A recent ruling of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, while reaching the fair and just result, serves as a cautionary tale of the importance of written agreements and a reminder of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Learn more about this case study: A couple lent money to their son-in-law’s business after the son-in-law promised to provide personal guarantees for the loans. Despite his promises, he never signed written personal guarantees and never repaid his in-laws. Was the promise enforceable? Barrie-Chivian v. Lepler, 87 Mass. App. Ct 683 (2015).
Following a sharp increase in mortgage foreclosures, in the wake of a steep decline in the housing market, growing numbers of defaulted mortgage borrowers (typically homeowners) and their attorneys seized on the so-called “try-title statute,” G.L. c. 240, §§1-5, as a simple and low-cost way of forestalling foreclosure.
While healthcare providers may have felt some relief after a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision regarding “worthless services,” this ruling does not eliminate the risk associated with such claims. In United States ex rel. Absher, et al. v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc., 764 F. 3d 699 (7th Cir. 2014), the Court overturned a $9 million verditct awarded to two whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act (FCA).
For the first time in 30 years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has substantially updated its rules concerning pregnancy discrimination.
The need for a company to have a strong corporate compliance program is directly related to the risk of a government enforcement action: the greater the degree of government regulation, the greater the risk and need for compliance.
The Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an important ruling concerning the rights of individuals testifying before a grand jury. In Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707 (2014), the court announced a prospective rule requiring self-incrimination warnings to be given to all grand jury witnesses who, at the time of their testimony are, or are likely to become, a target of that grand jury investigation.
Regular check-ups are important – for you, your house, your car and your business. The start of a new year is a good time to review your company’s legal needs. Each year, as a courtesy and an important part of our client relationships, we ask our business clients a series of detailed questions about their companies.
A recent Supreme Judicial Court decision serves as a stark reminder of the importance of email in white collar criminal prosecutions and how the government’s ability to obtain search warrants for emails must be properly balanced against a criminal defendant’s right to preserve the confidentiality of emails with his or her attorney.
This seems like a simple question, but in the case of a company or other type of entity, the answer can have important ramifications for both the client and the attorney.
In Merriam v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 464 Mass. 721 (2013), the Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed the importance of carefully negotiating and crafting agreements regarding shareholder rights and duties in closely held corporations.
Laredo & Smith offers clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered, cost-effective strategy that only a small firm can offer.
- Limited Liability Under the Massachusetts Wage Act for Board Members and InvestorsFebruary 21, 2018 - 11:15 am
- Massachusetts Enacts Law to Protect Pregnant WorkersOctober 20, 2017 - 2:47 pm
- Starting Your Own Business- The Franchise Model, Part IIJune 30, 2017 - 10:15 am
- Starting Your Own Business- The Franchise Model, Part 1May 25, 2017 - 12:41 pm
Laredo & Smith, LLP
101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110