Professional Services Industry Legal Blog

By

James O. Birr, III

Florida’s Civil Theft statute is an attractive claim to many plaintiffs because, if successful, it allows recovery of treble damages and attorney fees. See 772.11 of the Florida Statutes. Civil theft claims can be asserted by individuals and businesses alike, and are meant to create civil liability for criminal practices that are violations of 812.012-812.037 or 825.103(1) of the Florida Statutes (i.e. crimes of theft, robbery, and exploitation of elderly persons). A party contemplating asserting a civil theft claim under Florida law must be aware of its nuances and pleading a proof requirements before asserting the claim.

Statutory guidance for judicial dissolution under Florida’s Revised Limited Liability Company Act is found within Florida Statutes, § 605.0702.  Notably the section was revised in June of 2013 and became effective as of January 1, 2014.  The revised LLC act, commonly referred to as the “New LLC Act,” significantly modified […]

Recent case-law from the Florida Supreme Court sheds new light on conflict of interest issues resulting from class action law-suits. Many times in class action law suits, class counsel will endeavor to reach a settlement which is fair to all members, while simultaneously and inadvertently receiving objections from a minority of the class members to the proposed settlement or other course of action. What is the counsel to do in that situation? Is there a conflict such that as of the objection, the interests of the majority are now directly adverse to the interest of the minority? The Third District Court of Appeals attempted to remedy the problem by applying a balancing test of interests commonly used by the Federal court systems. Upon review by the Florida Supreme Court, the court found that the balancing test was inappropriate and that the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct fully addressed this conflict of interest issue. The decision of Young v. Achenbauch exemplifies this.

During One Spark 2014, the streets of downtown Jacksonville were alive, like we’ve never seen them before! If you were one of the estimated 260,000+ who attended during the five-day crowd fund festival, then you don’t need to read about it to know that. The results are in and the numbers are astounding!

Florida law requires certain types of persons to be licensed in order to do business. Lawyers, realtors, and even construction contractors are among those professions regulated by specific licensing requirements. So, what happens when a party unknowingly contracts with a person who is required to be licensed but is not? The penalties for doing business without the proper licensing are harsh, and can even result in criminal charges and the return of all monies paid (known as disgorgement). This post explores certain remedies for engaging an unlicensed person or entity.

In litigation, under the right set of facts and law, the losing party is responsible for the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party. But, this determination is not always so simple. This post explores a recent decision where the litigants were entitled to fees under the contract, but fees were not plead in the answer and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Specifically, Lopez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2D12-1270, 2014 WL 1245609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) clarifies recovery of attorney’s fees when they are awardable but not plead by a defendant in a dismissed lawsuit.

There are many claims available to oppressed members of Florida Limited Liability Companies (“LLC’s”) whose business partners misappropriate assets through unlawful distributions. This Blog post focuses on determining whether actions in making improper distributions by majority members or managers of Florida LLC’s constitute breaches of common law fiduciary duties owed to minority interest holders.

When an employer seeks to enforce its non-competition agreement against its former employee, one of the most common defenses raised by the employee is that the employer failed to compensate the employee under the terms of the contract. The defense of non-payment is often enough to hamper the employer’s efforts to enforce its rights with a temporary injunction, which requires the employer to demonstrate its likelihood of success on the merits. So how can an employer get its temporary injunction now and fight the “non-payment” battle later? It all starts with contract drafting: if the non-compete provision is expressly independent of the remaining terms and conditions, non-payment of employee compensation is no defense to its enforcement. This Blog post analyzes a recent non-compete case is the latest Florida ruling to address the importance of drafting independent restrictive covenants.

The recovery of attorneys’ fees is an important consideration prior to initiating litigation. Under Florida law, a party can only recover its attorneys’ fees if there is a statutory or contractual basis for doing so. Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009). This posting focuses on a “prevailing party’s” contractual right to recover attorneys’ fees and a suggestion to improve contract language to recover all attorneys’ fees should you find yourself in litigation.

Under Florida law, the dissolution of a corporation can occur for many reasons. Section 607.1401, Florida Statutes, covers dissolution occurring by the actions of incorporators; section 607.1402, Florida Statutes, concerns dissolution by the board of directors and/or shareholders; and section 607.1420, Florida Statutes, governs administrative dissolution, which is an action commenced by the department of the Florida Secretary of State for various reasons. Whatever the cause for the dissolution, Florida law is clear on the process for winding up the corporation, including the allowable actions by agents, officers and directors subsequent to the dissolution. Specifically, those individuals may not carry on any business except that appropriate to wind up and liquidate the business and its affairs. Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1). If a person enters into contracts or conducts other business in the name of a dissolved corporation then that person can be held personally liable for those contracts and business obligations. This blog post will discuss the extent of that personal liability and the remedies available to those damaged by corporate action subsequent to dissolution.