Menu

Setting up a trust allows us to specify how we want our assets to be distributed to our beneficiaries, and to modify those decisions later should circumstances – or just our wishes – change. But a trust must be drafted carefully, to ensure that it meets legal requirements, and any subsequent changes must be made with equal care, as a case recently decided by the California Court of Appeal demonstrates (Trotter v Van Dyck).

Arbitration is supposed to provide a quicker, more private, and less expensive alternative to litigating a dispute in a courtroom. Because the parties may have very different resources – often an individual confronting a large corporation – California requires the parties to an arbitration to adhere closely to rules intended to keep the process as fair as possible.

Lawyers are duty-bound to vigorously represent the interests of their clients, and that can sometimes lead to some pretty contentious behavior in a courtroom or when two sides are negotiating a bitterly contested agreement. But vigorous advocacy is supposed to stop short of breaking the ethical rules that lawyers are duty-bound to follow.

Arbitration is intended to be a quicker, less expensive, and more confidential alternative to traditional courtroom litigation. But what happens if one of the parties seems to be gaming the arbitration system to delay the proceedings?

An Alabama District Court declared the Corporate Transparency Act (the “Act”) unconstitutional in a case brought by the National Small Business Association and an individual. The ruling is being appealed by the Department of the Treasury; its Notice of Appeal was filed on March 11, 2024. The government may seek a stay of the ruling pending the appeal.

It’s not unusual for a company to offer unhappy customers a special deal to hold onto their business. But at some point, do all those discounts become unfair to customers who pay full price?