Please note that, in light of Governor Murphy's recent "stay at home" order in New Jersey due to the COVID-19 pandemic, McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC's attorneys and staff are working remotely at this time. However, we are still ready, willing, and able to address all of your individual and business legal needs. Please contact us by phone at (973) 890-0004 or email at info@esqnj.com. We are committed to providing the same high level of legal services that our clients have come to expect over the years. Thank you.

Articles Tagged with “New Jersey Business lawyers”

Published on:

Hi, I’m Rob Chewning. I work with the firm of McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC.  At the firm we practice several different types of law, including bankruptcy law.  I am here today to talk to you about The Small Business Reorganization Act and Subchapter 5 bankruptcies.

As a result of COVID-19, millions of small businesses have been forced to shut down and cease business operations indefinitely with no end in sight.  Some of these small businesses have tried to hold on in the hope of getting federal stimulus money that can carry them through this tough time.  However, there are several million other businesses which will not be eligible or will not be able to get their hands on this federal stimulus money which is causing them to consider the options that they have.

Published on:

The Order

On Saturday, March 21, 2020, Governor Murphy signed Executive Order Number 107, which further tightened restrictions on people and businesses in response to the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic.  This Executive Order superseded all previous Executive Orders on Coronavirus responses.

Published on:

Coronavirus be damned, McLaughlin & Nardi is open to help the people and businesses we served for years get through this crisis, and we’ll work with new ones too. This too shall pass, but in the meantime we are here to help you.

Governor Murphy has indicated that he will be shutting down all nonessential businesses. We think we are essential, but if he tells us to close our doors so we will, but we will not close our firm. We are set up to operate remotely, and will be fully functional to help you during this time of need.

Published on:

Truck, Transportation, Vehicle
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) announced a new rule establishing a database for information regarding violations of drug and alcohol testing regulations by commercial motor vehicle drivers. While the rule went into effect in 2017, the requirement for FMCSA-regulated employers to begin searching and reporting on this database did not take effect until January 6, 2020.

Therefore, regulated employers are now required to report information regarding any violations of the DOT’s drug and alcohol regulations through the FMCSA’s database (called “Clearinghouse”).  This will allow employers to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a vehicle because of prior violations.

“Regulated employers” include employers in the trucking or transportation industry who either hold a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”) themselves or whose employees hold a CDL, and who operate a commercial motor vehicle(s) in any state which has (1) a gross vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds or more, or (2) is designed to carry 16 or more passengers (including the driver), or (3) is involved in transporting hazardous materials.

Published on:

New Home, Construction, For Sale, Buy
In October 2019, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an opinion in the case of Becker v. Ollie Solcum & Son, Inc., examining the enforceability of an arbitration clause in a construction project.  The decision continued the trend in New Jersey of limiting enforcement of arbitration agreements, particularly where one party is a customer.

The case arose from a dispute over a residential construction project. Robert and Catherine Becker entered into a contract with Ollie Slocum & Son, Inc. (“Slocum”) to build a new home for them for $1,850,000.  Under the contract, the project was to be completed in no more than 52 weeks after excavation work started.  Substantial completion was actually about one and a half years late.  The Beckers sued Slocum in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey over the delay and alleged construction defects including water penetration and deterioration of the outdoor decking, siding, and finishing.

The contract, which contained a clause requiring arbitration of disputes, stated:

Published on:

American, Bills, Business, Cheque
In the case of Secretary of United States Department of Labor vs. Bristol Excavating, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, recently issued an important, precedential opinion on when payments by third-parties need to be included by employers in the calculation of their employees’ overtime pay rates.

Bristol Excavating, Inc. (Bristol) is a small excavation contractor.  Bristol was a subcontract for Talisman Energy, Inc., a large producer of natural gas.  Bristol provided Talisman with equipment, labor and services at Talisman’s drilling sites.  Bristol’s employees often worked more than 40 hours per week, and Bristol paid them “overtime,” or one and a half times the regular hourly rate which Bristol normally paid them (“time and a half”) for all the hours they worked over 40 hours in one week.

Talisman offered workers at its sites – not just its own employees – separate bonuses rewarding them for safety, efficiency and productively measured by completion of work.  Bristol’s employees asked Bristol if they could participate.  Bristol agreed, and also agreed to do the administrative work.  This administrative work included paying the bonuses through Bristol’s payroll, and taking out all applicable tax withholdings.  Bristol did not include these bonuses in its calculation for overtime pay for its employees because it was not Bristol’s money with which the employees were being paid.

Published on:

One of the most difficult questions in New Jersey Business law concerning the retirement of a business owner is determining the value of the laptop-3175111__340-300x200owner’s share of the business which the remaining owners must pay to buy out his share.  This can be difficult even if the departure itself is on good terms.  The method and amount of the valuation can cause vicious disputes even among friendly partners.  The Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County recently issued a published decision on this problem in the context of a limited liability company.

Background

In that case, Namerow v. Pediatricare Associates, LLC, four pediatricians were members (owners) of a medical practice named Pediatricare Associates, LLC.  The Amended Operating Agreement which governed valuation of the business upon member retirements provided that:

Published on:

justitia-3222265__340-300x190Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief is an order by a court requiring a party to cease an act, condition or behavior.  It is a powerful tool in New Jersey business law civil cases. An order for injunctive relief is typically referred to as an “injunction.”  A temporary injunction is granted only after a hearing, and a permanent injunction is granted after the case has been completed.  A temporary restraining order may be granted prior to a hearing in emergency situations.

Where to File

Published on:

agreement-3476369__340-300x217
Types of Contract Damages

In New Jersey business law disputes, there are two broad categories of damages, legal damages and equitable damages.

Briefly, legal damages, or remedies in law, are money damages.  Legal damages are for harms which can be compensated by the payment of money by the party which breached the contract.  In New Jersey contract law, punitive damages are not allowed.  Likewise, attorneys fees cannot be recovered unless the contract provider for it.  Compensatory damages, which are the amount of money needed to make the innocent party whole, may be awarded when they can be proved.  In business disputes these are often lost profits, but may also include other damages such as diminution of value of property.

Published on:

desk-3491990__340-290x300
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears appeals from the federal district courts in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the United States Virgin Islands) recently had the opportunity to address the state of New Jersey employment law on restrictive covenants in the case of ADP, LLC v. Rafferty.

Background

In the Rafferty case, two ADP employees, Kristi Mork and Nicole Rafferty, agreed to restrictive covenants in exchange for an award of company stock.  Because they were high performing employees, they agreed to restrictions in exchange for the stock award which were more onerous than lower performing  employees were required to agree to.  The restrictions applied whether they quit or were fired.

Contact Information