Sellers of family owned businesses being purchased by private equity buyers find themselves subject to “quality of earnings studies.” These studies are detailed examinations of the components of the revenue that ultimately make up the EBITDA on which the business is valued. Recently, QoE studies have begun to focus on abandoned or unclaimed property issues.

For more than thirty years prior to this summer, the procedures governing how the holder of a monetary award against a foreign sovereign issued in an arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) could enforce that award, that is, turn it into an enforceable judgment, were not at all clear. Two lines of authority developed — one permitting the ICSID award-holder to pursue summary, often ex parte proceedings, and the other requiring the award-holder to commence a full plenary action, with notice and other protections provided to the sovereign. Several weeks ago, in Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir. July 11, 2017) (“Mobil Cerro”), a unanimous Second Circuit panel clarified matters, reversing a Southern District of New York ruling authorizing the former approach and holding that U.S. District Court actions to enforce ICSID awards must comply with the personal jurisdiction, service, and venue requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and afford full plenary proceedings upon notice to the sovereign.

Following somewhat quickly in the footsteps of New York, whose cybersecurity regulations for financial services organizations supervised by the state’s Department of Financial Services took effect in March, Vermont and Colorado have implemented cybersecurity for investment advisors and broker-dealers who conduct business in those states.  These regulations are in effect now. While not, in most ways, as prescriptive as New York’s regulations, the Colorado and Vermont provisions require immediate attention because, contrary to New York’s provisions, they explicitly and directly apply to investment advisors and broker-dealers.

On August 9, 2017, the New York City Council adopted the Greater East Midtown rezoning by unanimous approval.  The rezoning should spur new office space, more public spaces in certain instances, and improved public transit.  The rezoning is aimed to help Midtown East remain the city’s paramount business sector, as Hudson Yards and other sites Downtown have started to pull tenants away.

The approved rezoning stretches across 78 blocks and is largely bound by Fifth Avenue and Third Avenue and East 39th Street and East 57th Street.  The rezoning allows developers to achieve additional floor area ratio (FAR) subject to certain conditions in the following three ways: (1) transfer of landmark development rights; (2) rebuilding square footage; or (3) transit improvements.

On July 6, 2017, in a case of which both employers and employees and should take note, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, in the matter of In re. Document Technologies Litigation, 17-CV-2405, 17-CV-3433, 17-CV-3917, refused to grant Document Technologies Inc.’s (“DTI”) motion for a preliminary injunction against four former high level sales personnel and their prospective employer, a competitor.  In his 30-page decision, no aspect of DTI’s post-employment restrictions was spared the court’s analysis.  The decision provides perhaps the latest recitation under New York law of the type of preparatory activities that employees may engage in while employed without violating the terms of their non-competition.  The court made clear, without more egregious misconduct, employees’ decision to “market themselves as a ‘package deal’” is not in and of itself a violation of their agreement.  The court went so far as to say, “if DTI desires to prevent its employees from coordinating their resignations, it is free to hire them pursuant to term employment agreements.”