Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- Compliance
- Disaster relief
- Income Tax
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- Main Street Lending Program
- Remote Work
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL)
- Payroll Protection Program (PPP)
- CARES Act
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
- COVID-19
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Liability Waivers
- Miller, as Next Friend of her Minor Child, E.M. v. House of Boom Kentucky, LLC
- Intangible Assets
- Tax consequences
- Taxation
- Community Banks
- Dodd-Frank Act
- SEC Crowdfunding Rules
- Corporate
- Diversity
- Judgment creditors
- Consumer Debts
- Employment Law
- Entrepreneur
- ERISA
- Lenders
- Litigation
- Municipal Liability
- Small Business
- Business Entities
- Equity Development
- Investment
- Mergers and Acquisitions
- Sales and Dissolutions
- Business Formation and Planning
- Closely Held Businesses
- Corporate and Business Tax
- Uncategorized
Showing 3 posts from May 2017.
Rule 30(b)(6) in Depositions and at Trial
One of the big “if only” moments in corporate litigation concerns testimony: if only a corporation as a corporation could face deposition. Despite the legal fiction that corporations have an identity, it remains impossible, absent some serious and frightening advances in future technology, for a corporation to testify on its own behalf. To get around this dilemma, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include Rule 30(b)(6) (“30(b)(6)”). This rule allows a party to name an entity such as a corporation, an association or a governmental agency as a deponent, and that entity will then designate a representative to be deposed on behalf of the company. (Kentucky’s Civil Rule of Procedure 30.02(6) substantially tracks the federal rule, so this information applies to both Kentucky and federal courts.) The rub is that 30(b)(6) deponents face a different set of standards for testimony than regular deponents, and that difference could create havoc for a client, up to and including sanctions. More >
Five Ways Municipalities Invite Exposure to Liability
Municipalities can be complicated and complex entities serving hundreds to thousands of individuals and businesses, while employing numerous people themselves. Cities, not unlike any small or big business, face similar challenges (and liabilities) as any private corporation, only with the added mandate of providing services and protection for all of those who work or live within their boundaries. It is impossible, of course, to eliminate all liability facing municipalities in today’s public sector legal environment. Still, liability can be avoided to a large degree with planning and consideration. With that in mind, below are five ways municipalities invite exposure to liability, and more importantly, insight on how to prevent it. More >
Charge-offs on Consumer Debts: The Kentucky Supreme Court Causes Shaky Ground to Collect Prejudgment Interest
The Kentucky Supreme Court is shaking things up for banks that collect on charged-off debts. The decision in Unifund CCR Partners v. Carol Harrell, 509 S.W.3d 25 (Ky. 2017), is an eye-opener for lenders regarding their strategies to recover a contractual or statutory right to collect interest on prejudgment debt. More >
