May 8, 2012 0

Disposition of Digital Assets: Reasons for Digital Estate Planning

By admin in Estate Planning & Wealth Protection

Authored by: Neeli G. Shah

Death in the digital age is a lot more complicated than it used to be.  Traditionally, fiduciaries and family members start administering an estate by reading the individual’s mail and sorting through records at the person’s home.  However, with online accounts and paperless billing, these traditional approaches may not be available to fiduciaries today.  The information needed to locate and access tangible and digital assets is often in the digital world itself.  Email accounts are typically the primary access point to all other online assets.  Online statements, notifications, messages, paperless bills etc., will all come through to the decedent’s emails.  Moreover, the decedent’s address book and calendar are often tied to or stored within the email account.

Given the breadth of digital assets it’s difficult to know where our survivors would start, other than that they would likely be overwhelmed. Further complicating these matters is the uncertainty of existing ownership and transferability laws that do not adequately address the category of property known as “digital assets.” 

What are Digital Assets?

Digital assets are broadly defined to include any online account and any file stored on a person’s computer or a server.  Online accounts include things like social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) email accounts (e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo!), online financial or brokerage accounts and online bank accounts including bill pay (e.g. E-Trade, ING, ScottTrade, Fidelity), photo-sharing sites (e.g. Picassa, Kodak Gallery, Snapfish, Flicker), blogs, etc.  This class of digital assets also includes online resources like eBay, Yelp, PayPal, domain names and URLs from sites like GoDaddy.com, or avatars on video games and virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft or Second Life.  In short, any online account that is protected by a username and password and contains a user’s economically or sentimentally valuable content can be classified as a “Digital Asset.”  The second class of digital assets is comprised of files that are stored on a personal computer, tablet, smartphone, or on a server through an online backup service.  Such digital files can include business documents, address books, family photos, personal journals, family recipes, and a whole host of other types of information that individuals want their heirs to eventually have. 

Professionals such as computer programmers, graphic or web designers, photographers, writers, musicians, and artists may have created “digital data” which is stored on a computer or a server that may have substantial intellectual property and monetary value.  For example, when Leonard Bernstein died in 1990, he left only an electronic, password-protected, draft of his memoir, Blue Ink.  The manuscript is so well-protected that no one has yet been able to break the password.  Helen W. Gunnarsson, Plan for Administering Your Digital Estate, 99 Ill. B.J. 71 (2011). 

Laws Addressing Digital Assets

To date only five states have enacted laws that relate to digital assets with regard to estate planning.  Thus, rights of executors, agents, guardians, and beneficiaries with regard to accessing digital assets are muddy at best.  In addition, there is no real consensus regarding ownership and transferability of digital assets or the category of property in which digital assets belong.  Some say they are intellectual property, while others say they are intangible property.  In reality, some of the digital assets may not be “assets” entirely, rather mere licenses to use the website’s services.  Licenses are generally not transferrable and expire upon death.  There is also a higher risk of online identity theft as criminals have an enhanced opportunity to hack unmonitored accounts, open new credit cards, even apply for jobs or procure state identification cards using the deceased’s identity.  

Steps to Basic Digital Estate Planning

To ensure that your assets are disposed according to your wishes it is imperative that you engage in digital estate planning.  First, do a complete inventory of all digital accounts and assets so that your estate administrator will know just what you have of potential value (or liability) and where it is. Second, assemble a list of all usernames and passwords and keep it in a safe place (e.g. safe deposit box). If you have security concerns, you may make two difference lists, one for usernames and a second for passwords, and keep them in two difference locations.  Third, select a fiduciary and give them the proper information, instructions, and authority to administer your digital estate.  If you have privacy concerns or if a file contains sensitive information you wish to keep confidential, make arrangements to have your executor or a trusted individual delete it or take appropriate action after your death.  This can be as simple as writing things down, sealing it in an envelop and marking it “To Be Opened Upon My Death.”  It is best to leave this envelope along with your Will in a safe deposit box.

Conclusion

Laws to handle digital assets are still emerging, but lawmakers and the courts will lag behind technology, creating confusion and unnecessary expense for those trying to sort things out.  In the meantime digital-savvy individuals must take some basic steps to prepare an inventory of their digital accounts and assets, assemble a list of passwords, and give their executors proper information, instructions, and authority so that the estate administrator will know just what you have, where it is, and how you want to dispose of it.

May 3, 2012 0

EPA Must Study Endangerment Finding for Aircraft, Ships and Non-Road Engines

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Frederick Scullin has ordered EPA to respond to a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that EPA find that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aircraft, ships and non-road engines endanger the public health and welfare.  EPA has already found that GHG emissions from automobile emissions endanger the public health and welfare, and has developed vehicle fuel economy and GHG rules based on that finding, which is being challenged in court.  

In his order issued on March 20, Judge Scullin found that there is no set schedule under the Clean Air Act for EPA to address the endangerment petition, and that EPA has discretion to address GHGs from various sectors according to its own timetable.  However, Judge Scullin noted that EPA’s discretion is not unlimited or unchecked, and does not entitle EPA to unduly delay in taking action.  

Noting that EPA agreed in its filings and during oral argument to respond to the petition within 90 days of the court’s order, Judge Scullin ordered EPA to do so.  If EPA finds that GHGs from aircraft, ships and non-road engines endanger the public health and welfare, it would then proceed to develop GHG emission controls for those sources.

For further information, please contact Steve O’Day (soday@sgrlaw.com), Phillip Hoover (pehoover@sgrlaw.com) or Jessica Lee Reece (jreece@sgrlaw.com).

Tags: , , ,

May 2, 2012 0

EPA Releases First Time Emissions Controls for Fracking, Delays Implementation

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

In final rules released on April 18, EPA has imposed first time air emissions controls on hydraulic fracturing wells, as well as on other gas operations. However, EPA granted industry’s request to delay implementation of the fracking controls until 2015 in order to ensure the availability of the required technology to control the emissions.

The rule includes new source performance standards (NSPSs) and air toxics standards for gas drilling, emissions controls for natural gas storage and transmission equipment, and controls on other items of equipment used in the oil and gas industry. Included is a mandate for green completion well controls for fracking wells, also known as reduced emissions completions (RECs). The green completion requirements are delayed until 2015, with a mandate that well drillers flare their emissions until then to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also exempted many coal-bed methane wells from the REC requirements, finding that the control technology is not suitable for those low-pressure wells.

The delayed implementation of the green completion requirements for fracking wells was responsive to industry’s claims that sufficient pollution control equipment would not be available in time for immediate implementation of the requirements, which would result in a reduction in gas drilling until the equipment became available. Once implemented, EPA estimates that the controls will reduce VOC emissions annually by 190,000 to 290,000 tons, reduce air toxics emissions by 12,000 to 20,000 tons annually, and reduce methane emissions as a side benefit by 1 million to 1.7 million tons annually.

For more information, please contact Steve O’Day.

Tags: , ,

April 18, 2012 0

Failing to do Succession Planning in New York Based Professional Corporations May Cause Big Problems Later

By admin in Estate Planning & Wealth Protection

Authored by: David L. Fox

It is common for lawyers to advise their clients when setting up a professional corporation to adopt a shareholder’s agreement. Such agreements, if well prepared, will provide a road map on how to resolve disputes when they arise, and provided a means for orderly succession when one or more of the professional shareholders leaves the business, becomes incapacitated or dies.

While many lawyers give such advice, a surprising number of professionals fail to adopt such agreements. Even those that do adopt such agreements may fail or refuse to make the hard choices in these early days of their business relationships. Our advice: Don’t Be One of Those People.  

Those of us who litigate business divorce cases for a living are familiar with the common problems that owners of a close corporation may encounter when deadlocks or succession issues arise. But these problems are greatly multiplied and made more difficult when the close corporation is also a professional corporation.

In the typical close corporation, where a business divorce is needed, one party may buy out the other, the family of a deceased shareholder may buy out other shareholders, shares can be sold to third parties  and business like decisions may be made.

By contrast in a professional corporation, if one shareholder-professional dies, his interest is not readily saleable, because no one other than a professional can own the decedent’s stock, the surviving professional may object to such sale, refuse to partner with the incoming buying professional or otherwise seek to limit or impair the decedent’s family from realizing the value of the shares left to them.

In one recent matter, we represented the estate of a decedent in an action against the surviving professional shareholder just to obtain a copy of the books and records of the Company and to recover money that the surviving shareholder had borrowed from the Company.  The standing of the estate to bring such an action was affirmed by the Appellate Division Second Department (Bernfeld v. Kurlineko 2012 Slip Opinion 00741 (Second Dept, Jan 31, 2012).   Because there was no adequate shareholder’s agreement, the surviving minority professional had been freezing the estate out the operation of the business and blocking any sale of the estate’s majority interest to a third party. 

All of those problems might have been avoided if the parties had entered into a shareholder’s agreement which provided for a business like solution to the problem- such as providing insurance to cover the cost of the survivor buying the shares of the decedent, or providing for an appraisal of the value of the shares and a structured payout arrangement.  These of course are only two of many alternatives one should consider.  If you are a professional shareholder in a professional corporation and have not yet faced and dealt with these issues, you should consider seeing your lawyer to deal with them now.

April 17, 2012 0

A Summer of Fun with Nature, Register for Camp Kingfisher

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

Each summer, the Chattahoochee Nature Center hosts Camp Kingfisher, a camp filled with hands-on environmental education programs and dynamic outdoor activities, which serves more than 900 metro Atlanta families each year. 

Registration for Camp Kingfisher 2012 is now open. Summer camp runs May 29-August 10, 2012, with one and two week sessions for ages 5 – 17.  

See and hear what the experts think in this YouTube video: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL6rdEa4Np4]:

My favorite part of Camp Kingfisher is: “canoeing” … “dissecting owl pellets” … “having fun” …  “seeing the birds”

I send my child to Camp Kingfisher because … “it is what camp is supposed to be” … “they get to learn about nature; they get to smell it, and they get to touch it … and after 6 years, they still want to come back”

SGR attorney Mark de St. Aubin serves on the Board of Trustees for the Chattahoochee Nature Center. The mission of the Chattahoochee Nature Center is to provide unique learning experiences focused on the Chattahoochee River that connect people to the natural world and empower them to positively impact their local environments.

For more information and to register for Camp Kingfisher, please visit: [http://www.chattnaturecenter.org/camp-kingfisher.html. ]

Tags: ,

April 16, 2012 0

Environmental Groups Sue Federal Government Over Two Wind Projects

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

On April 13, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) alleging it shirked its duties under federal law in connection with permitting a California wind farm development.  

The environmental groups argue BLM violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adequately consider the impact of the 100-turbine project to at-risk bird species. The groups ask the court to issue an injunction halting construction until the project is redesigned in a way that reduces its negative environmental impacts. For a complete copy of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, please click here (North Sky Complaint). 

The California litigation is not the only legal challenge to federal approval of wind projects.  Earlier this month, two land conservation groups in Oregon filed suit challenging the Department of Interior’s approval of a 43-mile transmission line supporting a proposed $300 million wind farm development. 

The Oregon Natural Desert Association and the Audubon Society of Portland claim the federal government failed to consider how the proposed line would affect wildlife in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act alleging the construction could disrupt migratory routes and breeding areas for rare species. Representatives of the project developer, Columbia Energy Partners, have asserted the company spent millions of dollars on impact studies to adequately evaluate and mitigate environmental effects. 

For more information about these cases or wind project development in general, please contact Steve O’Day (soday@sgrlaw.com) or Jessica Lee Reece (jreece@sgrlaw.com).

Tags: , , , , , ,

April 2, 2012 0

Eleventh Circuit Issues Important Decision on Remedies Available Under CERCLA

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

In a March 6, 2012 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that parties who enter into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following an EPA enforcement action and then seek recovery of cleanup costs from other potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are limited to a contribution claim under § 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and may not simultaneously pursue a cost recovery action under § 107(a) of CERCLA. 

In the case of Solutia, Inc., et al. v. McWane, Inc., et al., the two plaintiff companies had entered into a consent decree with EPA as part of resolving an EPA enforcement action for cleanup of sites contaminated with lead and PCBs in Anniston, Alabama.  The two plaintiffs directly incurred significant cleanup costs pursuant to the consent decree with EPA and then brought claims under both § 107(a) and § 113(f) of CERCLA seeking to recover cleanup costs from other PRPs.  Consistent with decisions from other federal court of appeals around the country, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that, when a party incurs cleanup costs pursuant to a consent decree following a CERCLA lawsuit brought by EPA or a state environmental agency, the party is limited to a § 113(f) contribution action against other PRPs. 

Although a party’s ability to bring a § 113 contribution claim rather than a § 107 cost recovery claim may appear to be a purely technical distinction, the difference has very significant practical implications for parties who have spent significant sums on response to and cleanup of a contaminated property.  The important differences include:

  • (1) § 107(a) claims allow plaintiffs to impose joint and several liability on other PRPs (while § 113 claims are subject to allocation of fault between plaintiffs and defendants);
  • (2) § 107(a) claims are notsubject to the contribution protection bar available against § 113 claims (i.e., PRPs that have settled with EPA are immune from § 113 claims, but not § 107 claims, by other PRPs); and
  • (3) § 107(a) claims are frequently subject to longer statutes of limitations than § 113 claims.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Solutia v. McWane is limited to situations where the plaintiff’s response and cleanup costs were incurred pursuant to a consent decree entered as a result of an enforcement action by EPA or a state environmental agency.  Parties that incur response and cleanup costs voluntarily under consent orders that did notfollow an agency enforcement action are still able to bring § 107(a) cost recovery actions against other PRPs.  See Agere Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corp., 602 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010). 

To download a copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, please click here: Solutia Inc. Holding

To discuss the potential impacts of this decision on your business, please contact Andy Thompson (athompson@sgrlaw.com or 404.815.3701).

Tags: , , , , ,

April 2, 2012 0

Going… Going… Almost Gone

By admin in Estate Planning & Wealth Protection

Authored by: Paul J. Sowell, Esq.

In a day of shrinking state coffers you would think that more and more states, in a last chance to grab revenue, would be looking to the estates of their deceased wealthy residents as a source of money.  Actually, you would be wrong. The growing trend among states which have a gift and/or estate or inheritance tax regime has been to repeal these onerous taxes.  Why would this be you may ask? An interesting study published this year by the Beacon Center of Tennessee looked at Tennessee’s death and gift taxes and concluded the following:

“Had Tennessee eliminated these taxes a decade ago, the state would have created an  additional 200,000 to 220,000 new jobs.

Tennessee’s gross state product would have been between $6 billion and $18 billion greater without these taxes over that time period.

Tennessee’s asset base would have increased by at least $16 billion and as much as $48 billion as a result of eliminating the taxes.”

It appears that the short term gain of revenue from these taxes is greatly offset by the chilling effect they have on the job creators and revenue producing small businesses which often feel the brunt of theses transfer taxes.

Following in the footsteps of Ohio, which last year abolished its estate tax, Indiana recently repealed its inheritance tax for deaths after December 31, 2021.  Indiana now joins the 29 other states that do not impose taxes at death. It appears that Oregon’s death tax may be the next to fall into its own grave, as there is wide support for an initiative on the November ballot to abolish the death tax. We will monitor what happens in Oregon and the rest of the states and keep our readers posted on this important issue.

March 21, 2012 0

Top Environmental Concerns in Fracking

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

As a result of recent technological innovations improving the ability to extract oil and natural gas from shale and other rock formations, the popularity of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has surged, leading to new investment opportunities and positive growth for the domestic gas and oil production industry. With the expansion, however, has come risk and scrutiny. 

SGR attorneys Steve O’Day and Jessica Lee Reece recently authored an article for Oil & Gas Monitor discussing these issues. A copy of their article, “Top Environmental Concerns in Fracking,” is available at: http://www.oilgasmonitor.com/top-environmental-concerns-fracking/1557/

Oil & Gas Monitor (OGM) is the premier online forum that monitors key developments that shape the world of oil and gas exploration, finance and investing, compliance and regulation, and equipment and technology. For more information about OGM, please visit: http://www.oilgasmonitor.com.

Tags: ,

March 21, 2012 0

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision on Pre-Enforcement Judicial Review of EPA Compliance Orders

By sustainability in Environmental and Sustainability Law

On March 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA, a closely watched case addressing the enforcement authority of the U.S. EPA under § 309 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).  Without addressing the underlying substantive issue regarding the jurisdictional scope of the CWA, the Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to obtain judicial review of an EPA administrative compliance order prior to EPA taking any enforcement action regarding the order. 

In Sackett, two Idaho landowners received an administrative compliance order from EPA in which EPA (1) concluded that the Sacketts had violated the CWA by discharging fill material into jurisdictional wetlands on the property, and (2) ordered the Sacketts to immediately undertaken restoration activities in accordance with an EPA-created Restoration Work Plan and provide EPA with access to the property and all records related to conditions at the property. 

After EPA rejected their request for a hearing, but prior to EPA bringing any legal action to enforce the terms of the compliance order, the Sacketts brought suit in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) seeking “pre-enforcement” judicial review of whether their property contained wetlands within the jurisdiction of the CWA and thus was subject to EPA’s regulatory authority. 

In reversing two lower court decisions that concluded that the CWA precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, the Supreme Court concluded that EPA’s compliance order constituted “final agency action” under the APA and thus was subject to judicial challenge because (1) the “findings and conclusions” by EPA in the order were not subject to further agency review and thus marked the “consummation” of EPA’s decision-making process, (2) the order subjected the Sacketts to up to $75,000 a day in civil penalties if the Sacketts did not comply with the order and EPA initiated judicial enforcement proceedings, and (3) the order resulted in a “severe” limitation of the Sacketts’ ability to obtain a permit for their fill activities from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

It is anticipated that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett will have a significant impact on the process by which EPA seeks to enforce the CWA and other federal environmental laws. 

For more information, please contact Andy Thompson (athompson@sgrlaw.com). For a copy of the decision, please click here.

Tags: , , , ,