National Roofing Contractors Association’s Post

As a result of the change in administrations, we are likely to see an influx of litigation challenging recent and older SEC rules, not only tying up the courts and the SEC but creating enormous uncertainty in the financial services industry. Ultimately, this might create chaos that will be bad both for investors and industry participants. On the other hand, we are finally likely to see a legislative and regulatory scheme in the digital assets arena, creating more certainty and a firmer foundation. #sec #securitiesenforcement #securitiesregulation #digitalassets #crypto #cryptoregulation #securitiesandexchangecommission #cryptoenforcement

Howard Fischer is Quoted in a PlanAdviser Article Titled, "SEC Inspector General Warns of More Lawsuits After Loper Bright." Howard was asked by PlanAdviser to comment on the recent report by the SEC Inspector General on challenges facing the SEC based on recent Supreme Court rulings. “The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on administrative agency powers and restraints seem to have opened the floodgates to litigation against the SEC,” Fischer wrote via email. “We are likely to see a plethora of rules challenged—even ones that have been implemented for a significant period of time. In addition, rulings limiting the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings are likely to force more cases to federal court—which will involve lengthier, and more expensive, proceedings.” Click here for more details. https://lnkd.in/erCNDBQB

In this webinar, Maria Panichelli will cover how federal government contractors can use REAs and Claims, the differences between them, and when each tool is more appropriate. She will also discuss common bases for REAs and Claims and provide a preview of Claims Litigation. #governmentcontracting #governmentcontractslaw 

Ever wondered about the ongoing changes to Fixed Recoverable Costs and how they may well just impact you… click the link below to read our lastest article on ‘what we are seeing now’ with the changes. 💭 Mills & Reeve Jagjit Virdi Nathan Jones #FRC #FixedRecoverableCosts #Costs #Litigation #DisputeResolution

Dilution of DV act cognisance procedure and implications of interpretation of prima facie facts in the absence of DIR (Domestic violence incidence) report, implications of promoting creative drafting. This protection or caution gets importance in the present system, where complaint application accompanied by application is given character of solemness of assessing a prima facie case. The law mandates that, before the cognisance is taken, a DIR report to be called from protection officer, which if the incidence is contemporary, gets importance to acesss a prima facie case, though it need to acessed later like contents of FIR and investigation report. DIR report get importance, as we all remember the jhony depp and amber Heard case, where the allegations was that, she was beaten black and blue. However, the contemporary police visit on her call did not see any injury marks or swelling on face as alleged, and that got recorded. she got all the protection order. This fact got importance in defamation trial, where her defence was that she used a concealer to hide injury marks, but the allegations got disproved with question, why no swelling or how the swelling was concealed. Taking the same line, if the event is contemporary, the calling of DIR report from protection officer will only help in accessing the veracity of allegations in application. In the absence of same, it is just going by words. we are also not touching upon the amendments, which are allowed practically allowing deliberations and thought entry saying it is civil. In civil cases, documents rule the trial, in criminal cases, oral deposition sufficient, thus mixing both is equivalent creating a cocktail, not mandated under law, allowing manipulation. This gains further importance, when the respondents say it, all allegations false, or we are unnecessarily implicated, a sort of protection from false vexatious cases. However our liberal interpretation of DIR report not required, or absence of same immaterial without even asking so, leading to a melting of first protection cover as well as sword of prima facie case. This includes the jurisdiction also, which can be cleverly created. The above approach of saying DIR not required is eschewing the words of legislature, saying, that procedure caused injustice, which is not convincing as the same allows a dressed up application in air conditioner comfort

A a federal district court in Texas has issued a nationwide order temporarily enjoining enforcement of the CTA, including its reporting requirement. The order provides in relevant part: "The CTA, 31 U.S.C. § 5336 is hereby enjoined. Enforcement of the Reporting Rule, 31 C.F.R. 1010.380 is also hereby enjoined, and the compliance deadline is stayed under § 705 of the APA. Neither may be enforced, and reporting companies need not comply with the CTA’s January 1, 2025, BOI reporting deadline pending further order of the Court." This is a big deal, as companies formed before January 1, 2024 were facing a looming deadline of January 1, 2025 to comply with the CTA's beneficial owner reporting obligations.

📢 Important Beneficial Ownership Information Update: Reporting Voluntary- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently ruled on the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland placing an injunction, that applies nationwide, on the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). This means that the federal government will be prohibited from enforcing the CTA and, for the time being, BOI reporting is voluntary. Read more: https://ow.ly/wukR50UoCYC

In this case - https://lnkd.in/gUR-ZEQf - the Court ruled MNP was not entitled to its claim for damages for breach of contract as pled in the Notice of Civil Claim, as it failed to satisfy contractual preconditions to such a claim, including failing to provide notice of termination of the contract to the defendant corporation. Essentially, the contract between the parties expressly stated MNP was required to provide notice of termination as a precondition to making any claims for out-of-pocket expenses, and a completion fee. Its failure to do so resulted in MNP’s claims for breach of contract being struck under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. Although the Court granted leave to MNP to amend the Notice of Civil Claim to advance a claim for breach of contract, the Court ruled that the amended claim must not allege that MNP terminated the contract and MNP claims must not be dependent on termination of the contract as a material fact or as a basis for relief as against the defendants. Take away: thoroughly examine the contract governing your business relationship with a lawyer to determine how to protect your rights and understand your obligations before making pivotal decisions. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Business owners🚨: The Corporate Transparency Act reporting requirements have been temporarily paused, due to a preliminary injunction. To learn more about what this means, read the alert Heather Heberlein and I authored.

A federal court in the Eastern District of Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its associated regulations. This ruling pauses the implementation of the CTA’s beneficial ownership information reporting requirements, which were set to take effect on January 1, 2025. The court determined that the CTA and its rules are likely unconstitutional, exceeding Congress’s authority under the law. The injunction prevents the U.S. Treasury and FinCEN from enforcing the reporting requirements until further notice. Businesses subject to the CTA are not required to comply with the January deadline but should stay informed as the ruling could be appealed or modified in subsequent legal proceedings . If you need further details on the implications or next steps, feel free to ask!