On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Chicago vs. Fulton reversed a Seventh Circuit ruling that the City of Chicago violated the automatic stay created by car owners’ bankruptcy filings, when the City refused to immediately return the cars after the bankruptcy filing that had been impounded pre-bankruptcy for parking or traffic violations. Put another way, if a creditor is in possession of assets they seized prior to the bankruptcy filing, they do not necessarily have to return the repossessed property.

This unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court “resolves” a dispute among the federal appellate courts on a very discrete issue under Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Third, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits had determined that creditors who maintained possession of seized property are NOT violating the automatic stay. Contrary to those Circuits, the Second, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits found that holding on to seized property is a prohibited “act to exercise control over property” of the bankruptcy estate and therefore violative of the stay.

Justice Alito delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court. He wrote that the “most natural reading” of the Bankruptcy Code is that it “prohibits affirmative acts that would disturb the status quo of estate property as of the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed.” He further stated that the act of merely retaining possession of the repossessed property does not violate the automatic stay.

Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, highlighted the fact that the Justices did not decide whether other sub-sections of Section 362 may still require a creditor to return repossessed debtor property if the creditor is holding it for the purpose of extracting payment. She wrote her concurring opinion to emphasize that despite this ruling, the Court is not deciding whether and when Section 362’s other provisions may require a creditor to return property to the bankruptcy estate or debtor. See 362(a)(4) and (6). She also pointed out that this Opinion did not provide guidance as to how bankruptcy courts should actually enforce the creditor’s separate obligation to deliver property back under other sections of the Bankruptcy Code, including Section 542. Importantly, Justice Sotomayor articulated her social concerns as to how low-income communities are disproportionately burdened in this regard, as well as communities of color. She points out how many debtors who are affected by this problem rely on their cars to go to and from work and that in order to get their car back, they must rely on procedures in bankruptcy court which are extremely slow (proceedings to enforce turnover of property under Section 542) and how it is up to the legislatures to address this issue.

This opinion is a “must read” especially for consumer practitioners who represent not only creditors but debtors concerning the ability to retrieve repossessed property. Importantly, the Supreme Court in this opinion did not rule on whether debtors could achieve their desired results by invoking other provisions of Section 362 or 542, leaving the door open to other possible avenues of recourse.

To discuss this topic or issues relating to creditors rights and bankruptcy, please contact Leslie Beth Baskin at 215-241-8926 or at lbaskin@sgrvlaw.com 

We are a “get’er done” society. We embrace challenges – and applaud those who complete them promptly. Nothing exemplifies that attitude more than creating not one, but two COVID-19 vaccines, in less than a year. Another example has been funding relief for America’s businesses shuttered by the Pandemic.

From the $2.2 trillion CARES Act funding quickly passed in April, to the tentative deal for “just” $900 billion in the pending bill, our leaders have acted quickly to try to help our citizens and businesses get back on their feet, after a knockout punch no one saw coming.

But sometimes done is not “better than perfect”?

The aphorism about the benefits of completing a task, rather than obsessing over the failure to “dot i’s and cross t’s”, falls down when the “i’s and t’s” turn out to be just as important in the long run as the completed task.

The 5,593 page Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 left out liability protection for employers, schools and businesses, despite many calls for such relief. A similar liability limit bill was vetoed in my state, Pennsylvania, for protecting even firms that ignored public safety requirements. Why should such concerns matter so much, when balanced against the overwhelming demand for speedy relief, both financial and legal?

Consider the tragedies of Pennsylvania meat plant employees, who died of COVID-19 early in the Pandemic, and of their employers who were sued for failing to prevent their deaths. Other similar cases have been reported, particularly for health care workers. While the facts will be determined in the litigation, the allegations are predictable. The employers claim that employees were infected even though they had protective equipment. If the employers complied with all applicable safety rules, at the time, what more could they have done?

Why should an employer pay for an illness it couldn’t prevent, even though it tried, using all of the public health guidance available? Of course, those rules have evolved as science has learned more about the virus. But no one wants to hold employers to a standard they couldn’t have known at the time of the alleged violation.

Or do they?

Whether due to adverse publicity, a genuine desire to compensate the family of a fallen employee, or a cold, liability carrier’s cost benefit analysis of the expense of settlement against the slow burn of legal fees, counsel for an injured or deceased employee will often invest in lengthy litigation, in search of a large award.

It is easy to understand why the possibility of future lawsuits became less pressing to lawmakers than the actual needs of individuals and businesses alike for cash, whether to pay bills, or simply to stay alive in the hope for a “new post-vaccine normal”. Yet the cost of defending claims for harm allegedly caused by COVID-19, both spurious and legitimate, could be overwhelming – especially after businesses have already invested heavily in personal protective equipment and facilities modifications to try to stop the spread of the disease.

Moreover, keeping up with the flood of safety guidance from many sources during the Pandemic, especially as it has evolved with understanding of the virus, has been a challenge for those focusing on that question, much less for a business owner struggling to stay open and pay employees.

From a different perspective, will anyone remember the cash stimulus benefits after paying legal fees to defend claims from injured or deceased employees? If the philosophy of our relief efforts has been “no questions asked” compensation for businesses harmed by the virus, should funding for its human victims perhaps have been included as well?  After all, our society does compensate some harms without fault, such as auto accidents (in some states), or injuries caused by vaccines.

Such a compensation system would not multiply the tragedy of an employee death from COVID-19 to include the collapse of the firm that could not prevent it, especially if the employer tried to protect its employees under all safety guidelines.

(Of course, employers which cavalierly ignore safety rules should not get any liability protection.)

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, no one is healed until we are all healed, individuals and businesses alike. When Congress returns in January, balanced COVID-19 liability limitation should be as high on its agenda as stimulus checks for individuals.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Managing Member Daniel J. Dugan has successfully brought to a close a situation weighing on a Montgomery County, Pa. country club following a sheriff sale action that formalizes lender ownership of the 115-acre property.

The sheriff sale was an effort to dispose of any outstanding claims and debts, and remove any leins, against Lulu Country Club, which is located in Glenside and features an 18-hole Donald Ross-designed golf course.  It also formalizes ownership of the property by lender LT-Lulu LP, which is represented by Dugan.

“All of the claims and debts are wiped out and LT-Lulu will continue to operate the club,” said Dugan. “From a members point of view, it will be a seamless transition.”

The underlying real estate tied to the club did not sell at a Dec. 2 auction arranged by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office, for which a $14.98 million minimum bid price was set — the amount of debt on the property.  No bids were made to buy it at the auction.  It was the first time the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office sought to hold its property sales online.

LT-Lulu now becomes the owner, which will be finalized when it receives the deed by January 2021.

Mortgage foreclosure proceedings led to Lulu Country Club’s situation.  The original lender to the club was Summit Bridge National Investments. It initiated and obtained a mortgage foreclosure in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in March 2015 when the club was struggling and defaulted on payments.

A limited liability corporation and LT-Lulu, which is a related entity, purchased from Summit Bridge the underlying mortgage, note and judgment and pursued the sheriff sale as part of the transfer process.

The club, which was chartered in 1912, is thriving and is one of the few in the region to have a waiting list for new members.

Lulu JJR LLC has a 20-year lease on the property and will continue its role overseeing management of the club and its operations.

Dugan has been in practice since 1977, with Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci since 1982, and a member of the firm since 1987.  He is managing member and also a member of the firm’s Executive Committee.  He concentrates his practice in trials and appeals involving all manner of commercial and business disputes, and he has extensive experience litigating before state and federal courts nationwide, including bankruptcy courts and Orphans Court.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Chairman Paul R. Rosen, Esq. was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award by The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the United States, as part of the publication’s 2020 Pennsylvania Legal Awards on Wednesday, Nov. 11.

The Lifetime Achievement Award honors jurists, office holders and other legal luminaries from across Pennsylvania who have left an imprint on the legal history of the state during their career.

Rosen has distinguished himself throughout his 55-year career through multiple landmark cases.

He is known for his work in the area of lender liability, beginning with a $5 million precedent-setting verdict in favor of a borrower who brought a counterclaim against its lender during a foreclosure action.  His verdict against a bank ultimately created the Lender Liability Law.

In Pennsylvania, Rosen attracted significant attention for his representation of the Commissioners of Lower Merion Township in Barnes Foundation v. Township of Lower Merion, a civil rights action; and of Bruce Marks in the Marks v. Stinson voting fraud case. He was the subject of national attention for his representation of Alycia Lane in her invasion of privacy litigation against CBS and claims of criminal unauthorized access to her private computer system involving CBS Co-Anchor, Lawrence Mendte. He waged a 10-year battle that went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which recusal of the entire Montgomery County Bench was at issue.

Rosen won a class action lawsuit against One Meridian Plaza after the devastating fire.  His class action suit against the union practice of tagging (using license plates in parking lots to track down potential new members) made the front page of the Wall Street Journal and changed U.S. law.  After children were allowed into the sexually explicit movie “Private Lessons,” Rosen sued BudCo Theaters to enforce their ratings, creating the PG-13 era.  He has also represented former CNN host Larry King in a First Amendment matter; former Philadelphia Eagles Coach Andy Reid and his family; and Tom Knox in the Brady challenge for mayor.  Most recently, he returned the Barbera Autoland Dealership to its founding family.

“Early on, I realized I had a talent for finding solutions to impossible problems,” Rosen recently told The Philadelphia Inquirer.  “Growing up on the multicultural streets of Camden, I had to hold my own at Camden High — not just scholastically, but in everyday living.  These life experiences gave me the grit to become a fierce advocate and problem-solver for others — and propelled me into the practice of law.”

In addition to his legal portfolio, Rosen is a champion of the arts, serving as Chairman of the Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci Foundation which provides grants to Philadelphia artists and arts organizations, and presents the ATTY Award for positive depictions of attorneys in the arts.

Rosen is intimately involved in the Philadelphia community. He is a patron of the Cancer Support Community of Greater Philadelphia; Friends of Rittenhouse Square; Pennsylvania SPCA; and numerous other civic/community and fundraising activities.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Businesses that obtained Paycheck Protection (“PPP”) Act refundable loans above $2 million may soon find themselves in the unenviable position of defending themselves against potential federal criminal prosecution.

The Small Business Administration, which administered the PPP, quietly submitted “Loan Necessity Questionnaires”, including a “liquidity assessment”, to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for approval in late October. The forms demand very specific financial data about access to funds at the time the loan was made, to allow “SBA loan reviewers to evaluate the good-faith certification that (the Borrower) made on (its) PPP Borrower Application (SBA Form 2483 or Lender’s equivalent form) that economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary”.

The new questions even ask about such normally confidential business matters as revenue declines and shutdowns of the business by government order (in connection with the Pandemic). In addition, PPP recipients must describe their spending to control the spread of COVID-19, and even capital spending plans.

The draft form also asks the PPP borrower to identify for each question whether a response is “customarily kept confidential”.  However, that designation now appears moot, after the SBA was ordered to reveal all details of its major stimulus loan programs by a federal judge, including specific borrowers and loan amounts.  https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2020/11/court-orders-disclosure-of-all-ppp-eidl-loan-recipients-by-nov-19/

Although the SBA has not yet posted the forms itself (presumably pending OMB approval), you can easily find both versions of the form (3509 for for-profit firms, and 3510 for nonprofits) by searching the internet by the form numbers.

In addition, draft versions of the 9 page forms mentioned in the Federal Register notice about them (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-10-26/pdf/2020-23594.pdf) are now available on the news site www.politico.com, at https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-7c07-d665-a1ff-fe0fd5390000.

A tax site also provides a lengthy description of the forms.  (https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2020/10/31/sba-announces-will-create-questionnaire-to-determine-need-for-ppp-loans-purported-copies-being-circulated-online)

Although the SBA has not announced its rationale for requiring this form – nor does it have to – the “fund now, ask questions later” strategy of the initial PPP rollout likely provides an explanation.  https://www.sgrvlaw.com/the-paycheck-protection-program-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/

To inject cash into the economy at the start of the shutdown, quickly, the SBA simply required borrowers to certify that the “current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant”.  No further justification – or financial data – was required.

In my experience, small businesses accustomed to providing extensive financial information to bank lenders were skeptical about getting significant funding without comparable documentation.  It now seems that they were correct – the request was just delayed.

Unfortunately, the ease of applying for PPP funding led to many well publicized abuses by recipients, which likely explains the new forms.  However, one study found such potentially fraudulent loans represented only 0.01 percent of all PPP funding.  https://cepr.net/new-york-times-reports-that-0-01-percent-of-the-paycheck-protection-program-was-fraudulently-spent/

Formally, the SBA will issue requests for the new forms to lenders who submit forgiveness applications – suggesting another reason for borrowers to consider delaying a forgiveness application.

Despite the uncertainty about this enforcement effort, the detailed accounting questions on the draft forms provide a roadmap for planning your defense now with your CPA, before the prosecutor calls – especially since a response will be due just ten days after you receive the request for the form.

• Assemble information on how the PPP funds were used, particularly for preserve jobs.
• Document your expenses and other sources of cash, if any, at the time you applied for the PPP loan.

Since no specifics are yet available about this program – it was discovered only through the request for approval of the “necessity” certification  forms – monitoring online sources remains the best way to stay current (as it has been throughout all the Pandemic relief programs).

Unfortunately, the latest PPP twist confirms the old adage (and small business common sense), “There’s no such thing as free money”.

SGRV has been selected by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® to the 2021 list of  “Best Law Firms.”  SGRV received a metropolitan tier ranking for Employment Law – Individuals; Litigation – Labor & Employment; and Environmental Law.

Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the Employment Law Group of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., has been selected as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers by Lawdragon™ in its 2020 list of the nation’s best plaintiff employment attorneys.

A coalition of business groups and local politicians faced down Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s aggressive COVID-19 rules – and won.

In Butler v. Wolf, federal judge William Stickman blocked many restrictions imposed on Pennsylvania businesses early in the pandemic to halt the spread of the coronavirus.

But not all of them – the severe capacity limits on restaurants, for example, remain in force. Although those challenging the rules were businesses harmed by their effect, the court did not rely upon the rules’ practical impact. Instead, it relied heavily upon prior case law, and complex legal analysis. Not surprisingly Governor Wolf immediately appealed – and the federal appeals court immediately halted (for now) the effect of Judge Stickman’s original ruling.

“There’s no sense debating a ruling that will be appealed — two of three federal judges upheld what we did. But what’s not up for debate is that our early and decisive action saved lives.”

Unfortunately for the business opponents of Wolf’s aggressive limits on the state’s economy, the appeal will likely succeed, in the view of constitutional law scholars. Both a case cited by the Butler court, and the judicial philosophy of the ruling, were considered out of date when I studied constitutional law – 40 years ago. In fact, the cases reaching that result date from the 1930’s, and predate the New Deal era governmental intervention in the economy that we take for granted today.

(In the short run, however, Judge Stickman denied the stay almost immediately because of what he viewed as a lack of evidence justifying the need for restrictions on gatherings, and the inconsistency of their application to different types of events.)

Nonetheless, the far-reaching ruling 6 months into the crisis raises many questions, not only practical ones for both businesses and their customers, but also legal issues that could quickly undermine the ruling.

• Why does this matter now, since many of the restrictions have already been relaxed? The court highlighted that Wolf’s rules have only been “suspended”, not rescinded.
• Should a court even get involved in the middle of a public health emergency? The court answered that it had to protect constitutional rights.

Formally, the court ruled that public health concerns do not get “judicial deference” six months into the crisis, especially when many businesses were permitted to remain open even under Wolf’s stringent rules, notwithstanding the health concerns.

• Were the state’s unilateral decisions on which businesses were “life-sustaining” – and therefore allowed to remain open, even when similar or nearby firm were not – arbitrary? The court agreed, applying constitutional principles of equal protection and due process.
• Will ruling affect Philadelphia’s own strong rules? Not for now – the plaintiffs were all from western PA, and did not challenge Philadelphia’s rules.

So should businesses go back to the ways things were before the crisis?

Certainly not.

At a practical level, the virus is still here. I don’t think the virus has read Judge Stickman’s opinion yet – and would not care about it even if a virus could read. Its sole purpose is to infect another cell, to propagate itself. While many mitigation efforts have helped, Pennsylvanians are still becoming infected and dying – including a clergyman I greatly admired. More importantly, both the CDC and many local governments have issued safety rules, which remain in effect, independently of limits on the state’s rules.

In addition, the CDC acknowledges that it is constantly learning about the virus and its risks. Today’s recommendations and prohibitions may be different by tomorrow. In fact, there have been so many new rules concerning COVID-19 that professional advisors with whom I speak agree that it has been difficult to keep up with all of them.

One thing hasn’t changed, however – the economic effect of the virus. Many businesses may never return, especially in sectors most affected by safety concerns, such as hotels, or restaurants.

Just as occurred in March, at the start of the crisis, Congress is considering significant stimulus relief. After spending trillions to avoid a crash earlier this year, no one wants to slip backward for want of another few billion here or there. Of course, election year politics and other pressing virus related issues have complicated closing the next stimulus deal – unemployment benefits, liability protection for businesses and schools that reopen, and blanket PPP forgiveness, among others.

So our next steps in Pennsylvania will resemble what we have all done for the last six months – watching each day for glimmers of hope in the latest news.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Chairman Paul R. Rosen, Esq. will be honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award by The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the United States, as part of the publication’s 2020 Pennsylvania Legal Awards on Wednesday, Nov. 11.

The Lifetime Achievement Award honors jurists, office holders and other legal luminaries from across Pennsylvania who have left an imprint on the legal history of the state during their career.

Rosen has distinguished himself throughout his 55-year career through multiple landmark cases.

He is known for his work in the area of lender liability, beginning with a $5 million precedent-setting verdict in favor of a borrower who brought a counterclaim against its lender during a foreclosure action.  His verdict against a bank ultimately created the Lender Liability Law.

In Pennsylvania, Rosen attracted significant attention for his representation of the Commissioners of Lower Merion Township in Barnes Foundation v. Township of Lower Merion, a civil rights action; and of Bruce Marks in the Marks v. Stinson voting fraud case. He was the subject of national attention for his representation of Alycia Lane in her invasion of privacy litigation against CBS and claims of criminal unauthorized access to her private computer system involving CBS Co-Anchor, Lawrence Mendte. He waged a 10-year battle that went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which recusal of the entire Montgomery County Bench was at issue.

Rosen won a class action lawsuit against One Meridian Plaza after the devastating fire.  His class action suit against the union practice of tagging (using license plates in parking lots to track down potential new members) made the front page of the Wall Street Journal and changed U.S. law.  After children were allowed into the sexually explicit movie “Private Lessons,” Rosen sued BudCo Theaters to enforce their ratings, creating the PG-13 era.  He has also represented former CNN host Larry King in a First Amendment matter; former Philadelphia Eagles Coach Andy Reid and his family; and Tom Knox in the Brady challenge for mayor.  Most recently, he returned the Barbera Autoland Dealership to its founding family.

“Early on, I realized I had a talent for finding solutions to impossible problems,” Rosen recently told The Philadelphia Inquirer.  “Growing up on the multicultural streets of Camden, I had to hold my own at Camden High — not just scholastically, but in everyday living.  These life experiences gave me the grit to become a fierce advocate and problem-solver for others — and propelled me into the practice of law.”

In addition to his legal portfolio, Rosen is a champion of the arts, serving as Chairman of the Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci Foundation which provides grants to Philadelphia artists and arts organizations, and presents the ATTY Award for positive depictions of attorneys in the arts.

Rosen is intimately involved in the Philadelphia community. He is a patron of the Cancer Support Community of Greater Philadelphia; Friends of Rittenhouse Square; Pennsylvania SPCA; and numerous other civic/community and fundraising activities.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the Employment Law Group of the Philadelphia-based law firm of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., has been selected as a Benchmark Litigation Labor and Employment Star for 2020.   Benchmark Litigation provides analysis of commercial and financial litigators and law firms in the United States. Epstein was chosen based on factors including recent representative cases, philanthropic work, involvement in professional organizations, and work background.

Focused exclusively on the U.S. litigation market, Benchmark Litigation identifies leading U.S. attorneys and firms at the local and national levels. Rankings and editorials are based on interviews with the nation’s leading private practice lawyers and in-house counsel. Firms and individuals cannot pay to be recommended in the guide.

Epstein concentrates his practice in civil litigation representation in the areas of employment rights, civil rights, and constitutional torts and the provision of transactional advice in all areas of corporate governance, including personalized advice to corporate officers, Boards and Board Members regarding adherence to state and federal regulations.  He is frequently called upon to provide transactional advice to, negotiate employment contracts and severance agreements on behalf of, and litigate matters for corporate entities, corporate officers and Directors, and licensed professionals (and their entities), including lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, pharmacists, and architects, as well as insurance, real estate and security brokers.

Epstein has received a number of recent accolades. He was named in 2019 as an Influencer of Law by the Philadelphia Inquirer. He has been named a top 100 Superlawyer™ in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania and has also been selected as one of the nation’s 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers (2018), 500 Leading Lawyers (2010), Top 500 Plaintiff’s Lawyers (2009), and Top 500 Litigators (2006) by Lawdragon™. He is an active member of the National Employment Lawyers Association, and has served as a volunteer mentor and Panel Coordinator for the Employment Litigation Panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and as a national leader and Inn President in the American Inns of Court movement.  Epstein was most recently selected as a 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Leslie Beth Baskin, Chair of the Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights Group at Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., has been selected as one of the 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers by Lawdragon™ in its 2020 inaugural list of the nation’s best bankruptcy attorneys.

Honorees are chosen by the Lawdragon™ editorial team through submissions, journalistic research and editorial vetting from a board of peers and clients. Baskin is one of only 22 Philadelphia lawyers to receive this distinction.

Baskin was recognized for her “remarkable skills in financing, networking, restructuring and litigating.”

With over 35 years of experience, Baskin represents creditors and debtors in non-bankruptcy work-outs and in commercial bankruptcy proceedings with a concentration in Chapter 11 representations.  She has handled a wide array of commercial, transactional and bankruptcy-related matters including several high-profile cases in the region.  She has also represented high-profile real estate enterprises in Chapter 11 reorganizations, and has been involved in many aspects of healthcare reorganizations, in and out of bankruptcy proceedings.  Additionally, she has served as Chapter 11 trustee in a high-profile case involving fraud and universal violations.

Baskin is currently on the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project (CBAP), where she has been Chair for two years, and is a past Chair of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference.  She has been consistently elected by her peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, including in 2020.  She was recently named Co-Chair of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC), and is one of the founding members of the Chapter.

Baskin received the prestigious David T. Sykes Award from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference and the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project in 2019.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted summary judgment on all claims brought by a male Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Department of Prisons against the City of Philadelphia – which was represented by Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. – exonerating the Mayor from claims that his administration made appointments on the basis of race and gender.

Employment Law Group Chair Alan B. Epstein and Employment Law Group Member Jennifer Myers Chalal represented the City since the inception of the claim in 2017.  The order was issued by Hon. Jan E. DuBois on May 14.

Plaintiff Robert Tomaszewski’s claim was based upon his non-selection as Commissioner by Mayor James Kenney in 2016 on the alleged basis of his race and gender and retaliation after he filed with the EEOC and a lawsuit in 2017.

Epstein and Chalal achieved a satisfactory result in a lawsuit that involved depositions of Mayor Kenney (via written interrogatories), the Managing Director, the current head of the Department of Prisons , and several highly placed individuals in the Kenney administration.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Chairman Paul R. Rosen has been selected as a 2020 Lifetime Achievement Award winner by The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the United States, as part of its annual Professional Excellence Awards. The Intelligencer’s panel selected Rosen as part of a group of only 10 winners across the Pennsylvania legal community in the category of Lifetime Achievement.

The Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes attorneys from all corners of the legal profession and the state, including jurists and office holders, who have left an imprint on the legal history of the state during their career.

The event celebrates achievement and excellence by honoring those lawyers who have left an indelible mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and beyond through their unwavering dedication to the profession.

Rosen attracted national attention for his successful representation of Larry King, Bruce Marks in the Marks v. Stinson voting fraud case, and the Commissioners of Lower Merion Township in the Barnes Foundation v. Township of Lower Merion, a civil rights action.  He has recently been the subject of national attention for his representation of Alycia Lane in her invasion of privacy litigation against CBS and claims of criminal unauthorized access to her private computer system involving CBS Co-Anchor, Lawrence Mendte. Rosen has consistently been selected by Philadelphia Magazine as being one of the best in commercial litigation.  He was also named by the American Trial Lawyers Association as one of the top 100 trial lawyers for the state of Pennsylvania, and by Law Dragon as one of the 500 leading plaintiffs’ lawyers in America.

Mr. Rosen has been named to the Super Lawyers® list each year since 2004. He was selected as a 2019 “Influencer of Law” by The Philadelphia Inquirer, an honor recognizing an elite number of trailblazing attorneys on how they have shaped, changed and transformed the legal industry, as well as their professional accomplishments and community involvement.

Rosen and other Professional Excellence Award winners will be recognized in special editorial sections of The Legal Intelligencer and at an awards dinner set for September 9 at the Crystal Tea Room in Philadelphia.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

COVID-19 AND WHAT EMPLOYERS NEED TO KNOW

            The rampant spread of the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) throughout the United States has affected almost every employer and raises a host of workplace issues especially for those non-essential businesses that have been required to cease or curtail operations.  Recently, a number of actions have been taken by Congress, State and local agencies and the EEOC in response to this national crisis.  The following is intended to highlight some of these actions and address pressing employment issues.

1. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act Update

President Trump signed The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) into law on March 18, 2020. The FFCRA builds on an Emergency Coronavirus Spending Package enacted on March 6, 2020 and a subsequent Bill passed by the House on March 13, 2020 that will provide free coronavirus testing, paid leave, enhanced unemployment insurance benefits for people affected by COVID-19, additional funding for nutritional programs and Medicaid, and protections for health care workers and employees responsible for cleaning at-risk places.  Of particular importance to employers and employees, the FFCRA provides employees with paid sick leave through the newly enacted Emergency Sick Paid Leave Act and the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Emergency Sick Paid Leave Act

The Emergency Sick Paid Leave Act requires private employers with under 500 employees and all public employers to provide mandatory paid-sick-leave benefits to employees who are unable to work or telework for the following reasons:

1. The employee is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or has been advised to self-quarantine or is experiencing symptoms of the COVID-19 virus and is seeking a medical diagnosis;
5. The employee is caring for a son or daughter if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. Experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Full-time employees must be provided with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave. Part-time employees must be provided with sick leave equal to the number of hours the employee normally works in a two-week period. Paid sick leave benefits must be immediately available when the law takes effect regardless of how long an employee has worked for the employer.  If the qualifying reason is for the employee’s own care (reasons 1-3 above), paid sick leave must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay or minimum wage, whichever is greater.  Payment for self-care is capped at $511 a day or $5,110.00 in the aggregate.  If the qualifying reason is for the care of a family member (reasons 4-6 above), the paid leave may be compensated at two-thirds their regular rate of pay, or minimum wage, whichever is greater.  Payment to care for others is capped at $200 a day or $2,000.00 in the aggregate.

Paid sick leave under the Act ends when the employee returns to work, if that occurs before the two-week period. Employers may not require that employees use other paid time off before using paid sick leave under this Act. This benefit is available fifteen days after enactment on April 2, 2020 and will expire at the end of 2020.

Under the Act, employers cannot:

1. Require an employee to use other paid leave before using the paid sick time provided under the Act.

1. Require an employee to find a replacement to cover his or her scheduled work hours.
2. Retaliate against any employee who takes leave in accordance with the act.
3. Retaliate against an employee who files a complaint or participates in a proceeding related to the act—including a proceeding that seeks to enforce the act.

The Emergency Family & Medical Leave Expansion Act

The Emergency Family & Medical Leave Expansion Act expands the Family Medical Leave Act for purposes of the COVID-19 pandemic and requires all private employers with under 500 employees and all public employers to provide a twelve (12) week job protected leave to those eligible employees who are unable to work due to a need for leave to care for their child because the school or day care has been closed or the child care provider is unavailable due to a public health emergency. A “public health emergency” under the Act is defined as an emergency with respect to COVID-19 as declared by a federal, state, or local authority.  Unlike the FMLA which requires an employee to be employed for one year, the Emergency Family & Medical Leave Expansion Act only requires that the employee be employed for thirty (30) days to be eligible.

The first ten (10) days of emergency leave may be unpaid. An employee may elect to use any accrued paid time off (vacation or sick pay) during this time, but employers may not mandate that they use accrued paid time off. After the initial ten (10) day period, employees must be paid at least two-thirds (2/3) of their regular salary, up to a cap of $200 per day and $10,000 in total per employee. An employee taking extended FMLA must be restored to his or her job except that employers of fewer than 25 employees may be excused from reinstating an extended FMLA user if the employee’s position no longer exists due to economic conditions or other changes in operations caused by the public health emergency.  This Act becomes effective fifteen (15 days) after its enactment on April 2, 2020 and will expire at the end of 2020.

Under both the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family Medical Leave Expansion Act, small businesses with fewer than 50 employees may be eligible for an exemption if compliance with the requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.  It will also be permissible to exclude certain health care providers or emergency responders from the definition of eligible employees.

Notice Requirements

Covered employers are required to post in conspicuous places on the workplace premises a notice to be prepared by the Secretary of Labor advising employees of their rights under the Act.

Penalties

Employers who fail to provide the paid leave under either of these Sections will be considered to have failed to pay their employees the federally mandated “minimum wage” and will be in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which provides for liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Tax Credits

Covered employers that are required to offer Emergency Family Medical Leave or Emergency Paid Sick Leave will be eligible for tax credits.  Additionally, employees will not have payroll taxes withheld from Emergency Sick Leave

In addition to the above, many states have enacted similar laws which may provide additional protection.  For instance, New York has enacted it own emergency paid sick leave law.  While the benefits provided for quarantine leave under the New York COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Law depend on the size of the employer, it applies to all employers even those with more than 500 employees in New York.  Employers should monitor all state and local regulations where they do business.

2. Unemployment Compensation

In response to the COVID-19 crisis which has resulted in mandatory stay at home orders and forced business closures, the Department of Labor is permitting every state the ability to relax or waive certain unemployment requirements such as waiting periods or actively seeking work.  In Pennsylvania, employees who are unemployed because their employers have shut down operations because of the COVID-19 emergency are eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, if they are not receiving paid time off for the time they miss. The PA DOL has also suspended the usual one week “waiting week” for benefits for this purpose only. They have also announced that the experience rating for any employer whose employees collect benefits for this reason will not be affected by those claims.

Other states have reacted similarly.  New York has waived its waiting period.  New Jersey is attempting to pass a temporary unemployment program to provide full pay for employees that are out of work because of COVID-19 or have to care for a child whose school is closed due to COVD-19.  Michigan has extended the time an individual can receive benefits and has not required employees to actively seek work if they are quarantined or caring for somebody that is quarantined or caring for a child whose school is closed due to the COVID-19 crisis.  Florida has also waived its requirement that employees actively seek work if out for these reasons.

3. Layoffs

Many employers are being forced to layoff their workforce due to economic hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic including those resulting from forced business closures and stay at home orders.  Certain layoffs implicate The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the “WARN Act”) which is a federal law that requires most employers with 100 or more employees to provide sixty (60) calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees affecting fifty (50) or more employees at a single site of employment.  In determining whether a company has 100 employees, employees that have worked less than six months in the last 12 months and those who work an average of less than 20 hours a week are generally not considered. There are certain exceptions to the requirements when layoffs occur due to unforeseeable business circumstances, faltering companies, and natural disasters.  While COVID-19 is not presently considered a natural disaster, it most likely would qualify as an unforeseeable business circumstance.  Additionally, under the Act, a temporary layoff of less than six months does not constitute an employment loss triggering notice.

Employers should be mindful that many states have enacted their own “Mini-Warn” laws which may expand or reduce the requirements under the Federal Act.  For instance, California does not permit an unforeseeable business exception nor does it provide an exception for temporary layoffs.  New Jersey has amended its Act effective July 2020 and will require mandatory severance when there are plant closings or mass layoffs as defined under the New Jersey Act.  In New York, a mass layoff is defined as the layoff of 25 or more employees if it constitutes 33% of the workforce or the layoff of 250 full time employees and a plant closing is the cessation of business at one operating site that results in the loss of employment of at least 25 employees.  States such as Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Massachusetts have the same requirements as the Federal Act.  Employers are urged to consult the state laws where they operate to ensure compliance

4. Salary Reductions

Employers are permitted to reduce salaries as an alternative to layoffs or furloughs.

However, employees have to earn at least minimum wage.  Additionally, if employers are reducing the salaries of exempt employees, the employer will lose the exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the reduced amount results in the employee earning below $684.00.  Employers could also lose the exemption under state wage laws if the reduction results in the employee earning less than the weekly earning amount required by state law to qualify for an exemption.

Notice should be given to employees before a salary reduction takes place.  While most states do not specify whether the notice needs to be in writing, best practices suggest that written notice is preferable to oral notice.  Additionally, certain states have implemented requirements regarding the amount of notice required.  For instance, North Carolina requires twenty-four hours notice and South Carolina requires seven days notice.  Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Florida and Illinois have no specific requirements..

5. EEOC Issues

1. Discrimination Issues

The issues surrounding COVID increase the potential for discrimination claims based on characteristic such as national origin, age and disability.  Accordingly, employers must be mindful of the anti-discrimination laws in taking measures to respond to the COVID-19 crisis.  In implementing layoffs and salary reductions, employers should be careful that decisions are made for legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons.  For instance, while China is the origin of the virus, employers should not treat employees of Asian descent differently or assume that they have COVID-19.  Likewise, employers should not assume people over a certain age or those with known medical conditions have COVID-19.   In addition, employers should also remember that COVID-19 may or may not qualify as a disability under the ADAAA and should explore those issues when it appears an employee may need an accommodation.

2. Taking Employee Temperatures

The EEOC has relaxed the prohibition on employers taking employees’ temperatures during the COVID-19 emergency. Usually, taking an employee’s temperature is considered to be “medical testing” which is prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For the duration of the COVID-19 emergency, employers may take their employees’ temperature and may send any employee with a fever home. Employers should discontinue this practice when the COVID-19 emergency ends.

We will continue to provide updates to our clients regarding important COVID-19 legislation that affects employers and employees.  If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact Jennifer Chalal at jchalal@sgrvlaw.com or Nancy Abrams at nabrams@sgrvlaw.com.

Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the Employment Law Group of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., has been selected as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers by Lawdragon™ in its 2019 list of the nation’s best plaintiff employment attorneys.

Epstein was also selected for the honor last year, in the list’s inaugural year.  Honorees are chosen in Lawdragon™’s research-driven, journalistic process that vets the views of peers and competitors, and recognizes large wins.  Practitioners who were recognized have been securing positive results for workers for 10 years to more than 50 years.  Epstein was one of only 17 Philadelphia lawyers chosen for the distinction.

Epstein concentrates his practice in civil litigation representation in the areas of employment rights, civil rights and constitutional torts and the provision of transactional advice in all areas of corporate governance, including personalized advice to corporate officers, boards and board members regarding adherence to state and federal regulations. He is frequently called upon to provide transactional advice to, negotiate employment contracts and severance agreements on behalf of, and litigate matters for, corporate entities, corporate officers and directors, and licensed professionals (and their entities), including lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, pharmacists and architects, as well as insurance, real estate and security brokers.

Epstein has litigated complex claims before courts throughout the United States and has been admitted to practice in cases pending before numerous state and federal trial and appellate courts and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington as well as the United States Supreme Court. He is a frequent lecturer in his areas of concentration across the United States, and has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts regarding employment law and the professional and ethical responsibilities of lawyers.

He is a Fellow in the prestigious international College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and has served on its Board of Governors as an officer (Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and then President) since 2011. He continues to serve on the College’s Board as its Past President.  He holds an AV rating from Martindale Hubbell™, has been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America™ in the publication of that name for more than 10 years, and has been awarded Lifetime Achievement Awards by the Philadelphia’s The Legal Intelligencer and Marquis Who’s Who.  He has been named a top 100 Superlawyer™ in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania and has also been selected as one of the nation’s 500 Leading Lawyers (2010), Top 500 Plaintiff’s Lawyers (2009), and Top 500 Litigators (2006) by Lawdragon™.   He has served as a volunteer mentor and Panel Coordinator for the Employment Litigation Panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and as a national leader and Inn President in the American Inns of Court movement.

In the context of significant litigation in the employment law area, Epstein is well known for his participation in high-profile litigation for individuals and corporate entities (including his representation of a young, HIV-positive attorney against a prestigious Philadelphia law firm that received national attention because of the daily televising of the trial by Court TV and CNN and the award-winning film “Philadelphia” starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington) and for his frequent representation of local and national sports figures, broadcast personalities, and officers and directors of large national corporations.

Epstein was also the founder and President/CEO of JUDICATE, The National Private Court System, a publicly held company coordinating private dispute resolution services through approximately 700 former judges throughout the United States and its territories. In the area of alternative dispute resolution, he has additionally lectured and served as a mediator and arbitrator by private appointment and through certification by state and federal courts.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Leslie Beth Baskin, chair of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C.’s Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights Group and member of its Corporate Law Group, testified in her capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee for the Legal Coverage Group estate at the October 2019 sentencing hearing of its principal and sole owner, Gary Alan Frank.

Frank was sentenced to 17½ years in prison and ordered to pay $33.7 million in restitution by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for, inter alia, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.  Baskin was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee by the Office of the United States Trustee to locate and administer assets for creditors and was successful, with the assistance of financial and economic consulting firm Asterion, in liquidating assets fraudulently bought with funds of the Legal Coverage Group, mostly for the personal benefit of Frank.

The funds Baskin collected will be used to pay claims of creditors, including the victims of his criminal actions.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Shareholder and Director George M. Vinci, Jr. has been selected by the Philadelphia Business Journal as 2019 Best of the Bar: Philadelphia’s Top Lawyers.  The award honors the Philadelphia region’s top attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their specialties including significant and recent victories.  Hundreds of nominations were received and evaluated by the Philadelphia Business Journal Editorial Board and three independent judges.

In December 2018, Vinci secured a $100 million ($100,000,000) award against international accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP for its marketing of an abusive tax shelter.  He successfully argued the case, which had 40 witnesses and more than 600 exhibits, from the trial court level to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  As one of the highest verdicts ever obtained in that state, the precedent-setting ruling, which included an $80,000,000 punitive award, sent an important message.

The Business Journal will honor the Best of the Bar winners on Thursday, Oct. 29, from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Crystal Tea Room in Philadelphia.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

George M. Vinci, Jr., Shareholder and Director of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C., will speak on “Premature and Unripe, or an Opportunity to Eliminate Potential Damages? Creating a Defense Strategy When the Legal Malpractice Claim is Still Developing” at the American Bar Association’s Fall 2019 National Legal Malpractice Conference in San Diego, Calif. on Sept. 12.

Vinci and his fellow panel members will discuss strategic issues involved when a legal malpractice claim is asserted at a time when it’s uncertain what will happen with the “case” inside the legal malpractice case, including how to decide whether to join the former client in defending the suit or instead to punt the legal malpractice case as premature.

The panel will also address the pros and cons of the lawyer attempting to reduce or forestall damages by providing curative, continuing representation to the client even after the malpractice claim is threatened or asserted, including the effects on the lawyer’s ongoing duty of loyalty to the client and the assertion of the attorney-client privilege for the lawyer’s own defense.

Vinci will be joined on the panel by Rinat Klier Erlich, Partner at Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP in Los Angeles, Calif.; and Mark Scruggs, Senior Claims Counsel at Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of North Carolina in Durham, N.C.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Joseph J. Devine, a Member of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. and Chair of its Corporate Law Group, was a panelist for the BioStrategy Partners, Inc. (BioSP) seminar, “Company Formation: Avoiding Mistakes, Reducing Costs and Structuring for Growth” at University Place Associates in Philadelphia on June 21, 2019.  Devine led the three-member panel discussion, speaking on topics such as selecting the appropriate type of legal entity early in the company’s development, complying with securities and employment laws, and instituting a policy for social media, data collection and other online and mobile activities.

BioSP is a nonprofit consortium of academic medical centers and research institutes committed to the development and transfer of academic research into the marketplace.  The seminar was held as part of the consortium’s Practical Knowledge Series.

Devine devotes much of his practice to representing entrepreneurs and growth businesses in a variety of industries.  In his 30 years of practice, he has represented public and privately held companies, as well as investors, in a wide range of corporate and business transactional matters, including mergers and acquisitions, equity and debt offerings, securities law compliance, credit facilities, private equity and venture capital, and governance.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci LLP (SGRV) has announced that effective July 1, 2019, Cory Chandler, Amy L. Christiansen and Karen E. McManus Rich are now Members of the firm.  All have been with SGRV for many years of dedicated service, previously serving as Associates in the firm.

Chandler focuses his practice on civil litigation and federal criminal defense.  He represents nursing homes and healthcare providers in complex abuse allegations, represents insurance companies and businesses in labor and employment issues and defends individuals against allegations of white collar crime.  His recent accomplishments include obtaining acquittals of a client on a federal indictment.  Chandler has extensive trial experience having served as lead attorney in more than 60 civil and criminal jury trials.  In addition, he serves as general counsel to the Florida Seaports Counsel, Inc., providing advice on legal matters relating to the success and development of Florida seaports.  He has represented some of the nation’s largest insurance companies in automobile, products liability and premises liability cases.

Christiansen focuses her civil litigation practice on the defense of nursing home claims, legal malpractice, employment discrimination claims and general commercial litigation.  She also has experience in products liability and toxic tort litigation. Christiansen won an appeal of a summary judgment granted in an employment discrimination case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  She tried a nursing home negligence case and obtained a zero damages verdict in Lake County, Fla.  She also assisted with and successfully won jurisdictional defense of a large construction company in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit, and won several appeals of motions to compel arbitration in nursing home litigation in various Florida District Courts of Appeal.

Rich has extensive trial experience as a former criminal prosecutor, enabling her to achieve successful results for her clients in her civil practice in which she has focused in the areas of health care law and employment law for approximately two decades.  She passionately defends long term care facilities and assisted living facilities in complex legal matters such as professional negligence, wrongful death and violation of resident’s rights from pre-suit through arbitration and/or jury trial, and provides legal counsel to them in regulatory compliance and licensure matters.  She defends clients with personal jurisdictional defenses to prevent them from being sued in an improper venue, and also clients seeking to discharge residents from nursing homes by presenting evidence at discharge hearings thereby mitigating litigation risks to her clients.  Additionally, she defends nurses and nursing home administrators in professional license revocation matters.  In the area of employment law, Rich routinely defends claims of discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment and unpaid overtime charges before the Florida Department of Human Relations, EEOC, Department of Labor and in various state and federal courts.  She also represents employers in union grievances through mediation and arbitration.  Through the insurance practice, she defends claims of professional negligence, legal malpractice as well as personal injury in slip and fall and negligent security/supervision matters.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci LLP (SGRV) has announced that Kristen Over has joined the firm as an Associate in the Health Care Law & Litigation, Insurance Coverage & Casualty Litigation, and Employment Law Groups.

Over focuses her practice on civil litigation and criminal defense.  She represents nursing homes, assisted living facilities and healthcare providers in complex litigation, represents insurance companies and businesses in labor and employment issues, and defends individuals against allegations of criminal law violations.

Prior to joining the firm, Over was an Assistant State Attorney in Tampa, Fla.  She prosecuted high-profile and complex criminal cases including homicide, vehicular homicide, drug trafficking, RICO, fraud, theft, robbery, burglary and firearm offenses.  In addition, she was assigned to the sex crimes unit where she handled civil Jimmy Ryce proceedings and also prosecuted cases involving child and elder abuse and neglect.

During her 15-year career as a prosecutor, Over tried more than 100 felony jury trials to verdict.  She handled many cases involving expert witnesses in the areas of forensic pathology, forensic psychology and psychiatry, drug identification, toxicology, blood stain analysis, DNA, accident and crime scene reconstruction,  firearms, computer and digital forensics, battered spouse syndrome and sexual battery examinations.

Over received a J.D. from Stetson University College of Law, cum laude; an M.B.A. from Stetson University; and a B.A. from the University of South Florida.  She is admitted to practice in Florida.

Over is a member of the Herbert G. Goldburg-Ronald K. Cacciatore Criminal Law American Inn of Court and The Florida Bar.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. Shareholder and Director George M. Vinci, Jr. has been selected as a 2019 Professional Excellence Award winner by The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the United States.  The Intelligencer’s panel selected Vinci as part of a group of only 10 winners across the Pennsylvania legal community in the category of Distinguished Leaders.

The category recognizes lawyers who achieved impressive results in the past year such as winning a notable case, and who demonstrate excellent leadership skills.  Joining Vinci among the 10 honorees in his category is Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

In December 2018, Vinci secured a $100 million ($100,000,000) award against international accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP for its marketing of an abusive tax shelter.  He successfully argued the case, which had 40 witnesses and more than 600 exhibits, from the trial court level to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  As one of the highest verdicts ever obtained in that state, the precedent-setting ruling, which included an $80,000,000 punitive award, sent an important message.

Vinci and other Professional Excellence Award winners will be recognized in special editorial sections of The Legal Intelligencer and at an awards dinner set for Thursday, June 27 at the Crystal Tea Room in Philadelphia.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

What does a law firm do with unused promotional items after it changes its name?

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. (SGRV) recently added long-time member George M. Vinci, Jr. to the firm name.  As part of its rebranding, the firm recently unveiled a bold, new logo, as well as a redesigned website at sgrvlaw.com.

SGRV had many glass mugs featuring its old name.  Now, the mugs will find a new home at Saint John’s Hospice in Center City Philadelphia.  SGRV business law attorney Stanley Jaskiewicz arranged for the donation to Saint John’s.  On Tuesday, April 9,  Saint John’s Hospice Community Relations Coordinator Elizabeth M. Small accepted the donation on behalf of the organization.  Joining Jaskiewicz in the presentation from SGRV was Betty J. Spolan, Consultant to Administration; and Anthony Franklin, Clerk.

Saint John’s Hospice, “where homeless men have found dignity, respect and opportunities for new beginnings” at 1221 Race St. since 1963, had previously recently received a donation of travel mugs from the firm in 2018.

Jaskiewicz formerly served for nine years on the Board of Manna on Main Street, a food pantry and social service agency in Lansdale, in Montgomery County.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. Chairman Paul R. Rosen has announced that Executive Committee Member George M. Vinci, Jr. has joined him as Equity Shareholder and Director of the firm.  Celebrating its 45^th anniversary this year, the firm has also unveiled a new name – Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. – as well as a bold, new brand (logo above) to advance its strong reputation for tenaciously pursuing successful claims and defenses on behalf of its clients.

“We’re not your typical law firm,” Rosen said. “We’ve earned a stellar reputation for taking on difficult, complex cases and have a track record of coming out with win after win on those cases.  George has been with our firm for 27 years and leads our largest divisions of the firm – Insurance Coverage & Casualty Litigation, and Professional Liability & Malpractice Litigation.  He’s a superb litigator who secures landmark verdicts with a natural ability in court that is astounding.  I felt it was important to show our future in the firm name.  And that future is with George.”

“This law firm is like my second family,” Vinci said.  “We are a highly respected team of dogged and diligent attorneys.  We maintain a high-quality practice that was built under the leadership of legal icons including Paul Rosen, a true national trailblazer of our profession.  I look forward to proudly working alongside him to continue to take a winning firm to even greater heights of success.”

In December 2018, Vinci secured a $100 million ($100,000,000) award against international accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP for its marketing of an abusive tax shelter.  He successfully argued the case, which had 40 witnesses and more than 600 exhibits, from the trial court level to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  As one of the highest verdicts ever obtained in that state, the precedent-setting ruling, which included an $80,000,000 punitive award, sent an important message.

Six months after joining the firm in 1992 as a 28-year-old associate, Vinci joined Rosen in the limelight for their work on a groundbreaking election fraud case which they won, removing William G. Stinson from the Senate without a re-election in the precedent-setting case of Marks v. Stinson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Coverage of the case aired on Court TV.

Vinci’s litigation experience involves cases throughout the United States.  He has successfully handled a wide variety of complex professional malpractice and business litigation matters on behalf of a wide variety of clients.

Vinci earned his J.D. from Temple University School of Law, cum laude, in 1988, and a B.A. from St. Joseph’s University in 1985.   He and his family reside in center city Philadelphia.

In Vinci’s early days at the firm, founder Steven Gadon predicted, “One day, this will be your firm.”  Now, with Vinci joining Rosen in an ownership position, the prophecy of the late Gadon has proved true.

In December, Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. announced a new presence in Atlanta, Ga., in addition to its offices in Philadelphia, Pa., Marlton, N.J., St. Petersburg, Fla. and New York, N.Y.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Paul R. Rosen, Chairman of Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C., and Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the firm’s Employment Law Practice Group, have been selected as 2019 “Influencers of Law” by The Philadelphia Inquirer.  The Inquirer’s panel of experts selected Rosen and Epstein based on how they shaped, changed and transformed the legal industry, as well as their professional accomplishments and community involvement.

Rosen and Epstein were selected as part of only 54 honorees from thousands of Philadelphia lawyers across the region.  Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. is one of a very small group of firms to have more than one attorney selected.

Both trailblazers will be profiled in the Business Section of The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday, March 24 and will be recognized at an awards luncheon to be held on Tuesday, March 26 at 11 a.m. the Crystal Tea Room in Philadelphia.

The program will feature opening remarks by Terry Egger, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer at The Philadelphia Inquirer.  The program will also feature a fireside chat with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

Josh Shapiro serves as Pennsylvania’s top legal official in spearheading efforts to combat crime, uphold individual rights and protect consumers.  He is the sixth person elected to the office and was sworn in on January 17, 2017 as the Commonwealth’s top lawyer and chief law enforcement officer with a mandate to ensure integrity.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Michael J. McGirney, a Member of Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.’s Litigation Practice Group, will discuss “Legal Ethics of Social Media and ESI” at the NBI Obtaining Evidence From Electronic Devices Seminar on April 25^th, in Tampa, FL.

The Seminar features presentations by  prominent and experienced lawyers and paralegals in the country and provides information on how to gather evidence from electronic devices and get it authenticated when hiring an expert is not feasible.

McGirney will explore the ethics in social media and ESI, diving into topics such attorney E-Discovery competency, data confidentiality, spoliation and inadvertent disclosure of documents.

McGirney concentrates his practice in complex litigation with an emphasis on the defense professionals. He has been certified by the state of Florida on mediator ethics and he has served as an instructor on mediator ethics and liability throughout the state of Florida. He has served as a mediator, arbitrator, and as a consulting and testifying expert witness in insurance claim matters, bad faith matters, legal malpractice litigation and ethics issues.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

In December, 2017 Congress did the near unthinkable.  It passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Act”) which, among other changes, raised the exemption from the federal estate, gift and generation skipping transfer taxes to $11,180,000 ($11.4 Million effective for decedents dying or making gifts in January 1, 2019).  Many estate planning practitioners have been left pondering “Now what do I advise my clients?”  Do we still want to make lifetime gifs to children?  Are the old marital/credit trust plans with A/B trusts still the appropriate trust design?

While not exactly repealing the federal estate tax, with such a high exemption ($11.4 Million per person and $22.8 Million per married couple with portability), almost no one need fear the estate tax any longer.  Unfortunately, these increases are currently scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025 which means the exemption may return to its pre-2018 level of $5.5 Million per person and $11 Million per married couple.

This article will review a number of estate planning issues that should be addressed and provide possible solutions to the new estate tax world in which we live.  The article is divided into three parts: (i) designing estate documents that are effective both with the new tax law and also if there is a reversion to the old law in 2025, (ii) examining and fixing existing estate documents and (iii) gift planning.

1. Income Tax Issues and New Uses for the QTIP Marital Trust.

Perhaps the biggest conundrum faced by estate planners when the exemption was increased to $5 Million in 2010 was how to preserve the step up in basis under I.R.C. §1014 while minimizing estate taxes.  With combined federal and state income taxes exceeding 40% in certain states, income taxes may be more of a problem from high net worth families than the estate tax (40% plus any state inheritance tax).  With almost no one having to worry about the federal estate tax, planners should be focusing on minimizing income taxes which generally means protecting the step-up in basis at the death of both spouses.  The surviving spouse would like to get a step-up in basis on all assets inherited from the first spouse to die, and then the children getting a second step-up when their mother or father later dies.

This is pretty simple to achieve if one leaves all of the family assets to the surviving spouse at the first spouse’s death, the classic “I love you will” (the “ILU Plan”).  The spouse will get a step-up in all the assets left to him/her (exceptions are annuities and retirement plans and other income in respect of a decedent property and installment notes).  Then the survivor will own all the assets when he/she later dies which get a second step-up at that time.  There is unlikely to be any estate tax at the second spouse’s death, because the spouse will have his/her own $11.4 Million exemption and also the unused exemption of the first spouse to die (referred to as the “portable exemption”).  But, there are problems with such a plan.  First, the current exemption may revert back to a substantially lower level.  With the state of politics and the ballooning federal deficit, future taxation is at best uncertain.  Second, there is total loss of control over the assets.  If the surviving spouse remarries, he/she will have unlimited control over the disposition of the “family” assets.  Third, if there is a plan to leave assets in trust for the children after the second spouse dies and then have the assets pass on to grandchildren, the generation skipping transfer tax (the “GSTT”) may become a problem at the second death.  This is because the portable exemption does not apply to the GSTT.

For example, assume an estate of $22.8 Million.  If all the assets are left outright to the surviving spouse, the spouse will have his/her own exemption of $11.4 Million and the deceased spouse’s unused exemption of $11.4 Million (the “portable exemption”) for a total of $22.8 Million.  However, when the second spouse dies and tries to leave the remaining assets in a generation skipping trust, there only will be $11.4 Million of GSTT exemption to allocate to the trust.  This means that $11.4 Million of the $22.8 Million will be subject to the GSTT.  At 40% GSTT, this means a potential GSTT of over $4.5 Million.

What is a QTIP – A QTIP addresses these issues very well.  A QTIP is a special form of marital trust under which the surviving spouse must be paid all of the net income of the QTIP each year.  There can be no other beneficiary besides the surviving spouse during the spouse’s lifetime.  The spouse also can be paid additional amounts for health, maintenance and support.  If the trust has these requirements, then it will qualify for the unlimited marital deduction, resulting in no federal estate tax at the first death.  The assets payable to the QTIP will get a step up in basis.  When the surviving spouse later dies, the entire QTIP will be included in his/her taxable estate which means that the assets in the QTIP will get the second step-up at that time.  So far, so good.  Any appreciation in the QTIP assets during the surviving spouse’s life will get a new cost basis and can be sold without any capital gain tax.  The result – no income tax on the assets in the estate and no federal estate tax if the value of the QTIP and the surviving spouse’s assets are less than the $11.4 portable exemption from the first spouse and the exemption of the surviving spouse.  Not bad!

However, if the estate plan includes generation skipping gifts (either outright gifts to grandchild or gifts in trust for children that will eventually pass to grandchildren when the children later die), there still may be a GSTT problem.  The survivor’s estate only will have one GSTT exemption to use just like in the ILU scenario, because the GSTT exemption is not portable.  One either uses it at the first death or loses it (just like the estate tax exemption in the days before portability).  Fortunately, there is a special rule for QTIP’s called a Reverse QTIP election (I.R.C. §2652) which permits a QTIP to be divided into two separate trust shares, with the executor allocating the unused GSTT exemption of first spouse to die to one of trust shares.  In this way, the family still gets to use two GSTT exemptions of $11.4 Million which will avoid the problem of the ILU Plan discussed above.  This cannot be done with the ILU plan.

Besides these GSTT saving benefits, leaving assets to a QTIP provide all the traditional benefits of leaving assets in trust, creditor protection and assuring that the family estate plan is respected during the surviving spouse’s lifetime and at his/her death.  Plus using a QTIP adds considerable flexibility to the estate plan.  Because of the unpredictability of future estate tax law, minimizing estate taxes may become paramount again.  This is when flexibility may save the day.  For example, Congress could repeal the step-up in basis.  One may remember the carryover basis rules we suffered through in 2010.  It could happen again if Congress needs tax revenue.  In that case, one may wish for the old marital trust/credit trust formula that carved out the federal exemption amount at the first death and put it into a by-pass trust.  The by-pass trust was not subject to federal estate taxes at either the first spouse’s death or at the second spouse’s death.  All growth of assets at the second death avoided estate taxes at that time.  But all is not lost.  The same procedure that permits division of a marital trust into two separate shares now can be used to divide the QTIP into two shares, a B share exactly equal to the federal exemption and an A share receiving the balance of the estate.  The executor does not have to make a marital deduction election for the B share.  Thus the old format easily can be resurrected at the first spouse’s death.

This is not much different than leaving an ILU plan with a disclaimer trust, a plan design favored by many estate planners.  If the will has a contingent disclaimer trust built into it, then the surviving spouse will have the option of accepting all of the assets or making a disclaimer of a portion of the estate equal to the federal exemption.  The net result will be the same – IF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE UNDERSTANDS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND IS WILLING TO MAKE THE DISCLAIMER.  The author’s experience is that convincing a spouse to make a disclaimer is problematic at best.  Often the spouse will prefer to have complete control of the assets and will not make the disclaimer even if it will benefit the children in the long run.  Or just as likely, the spouse will not understand the significance of making the disclaimer, or the technical disclaimer requirements, and won’t make the decision.

For spouses who like this tax planning but do not like giving up control of the assets which will be held in trust, there is an answer.  The spouse can be sole trustee of the QTIP.  For advisors who do not like to trust the surviving spouse to be trustee, think of the alternative.  If the family chooses the ILU Plan, then the spouse will have outright ownership and control of all the family assets.  The spouse as trustee is a very reasonable approach for most families.

In conclusion, it would seem that the traditional reasons for the marital/credit trust design have been replaced by the QTIP design for many estates.  Typical reasons for the credit trust were to let one trust (the B trust) grow by not making distributions to the spouse during the spouse’s remaining lifetime.  But with the new $11.4 exemption per spouse, this is unlikely to be meaningful except in very large estates.

A good reason to retain the B trust could be when the surviving spouse is likely to remarry.  Then it is possible to lose the first spouse’s “unused exemption” if the new spouse dies before the surviving spouse.  The surviving spouse’s estate then will get the “unused exemption” of the new spouse which can be significantly lower or even zero.  However with the new higher exemption and the fact that it is indexed, this is not likely to present a serious problem for most people.  However, if it is viewed as a problem, then the executor can do the QTIP division and preserve the first spouse’s exemption by using it at the first spouse’s death.  And since the money will be in trust no matter what the executor decides, the likelihood of a smart decision to use the B trust is greater than if the family was using an ILU plan.

When choosing the new QTIP design, it is important for the executor and trustee to have the power to divide the trust without court approval.  Alternatively, a trust may have a trust protector provision giving one or more people the power to make certain elections for the trust (e.g., to divide the trust into an A trust and a B trust).  Then the surviving spouse may not be the person who has to make the decision.  The idea should be to make any of the trust divisions described above simple and inexpensive.

1. Fixing Older Estate Plans

What if a client already has an estate plan that includes a marital/credit trust format.  The documents may work just fine without any change.  If the B trust has the same provisions as are required for a QTIP trust, then all the executor has to do is make an election to qualify to B trust for the marital deduction.  However, sometimes the B trust has provisions which will not permit it to qualify as a QTIP.

Some B trusts do not require the income to be distributed to the surviving spouse each year.  Instead, the terms may permit the trustee to accumulate income and make discretionary distributions instead (e.g., distributions for health, maintenance and support).  This trust will not qualify for the marital deduction and cannot be a QTIP.  Or the trust may have other potential beneficiaries.  Sometimes trusts are drafted to give the trustee discretion to pay income and/or principal to the decedent’s children.  Such a trust also will not qualify for the marital deduction.

In such cases, the estate plan will have to be redrafted with the appropriate QTIP provisions (unless the family prefers such a plan for their own good reasons).  But what if the spouse whose document needs to be changed is incapacitated or just died.  It still may not be too late to fix such a trust.

Pennsylvania, like many other jurisdictions, has adopted a version of the Uniform Trust Code which permits the modification of trusts either (i) by the trustee and beneficiaries through a non-judicial settlement agreement if the modification is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust (20 Pa. C.S. §7710.1) or (ii) by the settlor and all beneficiaries even if the modification is inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust (20 Pa. C.S. §7740.1)  Pennsylvania law also authorizes the modification of irrevocable trusts with court approval and specifically authorizes modification of irrevocable trusts in order to achieve a settlor’s tax objectives (20 Pa. C.S. §7740.6).  So if the family and its advisors act quickly and with unity, it may be possible to change an existing trust to satisfy the requirements of the QTIP rules.

If the deceased spouse died a number of years ago and the trust already has come into existence as a B trust that did not qualify for the marital deduction, the family may want to consider terminating the trust and distribute all of the trust assets to the surviving spouse (assuming he/she is eligible to receive the assets upon termination).  The trust may have a provision that provides an easy method of terminating the trust without court approval.  If it does not have such a provision, then it still may be possible to terminate the trust with court approval.   (20 PA C.S. §7740.4).

When considering whether to modify or terminate a trust for which an election has not already been made to prepay inheritance tax under section 2113 of the Pennsylvania Inheritance and Estate Tax Act (72 P.S. §9113(a)), planners should keep in mind that the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has adopted a statement of policy (61 Pa. Code § 94.3) indicating that if a trust is terminated non-judicially under Pa. C.S. §7710.1 without requesting a Future Interest Compromise (Form REV-1647 Schedule M), Pennsylvania will reserve the right to assess Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax against the assets of the trust valued as of the date of termination.  Planners should consider whether to proceed with a judicial modification or termination pursuant to Pa. C.S. §7740.4 or §7740.6 (rather than non-judicially under Pa. C.S. §7710.1 or § 7740.1), or make sure to timely submit a request for Future Interest Compromise.

• To Gift or Not to Gift

Traditional Gifts – For many years, conventional wisdom held that clients should gift assets during their lifetimes in order to remove the value of those assets, and (hopefully) the future appreciation in the value of those assets, from the clients’ taxable estates in order to avoid federal estate tax.  In some cases, assets gifted during lifetime might also be discounted giving extra leverage.  The reasoning behind the conventional wisdom is that even though the gifted assets have a carry-over basis in the hands of the donee, future capital gains would be taxed at a rate far lower than the federal estate tax rate.  However, with the increase in the federal estate exemption, federal estate tax will not be an issue for most clients.  Also, with the IRS making it much more difficult to obtain discounts on gifts, planning tools like family partnerships have lost much of their luster.  Therefore, it may be more prudent for clients to retain their low-basis assets rather than transfer them during lifetime in order to maximize the step-up in basis.

Gift with Strings –  If a client is determined to make lifetime gifts in trust of low-basis assets, it is possible to transfer the property in such a way that the gift still will be included in his/her estate for federal estate tax purposes even though the income is paid out each year to other beneficiaries.  This can be done by the client retaining certain powers that bring the trust back into his/her estate when the client dies (e.g., a retained limited power of appointment).  And if the trust is set up as a grantor trust, the client may be able to do a tax free exchange of assets with the trust to get back low basis assets before dying.

Gifts to Older Generation.  If neither federal estate tax nor generation-skipping transfer tax is an issue for a client who owns low-basis assets, the client can transfer such assets to an individual in an older generation (e.g., a parent) who has a shorter life expectancy than the client.  When the parent dies, there will be a step-up basis and the client will inherit the assets back from the parent.  Such a transfer could be made to a trust in such a way that the asset would be included in the older individual’s estate for federal estate tax purposes and, provided that donee survives one year from the date of the gift, upon death the gifted assets would receive the step-up in basis.

In conclusion, it is a new world for estate planning.  One believes that using a QTIP Marital Trust can solve many of the problems faced by our wealthier clients.  New tax law brings new opportunities and leaving an old estate plan alone may be a significant mistake.

Michael J. McGirney, a Member of Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.’s Litigation Practice Group, will discuss “Ethics for Construction Attorneys” at the NBI Construction Law Seminar on March 26^th in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

The Seminar features presentations by the most prominent and experienced construction lawyers in the country and provides in-depth understanding of critical construction project legal matters that have the potential to cause immense issues for your clients.

McGirney will explore the ethics in construction, diving into topics such as client authority, contractions claims for attorneys’ fee/expenses, dealing with unpresented persons and ethical concerns as attorney for the project.

McGirney concentrates his practice in complex litigation with an emphasis on the defense professionals. He has been certified by the state of Florida on mediator ethics and he has served as an instructor on mediator ethics and liability throughout the state of Florida. He has served as a mediator, arbitrator and as a consulting and testifying expert witness in insurance claim matters, bad faith matters, legal malpractice litigation and ethics issues.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. represents business and commercial law clients nationally and internationally, serving entities, corporate boards and highly placed individuals engaged in multifaceted industries (including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital) through a cadre of dedicated and highly skilled lawyers with a reputation for using unique strategies, and a proven success record with tough cases.  The firm’s practice groups include banking and financial services, bankruptcy and creditor rights, commercial litigation, corporate formation and governance, cyber risk and security, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, estates, trust and wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, professional liability, real estate, securities and sports, and tax law.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted summary judgment on behalf of a prominent Los Angeles-based photographer specializing in celebrity portraits represented by Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., rejecting a financial website’s “fair use” defense in a copyright infringement dispute.

The opinion presents a rare look at a court’s application of the “fair use” defense in the context of an online photography case.

In Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. Valuewalk, LLC and Jacob O. Wolinsky, Spector Gadon & Rosen attorneys Bruce Bellingham and David B. Picker represent Michael Grecco, a professional photographer working primarily in the entertainment and fashion industry.  An image of Jeffrey Gundlach, a bond trader, that Grecco took for a Barron’s magazine cover story in 2012 was infringed by Valuewalk.com in 2015.

The parties both moved for summary judgment and U.S. District Court Judge Gregory H. Woods considered and discarded the “fair use” defense, finding it unsuitable for consideration by the jury.

In addition to seeking summary judgment on Valuewalk’s “fair use” defense, Spector Gadon & Rosen sought judgment on Valuewalk’s affirmative defenses that the infringement was “extra-territorial” because a contractor in Pakistan contributed to the U.S. publication, and that the photographer’s effort to enforce his copyright constituted “copyright abuse.”

The court held that Valuewalk’s unlicensed use of the image was not “fair use” because it used the image without a license for precisely the purpose for which it was created to license for payment: to illustrate an article about the financier.

The court also held that Grecco was a prominent, highly compensated photographer whose claim for substantial monetary damages against an unlicensed user was not an abuse of copyright.

Finally, the court dismissed as frivolous Valuewalk’s argument that its use of a foreign contractor in preparing a work for publication by a U.S. website made the publication “extraterritorial” and, hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the Copyright Act.

After granting judgment on most of Valuewalk’s defenses, the court scheduled trial on a narrow remaining issue: whether Grecco should have known of an earlier 2012 infringement of the image by Valuewalk that was disclosed in fact discovery and, if so, had the three-year statute of limitations run when Grecco sued in 2016 notwithstanding Valuewalk’s republication of the image in the revised and substituted 2015 article that was the subject of Grecco’s complaint.

In addition, Grecco’s claims for willful infringement (enhancing statutory damages) and individual liability of Valuewalk’s owner/editor will be tried.

The fact that the case proceeded through the summary judgment phase is considered a rare feat.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. represents business and commercial law clients nationally and internationally from its offices in Philadelphia, Pa., Marlton, N.J., St. Petersburg, Fla. and New York, N.Y.  The firm serves national and local entities, corporate boards and highly placed individuals engaged in multifaceted industries (including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and  venture capital) through a cadre of dedicated and highly talented lawyers in specialized practice groups that include banking and financial services, bankruptcy and creditor rights, commercial litigation, corporate formation and governance, cyber risk and security, employment, environment and energy, estates, trust and wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, professional liability, real estate, securities and sports, entertainment and amusements.

George M. Vinci Jr., a Member of Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.’s Executive Committee and Chair of the Insurance and Professional Liability Practice Groups, will discuss “Defending the Not-So-Typical Legal Malpractice Claim” at the 2018 DRI Professional Liability Seminar on Nov. 30 in New York, NY.

The annual Seminar features presentations by the most prominent and experienced professional liability lawyers, experts and insurance professionals in the country and provides up-to-date information regarding new issues, defenses and strategies.

Vinci will explore the defense of legal malpractice claims against specialized attorneys and how the causation and damage standards can differ from a typical legal malpractice claim.

Vinci focuses his practice on civil litigation with a strong emphasis on professional malpractice, employment and insurance coverage disputes.  His commercial litigation experience involves cases throughout the United States.  He was involved in a ground-breaking election fraud case (Marks v. Stenson) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was aired on Court TV.  Recently he obtained one of the highest verdicts in the State of Kentucky for $100M in a fraud case against Grant Thornton involving the sale of an abusive tax shelter.

Vinci has successfully handled a wide variety of complex commercial litigation matters including tortious interference, civil RICO, FDCPA, Class Action Wage and Hour disputes and bankruptcy litigation.  He also represents a large number of long term care facilities in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Leslie Beth Baskin, a Member of Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. and Chair of the Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights Group, served as a Course Planner for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s 23^rd Annual Bankruptcy Institute on Oct. 24 in Philadelphia.

The PBI Annual Bankruptcy Institute features bankruptcy judges and faculty who practice in the bankruptcy arena.  Attendees are updated on the top consumer and commercial bankruptcy cases of the year as well as the most significant issues in bankruptcy law.

The firm recently announced that Baskin was selected to receive the prestigious David T. Sykes Award from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference and the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project.  The Award will be presented to Baskin at the 30th Annual Forum of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference in January 2019. Baskin was selected because of her embodiment of the qualities exemplified by Sykes, a founding member of both organizations.  They include excellence and integrity as a bankruptcy attorney, unsurpassed professionalism, courtesy to and respect for all, and unwavering dedication to the bankruptcy community and the less fortunate in Philadelphia.

With more than 30 years of experience, Baskin represents creditors and debtors in non-bankruptcy work-outs and in commercial bankruptcy proceedings including Chapter 11 reorganizations. She has handled a wide array of commercial, transactional and bankruptcy-related matters including several high-profile cases in the region.  She has also represented high-profile real estate enterprises in Chapter 11 reorganizations, and has been involved in many aspects of healthcare reorganizations, in and out of bankruptcy proceedings.

Baskin currently serves on the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project (CBAP) and is Chair for two years. She received CBAP’s Award for Outstanding Volunteer in 2005.  Founded in 1992, CBAP assists low-income qualified individuals and families in the Delaware Valley with their Chapter 7 bankruptcies.

Baskin is a past Chair of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference (EDPABC), a nonprofit organization that promotes the education and interests of lawyers, other professionals and paraprofessionals who work in bankruptcy and creditors’ rights law in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Baskin has been elected by her peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for numerous years. She is also one of the founding members of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the International Women’s Insolvency & Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC) and serves as the organization’s Vice Chair.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Successful investors know that deferring taxes today can lead to long-term profits.

The recent “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” offers one new way to do just that – while creating jobs at the same time (https://dced.pa.gov/download/opportunity-zones-subchapter-z/?wpdmdl=83372).

Under the new law, investments in areas designated as “Opportunity Zones” can win substantial tax benefits, including not only the deferral of taxes, but also basis adjustments and potentially a permanent exclusion of gain on sale of properties in such zones.

Although the program was created to “to spur economic development and job creation in distressed communities,” in the Philadelphia area, at least, those zones include some of the hottest neighborhoods for new development (http://www2.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/trump-tax-break-investors-philadelphia-hottest-neighborhoods-20180924.html).

Even better, taxes on already-appreciated property in those zones can be rolled over into such an investment, to provide additional deferral.

A list of designated zones is online at https://www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx.  A detailed map of them is available at https://www.cims.cdfifund.gov/preparation/?config=config_nmtc.xml.  A listing by county and zip code is at https://dced.pa.gov/download/final-foz-spreadsheet/?wpdmdl=84233.

Naturally, there are many details and regulations to parse, as with most tax benefits.

But the potential benefit can be well worth that effort – and expense.

For example, qualifying investments must be made through so-called “Opportunity Funds” – you can’t just buy a property in your own name in one of the zones with the intention of getting the tax benefit.

Attorneys Milton H. Cross and Peter D. Cripps of Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C.’s Corporate Law and Real Estate & Real Estate Litigation practice groups are keeping up with the new programs, as well as with the many new rules that are in the pipeline – including IRS regulations expected this fall.

Moreover, even though the program is new, there are already many resources available about it:

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/opportunity-zones-frequently-asked-questions

https://www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx

http://www.pcrg.org/a-new-hope-federal-opportunity-zones-in-pennsylvania

The Council of Development Finance Agencies also has a webinar about the program online: https://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/ordredirect.html?open&id=201802_IIOA.html

For further information about how you can take advantage of this program, or whether a particular property is eligible for its benefits, please contact Milton H. Cross at 215-241-8811 or mcross@lawsgr.com, or Peter D. Cripps at 215-241-8884 or pcripps@lawsgr.com.

Alan B. Epstein, Chair of the Employment Law Group of Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., has been selected as one of the 500 Leading Plaintiff Employment Lawyers by Lawdragon™ in its inaugural list of the nation’s best plaintiff employment attorneys.

Those honored were selected in Lawdragon™’s research-driven, journalistic process that vets the views of peers and competitors. Practitioners who were recognized have been securing positive results for workers for 10 years to more than 50 years.  Epstein was one of only 14 Philadelphia lawyers chosen for the distinction.

Epstein concentrates his practice in civil litigation representation in the areas of employment rights, civil rights and constitutional torts and the provision of transactional advice in all areas of corporate governance, including personalized advice to corporate officers, boards and board members regarding adherence to state and federal regulations. He is frequently called upon to provide transactional advice to, negotiate employment contracts and severance agreements on behalf of, and litigate matters for, corporate entities, corporate officers and directors, and licensed professionals (and their entities), including lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, pharmacists and architects, as well as insurance, real estate and security brokers.

Epstein has litigated complex claims before courts throughout the United States and has been admitted to practice in cases pending before numerous state and federal trial and appellate courts and administrative agencies in Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington as well as the United States Supreme Court. He is a frequent lecturer in his areas of concentration across the United States, and has served as an expert witness in state and federal courts regarding employment law and the professional and ethical responsibilities of lawyers.

He is a Fellow in the prestigious international College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and has served on its Board of Governors as an officer (Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and then President) since 2011. He continues to serve on the College’s Board as its Past President.  He holds an AV rating from Martindale Hubbell™, has been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America™ in the publication of that name for more than 10 years, and has been awarded Lifetime Achievement Awards by the Philadelphia’s The Legal Intelligencer and Marquis Who’s Who.  He has been named a top 100 Superlawyer™ in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania and has also been selected as one of the nation’s 500 Leading Lawyers (2010), Top 500 Plaintiff’s Lawyers (2009), and Top 500 Litigators (2006) by Lawdragon™.   He has served as a volunteer mentor and Panel Coordinator for the Employment Litigation Panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and as a national leader and Inn President in the American Inns of Court movement.

In the context of significant litigation in the employment law area, Epstein is well known for his participation in high-profile litigation for individuals and corporate entities (including his representation of a young, HIV-positive attorney against a prestigious Philadelphia law firm that received national attention because of the daily televising of the trial by Court TV and CNN and the award-winning film “Philadelphia” starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington) and for his frequent representation of local and national sports figures, broadcast personalities, and officers and directors of large national corporations.

Epstein was also the founder and President/CEO of JUDICATE, The National Private Court System, a publicly held company coordinating private dispute resolution services through approximately 700 former judges throughout the United States and its territories. In the area of alternative dispute resolution, he has additionally lectured and served as a mediator and arbitrator by private appointment and through certification by state and federal courts.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. is pleased to announce that Leslie Beth Baskin has been selected to receive the prestigious David T. Sykes Award from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference and the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project.

The Award was presented to Baskin at the 30th Annual Forum of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference in January 2019. She was selected because of her embodiment of the qualities exemplified by Sykes, a founding member of both organizations.  They include excellence and integrity as a bankruptcy attorney, unsurpassed professionalism, courtesy to and respect for all, and unwavering dedication to the bankruptcy community and the less fortunate in Philadelphia.

As a Member of Spector Gadon & Rosen and Chair of the Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights Group with more than 35 years of experience, Baskin represents creditors and debtors in non-bankruptcy work-outs and in commercial bankruptcy proceedings including Chapter 11 reorganizations. She has handled a wide array of commercial, transactional and bankruptcy-related matters including several high-profile cases in the region.  She has also represented high-profile real estate enterprises in Chapter 11 reorganizations, and has been involved in many aspects of healthcare reorganizations, in and out of bankruptcy proceedings. She also has served as Chapter 11 Trustee in a high profile case involving fraud and universal violations

Baskin currently serves on the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project (CBAP) and was its Chair for two years. She received CBAP’s Award for Outstanding Volunteer in 2005.  Founded in 1992, CBAP assists low-income qualified individuals and families in the Delaware Valley with their Chapter 7 bankruptcies.

Baskin is a past Chair of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference (EDPABC), a nonprofit organization that promotes the education and interests of lawyers, other professionals and paraprofessionals who work in bankruptcy and creditors’ rights law in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Baskin has been elected by her peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for numerous years. She is also one of the founding members of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the International Women’s Insolvency & Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC) and serves as the organization’s Vice Chair.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. attorneys Daniel J. Dugan and Bruce Bellingham were recognized by The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the United States, for achieving the 15^th largest verdict in Pennsylvania as part of the newspaper’s annual list of “Top 20 Verdicts Cases” reported in its Top Pennsylvania Verdicts & Settlements of 2017. Dugan and Bellingham were recognized for their work as plaintiff attorneys in an intentional tort case involving the founder of a family business who suspected embezzlement.  In T. Levy Associates, Inc. v. Michael Kaplan, Nina Kaplan, BLC Beauty, Inc., a federal court jury found in favor of the plaintiff, T. Levy Associates, Inc., in the amount of $2.13M in June 2017.  Hon. Mark A. Kearny, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, presided over the case.

The annual list includes cases reported to VerdictSearch, an affiliate of The Legal Intelligencer, for the preceding calendar year.  Reports are based on information as issued after trial.

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.

By every measure, the incident rates of cyber-attacks and confidential information disclosure across all businesses are increasing exponentially. Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. emphasizes pre-breach services to assist our clients in preventing breaches in the first place. Because breaches are costly, intrusive and not going away, we developed the Cyber Exposure Analysis process (CEA) to combat cyber exposures head-on. CEA is straightforward, easy to use and generates a detailed cyber risk exposure profile report based on information furnished by our clients in CEA’s assessment survey.

CEA addresses the issues that keep CEOs, General Counsel and Risk Managers awake at night by targeting the major cyber-risk areas including:

• Breach of privacy claims, including non-consensual, misuse and misappropriation of personal data, identity theft and contravention of international privacy laws applicable to online businesses
• Contractual exposures inherent in the use of cloud computing
• Copyright, patent and trademark infringement claims
• The advantages and risks associated with the use of social media in an organization
• Non-Compliance with local, state, federal and foreign regulations pertaining to the safeguarding of privacy information
• Liability arising from systems failures and outages, viruses, worms and data corruption, hacking and other vulnerabilities in online offerings
• Trade secret protection, including questions of encryption, e-mail, extraordinary intercept measures, social media, discussion groups and Internet acquisition and distribution of trade secrets.

In the CEA process, we process the clients’ information feedback and issue a report that includes detailed responses to the clients’ answers, exposure evaluations keyed to the individual responses in the areas surveyed, graphical comparisons of the exposure areas surveyed, remediation check lists and an executive summary. Our proprietary algorithm-based technology makes possible the delivery of the report within five business days. Importantly, when the client retains us for the CEA process, what the client tells us in answering the questionnaire and what we recommend in the report is attorney-client privileged. The CEA report enables our clients to make informed cyber risk management decisions as to whether to fix the exposures, ignore them or transfer them by way of cyber risk insurance. We can assist our clients in carrying out whatever decisions they make.

For further guidance in this area, please contact Ned Dunham, Esquire, at 215-241-8802 or edunham@lawsgr.com.

Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. has announced the appointment of Mark A. Tarasiewicz as the firm’s Executive Director of Administration.  In his position, Tarasiewicz will direct strategic communications, marketing and human resources for one of the nation’s top ranked full-service law firms providing counsel and expertise from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters.

Tarasiewicz previously served as Executive Director of the 12,000-member Philadelphia Bar Association, the oldest association of lawyers in the United States, from January 2014 to June 2018.  During his tenure as Executive Director, he made significant contributions to the Association’s success, including directing an award-winning external and internal communications program, negotiating affinity and sponsorship agreements that secured several million dollars in revenue, and advancing the Association’s commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.  He also served successfully in several previous capacities at the Association including Associate Executive Director, Director of Communications, Director of New Media and Publications, and Senior Public Relations Associate starting in 1995.

Tarasiewicz is a three-time recipient of the Luminary Award presented by the American Bar Association’s National Association of Bar Executives.  He has also served as an elected or appointed leader within several ABA affiliate organizations.  Last year, Tarasiewicz was recognized with the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Arthur J. Birdsall Award for excellence in bar association executive leadership.  He was inducted into the Philadelphia Public Relations Association Hall of Fame in 2012.

 Tarasiewicz also served as Senior Communications Manager for Dechert LLP, directing marketing communications for its U.S. and international offices.

 “I am proud to be working with Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.’s exceptionally talented team of attorneys under the leadership of Chairman Paul R. Rosen, George M. Vinci, Jr., and Managing Partner of the Executive Committee Daniel J. Dugan,” said Tarasiewicz.  “For more than 40 years, Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. has built a reputation for quality, value, creativity and strength.  I look forward to advancing the firm’s well-known reputation for putting client needs first and working tirelessly to achieve their objectives.”

“We are thrilled to appoint Mark to this important role to help guide the firm’s continued growth and success,” said Rosen.  “Aligning Mark’s exceptional strategic communications, marketing and executive administration experience with our dynamic capabilities is a win-win.  He is joining a respected, successful team at the perfect time as we continue to position Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. for the future.”

Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci P.C. has represented clients nationally and internationally for nearly 50 years and provides counsel and expertise across the entire spectrum of legal practice, from complex litigation to sophisticated transactional and corporate matters. The firm has offices in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Florida, and New York.

The firm represents businesses, corporate boards, and highly placed individuals. Its clients are engaged in a variety of industries including finance and banking, manufacturing, hospitality, gaming and entertainment, real estate and commercial development, insurance and venture capital, energy, financial services, health care, security and telecommunications.

The firm’s practice areas include high stakes litigation, business disputes, commercial litigation, professional liability, products liability, securities, trust and estates, fiduciary litigation, bankruptcy and creditors rights, civil RICO, trade secrets, trademark and restrictive covenants, intellectual property, antitrust, white-collar criminal defense, banking and financial services, corporate formation and governance, employment, entertainment and amusements, environment and energy, wealth management, healthcare, hospitality, insurance coverage and insured casualty litigation, mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, real estate, sports and tax law.