If you are reading this article, odds are that you have heard of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). Odds also are that this is the first you have heard that a Federal Court in the Northern District of Alabama has ruled it to be unconstitutional because the CTA “cannot be justified as an exercise of
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Ullman, –N.E.3d – (2023), 2023 IL APP (1st) 220804
What you need to know:
United States of America v. Aqua 388 Community Association 2023 WL 6890753 US Dist Ct., C.D. California (October 6, 2023)
What you need to know:
Two years ago, the law in Wisconsin was clarified relative to what records unit owners were entitled to inspect and copy. That list used to require a comparison of Ch. 703 and Ch. 181 Wis. Stat. Now what is required to be maintained and produced to unit owners is set forth in 703.20 Wis. Stat. Below is a
About twenty years ago my friend attorney Jonathan Levine wrote a handout that was entitled “MINUTES…NOT HOURS!” It gave a great account of what was and what was not needed in the minutes. Rather than re-write what he wrote, I simply copied (with minor additions) his list below:
What is the Corporate Transparency Act?
The Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) was enacted by Congress on January 1, 2021 (31 USC 5301, et seq.). The stated purpose of the law is to address “the disclosure of corporate ownership and the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.” WHAT? So how does this relate to
Walsh v. Hawthorn Hills Owners of Rochester, Inc. 2023 WL 4144757, Not Reported in N.W.Rptr (Michigan, 2023)
What you need to know:
Desch v. South Fork of Hillsborough County II Homeowners Association, —So.3d— (2023).
What you need to know:
What you need to know:
Hogg v. Villages of Bloomingdale I Homeowners Association, Inc., 357 So.3d 1271 (2023)
Lessons learned:
