiting Insullaw.com.

November 22, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Dropping the Other Shoe

If your commercial real estate is foreclosed, what is your personal exposure?

There was optimism that the real estate market was making a comeback and then – experts said it was looking really bad for commercial property owners and getting worse. This doesn’t sit well with you when you realize that the vacancies in your 100 unit apartment building have soared upwards from 5% to 15%.

It’s no small wonder then that you have also been forking over more money every month to make the mortgage payments on both the first and second mortgages. One night while reviewing the dismal situation, you decide to quit throwing good money after bad and make a resolution to let the lender take the property in foreclosure.

Being a smart businessperson you make a call to a lawyer first to ask what your personal liability is if the first or second lender forecloses on the property. Your lawyer gives you the “it depends” answer and you’re thinking you’d rather have a straight answer instead. The straight answer only comes when she has the history of the loans in question.

When you bought the building, it was financed with a loan from your local bank with the second one provided by the building’s seller. Three years after the purchase, you refinanced loan number one for a better interest rate. The seller who held loan number two agreed to subordinate his loan to the new first loan so long as the principal of the first wasn’t greater and the interest rate was lower than the original loan.

While doing that was a smart move, the property currently can’t support either the first or the seller’s carry-back second loan. The straight answer from you lawyer, based on those facts, is that you could be personally liable to the lender holding the first trust deed but not the second. That revelation startles you and you discover that it is because the current first was securing a loan that was not used to buy the property – it was a refinance situation.

On the other hand, the seller carry-back second was used to buy the property and the refinance and subordination to the new first did not change the nature of what the seller originally financed with his second. As such, the law would not change the rule that as a purchase money loan, you had no personal liability.

In a 1991 case, Thompson v Allert (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 1462, the facts were quite similar to what we have discussed to this point. In that case the court outlined that the subordination to a new loan for the same amount at the same or lower interest didn’t alter the purchase money character of the loan. Under the California Code of Civil Procedure §580b, the holder of the second isn’t entitled to get a personal judgment against our apartment owner in this story – even if the first forecloses before the second and wipes out the second. Put another way, the second becomes worthless, leaving the holders with no ability to recover any of the unpaid loan amount.

By comparison, Wright V Johnston (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 333 provides a contrasting situation where the seller subordinated their loan to a new loan that was for a significantly greater amount then the original first trust deed so as to remove it from the borrower protections of California Code of Civil Procedure §580b. In other words, it lost its purchase money character by virtue of the changed nature of the financing risk with the refinance. Other situations which could trigger a seller carry-back losing its purchase money character are increased interest rates, balloon payments not in original first, and substantial cash-out loans.

If you’re knee deep in a commercial, industrial or multi-residential real estate property and thinking about letting it go to foreclosure, seek legal advice well in advance of letting the property go into default. This is an extremely complicated area of law where mistakes can be costly, and the need to think through the consequences of a default strategy is crucial to obtain the best possible result. At least that’s what this lawyer thinks.

Roni Balint writes for the Law Office of Alan M. Insul. The content contained within this feature is not intended as legal advice and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. To learn more, contact Los Angeles business attorney and California corporate lawyer, Alan M. Insul by visiting Insullaw.com.

November 16, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Smart Immigration Reform Still Seems to be on Hold

While the many meetings being held all over the U.S. dealing with immigration reform still seem to be producing positive feedback, there has still been no movement in Washington.

In what many term as the greatest frustration of the century, immigration reform advocates are still bemoaning the fact that not much is really being done about smart immigration reform in the Capitol. The grassroots feedback seems to still be fairly positive, but since no one sees any real movement on the issue, the question then becomes whether or not immigration reform, as proposed in the election campaign, is really going to happen.

The politicians are evidently committed to the notion of comprehensive immigration reform, but have been sidelined and blindsided by the health reform debate as well. Health reform is another contentious issue that when bundled with immigration reform has the potential to cause a rip-roaring debate on many levels, involving everyone from the next door neighbor to the highest ranking man in politics, the President.

While the country is thinking it’s great that there seems to be some tentative movement on immigration reform, they’re beginning to wonder “when” that reform will really take place. It has evidently been derailed by coming changes to the health system for 2010; although the stated intention has been that immigration could get revamped in 2010 as well. That might be difficult to achieve since the dollars needed for immigration are also needed for health care reform. And so the debate, without resolution, continues.

Many Americans are wondering what happened to the goal posts of comprehensive immigration reform; the hard and fast deadline of Labor Day (past) that came and went with no changes implemented. Others are wondering what happened to the supposedly detailed strategy that was to be put into place this year. On the other side of the fence is the fact that despite promises of immigration reform, the wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico is still being built at an enormous expense for the nation. Of course this issue deals with enforcement, not solving the question of reforming immigration and how it is done.

The bottom line here is that while there is a lot of repetition covering previous promises to pursue smart immigration reform, there has been nothing new since those promises were made. What is the future of smart immigration reform for the US? The question still remains out there – unanswered.

Gomez Law Group is a Dallas employment lawyer and Dallas business lawyer. To learn more, visit http://www.gomezlawyers.com.

November 15, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Your Business Legal Structure Is Showing

Setting up your own business? The first thing you will need help with is the kind of legal structure that will best suit your needs.

While it might seem like a straightforward thing to do – setting up a company – there are a lot of options that you may choose from and that becomes confusing without the assistance of a Sacramento business lawyer. This is even more essential if you don’t happen to have a lot of experience running or setting up a business.

The bottom line is that you might be really surprised to discover the various options you do have, each with differing tax consequences that will directly affect how you raise capital. Hang on for the ride and talk things over with a highly qualified Sacramento business lawyer, so you can get on with the business of doing business in a manner that is profitable.

The least complex arrangement for businesses happens to be sole proprietorships, and with an added bonus, they are also the least expensive legal entities to set-up. If you opt for a sole proprietorship, what you have is a company that is unincorporated and only owned by “you.” Being a sole proprietorship means you are not a distinct legal entity, so guess what, you don’t file annual business taxes, as they are incorporated into your annual personal income tax filing.

Another nice benefit of sole proprietorships is that the tax rate on your earnings is usually lower than the income of a corporation. Really though, this particular legal entity is mostly for solo owners and consultants, etc. It is not suited for a business with more than one person or for one trying to source capital from “Angel” investors. There is one thing you should be aware of as it relates to debts incurred during the operation of the business. Sole proprietors face unlimited liability for any debts. This is just one of the reasons you need to consult with a skilled Sacramento business lawyer.

If you’re setting up a business with two or more people, this would be classified as a partnership. A partnership is an unincorporated venture and is also not a distinct legal entity. Any profits or losses in this situation are included in the partner’s personal income taxes and then billed according to the “Articles of Partnership.” In this instance, there is a contract between the partners.

When it comes to divvying up the losses and/or profits, the “Articles” kick in and outline how this is to take place. They also settle on a partnership name, date of partnership formation, the length of the partnership, and how any disputes are to be handled, should they arise. While this may not sound too bad on the surface, there are some drawbacks which need to be thrashed out with your lawyer. For instance, partnerships aren’t very helpful raising investment capital and they face unlimited liability for the all the debts of the total partnership. Put another way, if one partner can’t meet an obligation under the “Articles,” the others are then liable for the obligation.

Something else that not many people are aware of is that if you form a partnership, the actual business entity – the partnership – is limited to the physical lives of the partners who formed the company.
This is a lot of information to absorb as you are trying to set up a business. Make sure you consult with a fully qualified and expert Sacramento business lawyer to find out what your options are and how they will benefit you before making any decisions.

Deborah Barron is a Sacramento business lawyer, Sacramento employment lawyer, and Sacramento winery lawyer in California. To learn more, visit Lawbarron.com.

November 10, 2009 in Business, Legal Articles by admin

Torts a Mainstay at Heselmeyer Zinda, PLLC

Heselmeyer Zinda, PLLC, a business law firm with offices in Austin and Dallas, handles business tort cases.

The idea of wrongful interference, or tortious interference within a business relationship, is a practice area of Heselmeyer Zinda, PLLC, a Texas-based law firm with offices in Austin, Round Rock and Dallas. The theory of the tort has little, or nothing to do with the popular conception of the word, except perhaps in a figurative sense. According to D. Scott Heselmeyer, what it means, basically, “is meddling, as it applies to business law. A line must be drawn in the sand, so that no one may intentionally intermeddle with the business affairs of others.” The key is “intentionally,” as situations may arise which are inadvertent or “accidental.” An example of tortious interference “might be a deliberate attempt to get employees to leave their present employment and migrate to a competitor, or even to a non-competing firm that desires the skill sets they’re seeking to obtain,” Heselmeyer explains. It’s a bit similar to the War of 1812, when British frigates sought to kidnap American sailors and “impress” them into the British Navy, akin to an act of piracy on the high seas. Somewhat similarly, to “impress” employees to leave their current employment in an act of “tortious or wrongful interference” and take work with another is unlawful.

Tortious interference can also become more complicated – when the objective is not so much to obtain the workers, but to cause harm to the company they’re working for. “Sometimes enticement occurs,” Heselmeyer clarifies, “and in those cases the objective may be different. A more malicious instance of tortious interference may have as its endpoint to cripple or destroy the employer, typically a competitor.”
Another twist of tort is when unlawful inducement becomes associated with untruthful means, or when employees are seduced to commit wrongs against their employer in the manner of disclosing proprietary information.

It is not unlawful merely for someone to hire away someone else’s employee, for instance, by offering to provide better compensation. “This is true no matter how much the loss of that particular employee might inconvenience his former employer,” Heselmeyer explains, “Our society is based on principles of free enterprise, and a business proprietor has no legal right to complain, or avenue of redress, if the base of his complaint merely results from lawful competition.”

To learn more about Austin business attorney Jack Zinda visit Texasbusinessattorneys.net.