Finney Law Firm and attorney Christopher Finney are proud to list FC Cincinnati soccer club among their prominent clients.
The Cincinnati Enquirer today, for the second time, addressed this representation that reflects the depth of our real estate practice for assistance with their new Major League Soccer stadium planned for Cincinnati or northern Kentucky.
Read more here.
What due diligence steps should a tenant undertake with respect to a commercial property before signing a lease?
Step back and consider for a moment that when we buy a piece of real property — for our home or for our business — it is prudent and customary by both the buyer and the lender to conduct due diligence investigations of the property:
The list can seem endless.
But when simply signing a lease for a term of years, why should the tenant be concerned with these things? After all, his upfront cash may not be significant (relative to a purchase) and if things don’t work out, the tenant can just leave, right?
Well, sometimes that is the case. The cost and time needed for due diligence would outweigh the risk the tenant is undertaking by simply signing the lease and moving in. If so, then by all means, proceed.
But consider these countervailing factors:
The reality is that if the tenant does not undertake the kinds of due diligence implemented for a property purchase, he could “lose” the property in many of the same ways as in a purchase — i.e., he could lose the out-of-pocket costs associated with the activities noted above and have the inconvenience and loss to reputation by relocating to a second location.
Indeed, in certain circumstances the tenant could be obligated to pay rent throughout the lease term, but the property cannot be occupied for its intended purpose. (Consider a situation where the property cannot be occupied but where the landlord does not appear technically in default of his obligations under the lease.)
Many times tenants will assume these risks in smaller leases. Negotiating with the landlord’s lender and conducting full-scale inspections and other due diligence may just not be practical.
But a tenant in a commercial setting should carefully consider the risk-benefit to foregoing certain due diligence steps to prudently protect their investment in their new premises.
Call Isaac Heintz (513-943-6654) or Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513-797-2853) to address your commercial leasing questions.
In a commercial lease than can run 15 to 25 pages (single spaced) or more, there can be trips and traps for both landlord and tenant. Thus, both should carefully consider not just the major financial and business terms, but even “throw away” or boilerplate provisions. In the alternative, each party should carefully perform his due diligence before undertaking lease obligations.
We recently represented a tenant in a commercial lease in which the lease — as is common in landlord-written leases — obligated the tenant to “comply with all laws throughout the term of the lease.”
In this instance, our client was a medical user. The zoning jurisdiction of the property differentiated minimum parking requirements for medical office uses versus general office uses. The consequence of that differentiation for our medical office client was that the space simply would not comply with zoning requirements for our client’s use.
In other words, he could not “comply with all laws.”
The problem was complicated and compounded because (a) the landlord applied for the building permit on which he represented to the zoning authority that the premises would be “general office” uses and (b) $75,000 in buildout work had been completed before the non-compliance was discovered. Further, the landlord originally solicited tenant to occupy the premises and at least implicitly represented that it would comply with zoning requirements for the tenant’s use.
The zoning authority simply would not permit the occupancy contemplated by the lease.
In this circumstance, is the tenant in breach and therefore responsible for the tenant build-out costs and rent payments until the premises can be re-rented? Is the landlord in breach of the lease and responsible for the damages the tenant suffered because he could not timely occupy the premises?
It candidly was vague. There was no clear answer, and the problem was significant for the client and the landlord. Ultimately, the parties agreed upon a fair settlement of the issues.
But the situation highlighted the critical importance of each and every provision of the lease, even “throw away” provisions.
The Ohio Department of Taxation has announced the 2018 Tax Amnesty Program under which all penalties and half of accrued interest charges will be waived on certain qualified delinquent taxes for both individuals and businesses.
Important program components:
You may read more about the program here.
Contact Isaac Heintz at (513) 943-6654 for information on how you Finney Law Firm can help you participate in this program.
Until the Las Vegas shooting, we believe this was the largest domestic shooting incident in 2017, at the Club Cameo nightclub on Kellogg Avenue in Cincinnati.
Jennifer Edwards Baker of Fox19.com and the Enquirer.Com has the story today on our new suit on behalf of the estate of one of the two deceased in the shooting, O’Bryan Spikes: New Cameo negligence suit to be filed against Club Manager, police, City
We will post the Complaint when it is filed.
For more information, call Brad Gibson at 513-943-6661.
Some of you may have seen the “viral” image of a woman named Julie Briskman, who was recently photographed raising her middle finger to a presidential motorcade that passed her while she was bicycling in Virginia. Ms. Briskman was subsequently fired from her job with Akima, LLC, a private contractor that does business with the federal government.
Scott Pullins, founder of the Ohio Taxpayers Association, wrote a blog entry on Third Rail Politics highlighting our public interest practice entitled “You Can Fight Back When Officials Use Taxpayer Dollars for Politics” last week. You may read that entry here.
Our firm has helped to blaze a trail of causes of action demanding equal access to public forums (such as schoolyards and lobbies of city buildings), and claiming violations of taxpayer statutes, when government officials misuse tax dollars for campaign purposes, which is not permitted.
We are pleased this work has been recognized.
The social media movement represented by #MeToo began about ten years ago. Recently, however, in response to revelations about sexual assault and harassment by movie producer Harvey Weinstein, its use has skyrocketed. Literally millions of women (and some men) all over the world – and in every industry – have used the hashtag in recent weeks to come forward about their experiences of being sexually victimized. For many, many women, this social media movement has provided an outlet that didn’t previously exist to express their anger and outrage over being targeted for abuse or harassment because of their gender.
The #MeToo movement is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the workplace, where many of us spend close to half our waking hours. Sexual harassment and abuse have been historically under-reported, as women have often been reluctant or afraid to come forward. #MeToo is changing that, at least on social media. It is likely that more victims will now also feel emboldened to tell their stories of abuse to their HR departments – and to lawyers, judges, and juries.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal, as it is a form of sex discrimination. While not every inappropriate comment to an employee will – by itself – create a hostile work environment, when the comments or other behaviors become “severe or pervasive,” the conduct is illegal, and the employee can recover various forms of damages for the harm it causes – both economically and emotionally.
Employers also need to be mindful of the #MeToo movement. They will see more reports of sexual harassment made to their HR personnel, and they must be ready to respond appropriately. That means having the right employment policies and procedures in place, and doing thorough and fair investigations of any harassment complaints. It also means training their employees in how to recognize, prevent, and stop sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is about power. And high ranking executives are very powerful people in their companies. One of the reasons people like Harvey Weinstein have gotten away with so much for so long is because they hold so much power, and victims have been afraid to challenge that power. Thanks in part to #MeToo, that appears to be changing.
We are local counsel in the case of the NorCal Tea Party v. IRS. we announced this morning that the case has settled with an admission from the U.S. Attorney General that what occurred was a “gross abuse of power.”
Read the coverage here:
Washington Post: Justice Department agrees to settle lawsuits over IRS scrutiny of tea party groups
Wall Street Journal: Administration Agrees to Settle Tea-Party Suits Against IRS
New York Times: Justice Department Settles With Conservative Groups Over IRS Scrutiny
Public Broadcasting Service: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment The Trump administration has settled lawsuits with tea party groups that received extra, often burdensome scrutiny when applying for tax-exemp… pbs.org
CBS News: DOJ announces settlement with Tea Party groups
Fox News: Trump DOJ settles lawsuits over Tea Party targeting by Obama IRS
USA Today: Justice Department settles IRS lawsuits from 400 conservative groups claiming discrimination
New York Daily News: IRS settles Tea Party groups’ suits over delayed nonprofit status
Chicago Tribune: Justice Department agrees to settle lawsuits over IRS scrutiny of tea party groups
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Tea Party groups settle lawsuit against IRS; agency apologizes for discrimination during Obama’s
San Francisco Chronicle: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment
Yahoo Finance: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment
Minneapolis Star: Tea party groups settle lawsuits over IRS mistreatment; will get apology
Townhall: DOJ Starts to Make Amends for Tea Party Scandal
Washington Times: Feds to pay ‘generous’ settlement to tea party groups for targeting
Breitbart News: DOJ Settles with Tea Party Groups on Lois Lerner IRS Scandal
Cincinnati Enquirer: IRS settles tea party cases for millions and an apology
We are pleased to bring you this morning news that the Internal Revenue Service has settled the case of NorCal Tea Party v. IRS filed in the United States District Coiurt for the Southern District of Ohio. We have served as local counsel in “what may be the only nationwide class ever formed for a claim of this type.”
United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott originally handled the case and certified it as a class action. It most recently has been handled by Judge Michael Barrett.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions today weighed in personally on the settlement and the conduct of the IRS:
“There is no excuse for this conduct. Hundreds of organizations were affected by these actions, and they deserve an apology from the IRS. We hope that today’s settlement makes clear that this abuse of power will not be tolerated.”
The Washington Post has the story here.
The statement by our lead counsel, Eddie Greim of Garrett Graves in Kansas City is below:
The United States Reaches Agreement with a Nationwide Class of Over 400 Targeted Groups in NorCal v United States, Vindicating Plaintiffs’ Claims in a Generous Financial Settlement
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, October 26, 2017
The Plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States are pleased to announce that late yesterday, the United States entered into a generous financial settlement to pay the claims of each of over 400 groups in the Plaintiff Class who were targeted by the IRS for their political beliefs. It is a great day for the First Amendment and the promise of fair and impartial government. But this day was too long in coming.
Five groups filed this case, the first claim against the IRS for its targeting of conservative groups, and the only nationwide class action, in May 2013. These five, NorCal Tea Party Patriots, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, Americans Against Oppressive Laws, San Angelo Tea Party, and the Texas Patriots Tea Party, sacrificed hundreds of hours of time. The lawsuit stretched over four years and was sustained by funding from Citizens for Self-Governance, a non-profit that aids citizen groups. CSG was itself targeted by the IRS during the discovery process, but refused to back down.
In 2015, Judge Susan Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified what may be the only nationwide class ever formed for a claim of this type. In 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals soundly rejected the IRS’s attempt to use taxpayer protection laws to withhold evidence of its own wrongdoing in the case. In 2016, District Judge Michael Barrett entered a preliminary injunction against the IRS, finding a strong showing of a likelihood of success on Texas Patriots Tea Party’s First Amendment claim. In 2017, Texas Patriots became one of the last groups to have its exempt status recognized. Also in 2017, the Plaintiffs took the first and only deposition of Lois Lerner, which remains under seal in a manner still being litigated by Plaintiffs notwithstanding the proposed settlement. Under federal court rules, District Judge Barrett must still approve the class settlement on the motion of the parties.
By the fall of 2017, dozens of IRS officials had testified under oath, and the case was being prepared for trial. As part of this process, Attorney General Sessions’ Department of Justice carefully reviewed the facts. The generosity of its proposed settlement belies recent, uninformed claims that IRS officials merely mismanaged the files of conservative groups, or subjected liberal groups to similar treatment. To the contrary, Plaintiffs developed evidence showing that IRS managers knew that groups’ views, not their activities, were being used to target them for heightened scrutiny. Even after they gained this knowledge, officials like Lois Lerner failed to release the targeted groups, ordering up more scrutiny and delay even while betraying worry that the “Tea Party matter” was “very dangerous.” This was far more than the “lack of adequate management” the IRS or TIGTA is publicly willing to acknowledge.
Attorney General Sessions rightly calls this an “abuse of power.” As he says, the Plaintiffs deserve an apology from the IRS. But not even a court can force the IRS to apologize or admit to its wrongdoing. Those remedies are unknown to the law. A true reckoning is finally up to the agency itself. Until the IRS itself steps forward to admit what really happened, we cannot have faith that the same abuse won’t be repeated again. It is easy for the IRS to abuse its toolbox of policies and procedures that seem neutral on their face, just like the superficially innocent process of “centralization” that Lois Lerner and others used as an excuse to abuse the Plaintiffs. So truly, it is not just Plaintiffs who need an apology. Every taxpayer and group, whether or not targeted in this particular scheme, has a right to demand a truthful apology based on the facts and a real reckoning. Before Commissioner Koskinen leaves office, the Plaintiffs call on him to do the right thing.
For questions, please contact counsel Eddie Greim at 816-256-4144.