Federal Reserve Approves Colorado Credit Union To Serve Cannabis Industy (But There’s A Catch)

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

image from 3.bp.blogspot.comThe Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Federal Reserve conditionally approved a Colorado credit union, Fourth Corner Credit Union, to serve cannabis-linked businesses. To obtain this approval, however, the credit union had to “step back from its original plan to serve state-licensed dispensaries.” Instead, it will focus on “individuals and companies that support legalized marijuana, including those who partner with vendors, such as accountants and landlords.” In other words, the credit union can service individuals and entities involved in the cannabis industry, but not those who “touch the plant.”

 Read the full article here.

Virginia Approves Expanded Use Of Cannabis Extracts For Medicinal Purposes

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Virginia (pd)Both houses of Virginia’s legislature have unanimously approved bills that will expand the ability of Virginia doctors to recommend marijuana or cannabis extracts to their patients. The bills are not identical, but once the relatively minor differences between them are reconciled, a consolidated bill will be sent to Governor Terry McAuliffe for his signature.

Click here to read more.

Drink Up! TGI Fridays Ducks Class Action Based On Alleged Failure To List Drink Prices On Menu

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

TGIFOn a ski trip a few years back, a friend of mine decided to spend his day at a local bar instead of on the slopes. He spent the afternoon drinking with a friend and a man they met at the bar. Later in the day, the man, who had been drinking with them the whole time, said he had to go to work. He stood up, walked around to the other side of the bar, and clocked in for his shift as the bartender. He promptly gave my friend one more drink on the house, and then told him he was cut off. That is consumer fraud if you ask me. But, alas, that issue was not before the New Jersey Supreme Court in Dugan v. TGI Friday’s, Inc.

In Dugan, plaintiffs alleged that TGIF violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA) by (1) failing to list prices for alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks on its menus and (2) charging different prices for the same beverage depending upon where in the restaurant the beverage was served (i.e., at the bar as opposed to at a table). Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprised of "all customers who had purchased items from the menu that did not have a disclosed price."

The first-named plaintiff alleged in the complaint that she only "became aware of the prices [of drinks she purchased at the bar] after she had consumed the beverages and was presented with a check," and that she was "charged $2.00 for a beer at the bar and later charged $3.59 for the same beer at a table in the restaurant." She was later deposed and admitted that she did not review the menu at the bar, or review the price of the beer indicated on her receipt from the bar, or review the beverage section of the menu at the table, or review the final bill before she paid it. Rather, she testified that she reviewed the receipts when she got home and noticed the discrepancies, and also noticed that she paid a "steep" price for a soda. 

Continue reading “Drink Up! TGI Fridays Ducks Class Action Based On Alleged Failure To List Drink Prices On Menu”

Arbitration Award Stands Even Though One Of The Arbitrators Was Later Convicted Of Crime

  by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Divorce decree (pd)Arbitration awards are, by design, difficult to vacate. But what happens when one of the arbitrators who entered the award is later convicted of a crime related, at least to some extent, to an issue in the arbitration. In Litton v. Litton, the Appellate Division addressed this interesting but (hopefully) uncommon occurrence.

In Litton, plaintiff and defendant were married in 1982 and had one child. In 2008, the Family Part entered a judgment of divorce and ordered them to share joint custody of their son. They were also directed to proceed to arbitration before a rabbinical panel, or Beth Din, which they did. The panel, which was comprised of three rabbis, entered an award requiring the husband to pay the wife $5,000 per month until he gave her a Get. (As the Appellate Division explained, a Get is a "written document a husband must obtain and deliver to his wife when entering into a divorce. Without a Get, a wife cannot remarry under Jewish law.") Once the wife received the Get, the husband's monthly support obligation would be reduced to $3,500. The husband was also ordered to pay $20,0250 in arrears, $100,000 in the wife's legal fees, and a fine of $250,000 for "his refusal to disclose information about the couple's joint funds."

Several months later, the wife moved to enforce the award and, apparently, have the husband jailed for not complying with it. The Family Part denied the request and found that the husband was not capable of complying with the support order.

Four years later, the Family Part reduced the husband's support obligation from $5,000 per month to $23 per week. Around the same time, in a "wholly unrelated matter," one of the arbitrators on the panel was charged with, and apparently later convicted  of, "criminal conspiracy to threaten and coerce Jewish husbands to give Gets to their wives."  The husband moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that, in light of these charges against one of the rabbis on the panel, "the award was the product of corruption." The trial court denied the motion, holding that there was no causal connection between the arbitration in 2008 and the charges against the rabbi five years later, and that there were two other rabbis on the panel who were not charged as part of the conspiracy. The husband appealed.

Continue reading “Arbitration Award Stands Even Though One Of The Arbitrators Was Later Convicted Of Crime”

Individual Condominium Unit Owners Cannot Sign Protest Petitions Objecting To Proposed Zoning Ordinances

by:  C. John DeSimone, III

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division applied the idea of “speaking with one voice” to condominium unit owners in a way that might not sit so well with those owners.  In Jennings v. Borough of Highlands, the Appellate Division ruled that individual condominium unit owners cannot sign protest petitions objecting to proposed zoning ordinances.  Rather, because the Condominium Act defines the land upon which the condominium owners have their units as “common elements,” and permits the condominium association to oversee and administer those interests, only the condominium association has the right to protest a proposed zoning ordinance.  The ruling clarifies whose “protests” are to be counted when reviewing a protest petition.  This is important because an ordinance against which a proper protest petition has been lodged can only be passed if two-thirds of the governing body of the municipality vote to approve it.  This super-majority is a significant increase over the normal majority required for approval.

 As a result of the Jennings decision, condominium associations that receive notice of a proposed zoning change should evaluate whether a protest should be lodged or if a sufficient number of unit owners would desire such a protest to be lodged.  From the standpoint of a municipality or developer urging the adoption of the ordinance, care should be taken to address the interests of any association whose property would be included within the proposed change.