*** PLEASE CAREFULLY READ ***

If you are an owner or officer of any closely-held corporation or limited liability company (or any other business entity or serve as a fiduciary of any entity) – or intend to be, you need to carefully read about these new federal regulations that mandate disclosure of the ultimate beneficial ownership of that entity – the consequence being as much as a $500 per day fine for non-compliance.

For small business owners:

  • We strongly recommend attention to this matter and compliance.
  • If you have a long-dormant LLC or corporation, now may be a time to consider dissolving the same to avoid filing requirements under this regulation.

On January 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) took effect, requiring non-exempt entities (both foreign and domestic) that are registered to conduct business in the United States to submit certain information regarding their “beneficial ownership” to a confidential database housed within the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).  Unless exempt, the CTA affects:

  • Corporations, LLCs, and other similar entities created by the filing of a document with the Secretary of State, whether formed prior to or after the effective date of January 1, 2024; and
  • Corporations, LLCs, and other entities formed under the laws of a foreign country but registered to do business in any U.S. State, whether formed prior to or after the effective date of January 1, 2024.

These non-exempt entities are referenced in the CTA as “Reporting Company(ies).” The Reporting Companies required to submit information under the CTA are not just limited to corporations and LLCs, but also include limited liability partnerships, limited partnerships, and business trusts.

How do I know if my entity is exempt?

FinCEN recognizes 23 exemptions to the CTA’s BOI reporting requirement.

Please note that these exemptions contain many nuances. If you are unsure whether your entity may qualify for an exemption, we are happy to help you in your evaluation. Additionally, FinCEN’s Compliance Guide (linked below) contains a wealth of information to consider when making this determination.

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/BOI_Small_Compliance_Guide.v1.1-FINAL.pdf

We anticipate the most common exemption for our clients will be No. 21 (large operating company).  Large operating companies are those that (a) employ more than 20 full-time employees (30+ hours per week) within the United States, (b) maintain a physical location with an operating presence within the United States, and (c) can demonstrate over $5 million in gross sales or receipts via federal tax return or other applicable IRS form.

What information am I required to disclose?

Reporting Companies are required to complete and submit a form detailing their “beneficial ownership information” or “BOI.” A beneficial owner is any individual who, directly or indirectly, (a) exercises substantial control over the Reporting Company, or (b) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of the Reporting Company (“Beneficial Owner”). In other words, FinCEN wants to know who owns and controls entities operating within the United States at an individual level.

  • Examples of a beneficial owner who exercises substantial control of a Reporting Company include, without limitation:
  • Officers and directors (or those who exercise the authority of an officer or director), g., CEO, CFO, COO, President, Treasurer, etc.;
  • Individuals with the authority to appoint or remove officers or the board of directors;
  • Individuals with ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the Reporting Company;
  • Individuals with rights relative to the Reporting Company associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company;
  • Individuals who exercise control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a Reporting Company; and
  • Individuals who direct, determine, or have substantial influence over important decisions made by the Reporting Company.
  • Examples of an ownership interest include, without limitation:
  • Individuals with an interest in the Reporting Company by virtue of equity, stock, or similar instrument; preorganization certificate or subscription; or transferable share of, or voting trust certificate or certificate of deposit for, an equity security, interest in a joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business trust;
  • Individuals with any capital or profit interest in an entity; and
  • Individuals who have an “option” relative to any of the foregoing.

Minors, individuals acting solely as employees, and those whose only interest in the Reporting Company is via a future right of inheritance are NOT considered beneficial owners.

In determining the percentage of ownership interest in corporations, entities taxed as corporations, and other entities that issue shares of stock, an individual’s percentage of ownership interest is the greater of (a) the total combined voting power of all classes of ownership interests of the individual relative to the total outstanding voting power of all classes of ownership interests entitled to vote, or (b) the total combined value of the ownership interests of the individual relative to the total outstanding value of ownership interests.

For entities that issue capital and profit interests (including entities treated as partnerships for tax purposes—e.g., many one or two-member LLCs), the individual’s total capital and profit interests are compared to the total outstanding capital and profit interests of the Reporting Company.

The person(s) who prepares and/or files the BOI Report is referred to as the “Company Applicant.” This can be an owner or representative of the Reporting Company, such as an attorney. Each Reporting Company will need to provide the name, residential street address, and a copy of a photo ID for each of its Company Applicants AND each of its beneficial owners.

A copy of the BOI Report template can be found here: https://boiefiling.fincen.gov/fileboir.

What is the deadline for submitting the BOI Report?

In short, the deadline for Reporting Companies to submit their BOI Reports differs depending on when the Reporting Company was formed.

  • Reporting Companies formed prior to January 1, 2024 must submit their BOI Reports by January 1, 2025. However, we recommend getting these reports submitted sooner rather than later in case the FinCEN database experiences any technical issues due to increased traffic toward the end of 2024.
  • Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024 but prior to January 1, 2025 are required to submit their BOI Reports within 90 days of formation (the date on which they receive confirmation from the Secretary of State in most instances).
  • Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2025 are required to submit their BOI Report within 30 days of formation.
  • Any update or change to a Reporting Company’s BOI must be submitted within 30 days of when the change occurs.

What happens if my Reporting Company does not submit its BOI Report within the required timeframe?

FinCEN has provided that:

The willful failure to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, or the willful provision of or attempt to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information may result in a civil or criminal penalties, including civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues, or criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required BOI report may be held [personally] accountable for that failure.

Furthermore, any individual who refuses to provide information required to be included in the BOI Report, or who provides false information, may also be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties.

Next Steps

If your entity is a Reporting Company created prior to January 1, 2024, you have time. However, you should be compiling the necessary documents and information required to complete the BOI Report. Finney law Firm is offering BOI Consultations, during which time we will (a) help you determine whether your entity is a Reporting Company or whether an exemption applies, (b) hep you identify your company’s beneficial owner(s), and (c) submit your Reporting Company’s BOI Report to FinCEN as a Co-Company Applicant.

If your entity was formed on or after January 1, 2024, your deadline may be quickly approaching, and it is extremely important that you file the BOI Report and/or contact us right away.

Please contact the business law attorney with whom you work at Finney Law Firm or Casey Jones (513) 943.5673 for filing compliance and for more information.

Fraudsters — both high-tech and old school — daily attempt to use real estate and other transactions to scam our law firm, our title company and our clients out of money and property.  To date, we have not been hit (some of our client have been), but we are always on guard.  Fraudsters forever keep trying.

As you are growing your business — and these tips apply to businesses large and small, old and new — it is a good idea — from time to time — to gather your financial team and key executives, along with your IT professionals, and simply have a conversation about “tightening things up” and avoiding common scams.

  • Are your checks (and cash) — incoming, outgoing and blank checkbooks — tightly secured and under watchful eyes?
  • Are your systems too open and accessible (a simple question such as automatic screen savers with passwords that trigger when an employee is away from his desk)?
  • Do you have proper insurance to protect your real risks?
  • Do you have proper training and systems in place to avoid common and emerging risks?

In the end, we all have some exposure.  So, eternal vigilance, the latest technology protection and training of employees new and old, is the only answer.  Part of this caution is constantly “tightening up” and “changing up” your transactional practices and security procedures to avoid the latest scam.

Here are some common scams we and our clients have seen:

  1. In the low-tech world, fraudsters simply borrow money based upon false promises and representations.  This is a time-tested and common scam.  It is borne of two human instincts: (a) we want to trust people and (b) we are lured by the promise of a better-then market return on investment (if it’s “too good to be true,” it’s probably fraud).  Many of these fraudsters have the appearance of business stability and financial success, but are willing to offer above-market interest rates for a personal or business loan.  In the end, these loans are not properly secured and are not properly guaranteed, and the fraudster never had the ability or intent to pay back the monies.
  2. Similarly, we have seen clients purchase assets or entire businesses that are subject to liens or governmental enforcement actions, or the purchase price is based upon false financial documents or hidden property condition.  In a business transaction, be careful of slippery buyers, sellers and attorneys who can make fraudulent closing adjustments as the numbers are flying about in a closing.
  3. Another low-tech fraud is thieves who rifle U.S. Postal Service mail boxes (both the blue drop boxes and mailboxes at your home or business), steal checks, and then change the payee and amount on the check and cash it.
  4. Pay attention here: In the high-tech world, fraudsters hack into a Realtor, investor or title company email system, and steal their email signature and logo, and the details of an imminent transaction.  Then, they establish a similar email domain (with maybe one letter changed or a “dot” added).  Using the new domain, they send an email to the party who is to originate a wire with false wire instructions — instructions straight into the fraudster’s overseas wire address.  The email by all appearances looks entirely legitimate and it’s from a name you know and with whom you actively are dealing.
  5. We have written about sellers who don’t own actually property attempting to mortgage or sell the same.  Read here and here.
  6. Finally, fraudsters use sophisticated hacking and ransomware viruses to invade your critical computer systems.  They corrupt your data and hijack control of your systems, relenting only when an exorbitant ransom has been paid.  Extortionists have taken over critical infrastructure such as oil pipelines, hospitals, and municipalities.  Most recently, the vendor running the Cincinnati Multiple Listing Service and dozens of MLSes nationwide was the victim of a weeks-long ransomware attack that was costly and disruptive.

So, how can you protect yourself in this world increasingly fraught with risk of theft of your valuable data, money and time by those with malintent?

Here are a few ideas:

  • Stay in your lane.  Let lenders lend.  In most cases, they are good at it.  If a borrower is coming to you for a loan, it’s likely because he’s not eligible for conventional financing, and that ineligibility is for a good reason — he’s either lying, broke or both.
  • Carefully use due diligence and proper documentation.  If you are going to lend money or buy assets or a business, perform the kind of due diligence a prudent and sophisticated buyer or lender would undertake and obtain appropriate security and guarantees of a loan.  We discuss some of the pitfalls of private lending here.  Similar risks can exist in buying assets and buying whole operating businesses.  Part of this process is assuring that the borrower actually owns the assets he is selling or pledging (free and clear) and that your security interest is properly and timely perfected as against that asset.  In a real estate-based loan, title insurance is a key way to assure this is so.  In purchasing a business, the risk is even greater in that the corporate entity may have significant residual undisclosed liabilities or governmental enforcement problems. That seller — and your purchase monies — will completely disappear by the time you learn of the fraud.  Finally, the #1 “due diligence item” is to know your employees, know your borrowers, know your sellers.  The internet (and now artificial intelligence tools) is an incredibly powerful way to do background on parties to a business transaction,  Use it.  Cautiously heed the lessons of what you find.
  • Properly perfect security interests and document guarantees.  When banks lend money, they want proper security for their loans and appropriate guarantors for their repayment.  In most cases, banks are over-protected, and they want it that way.  You do too.  In both real estate and equipment-based transactions, we have seen borrowers pledge the same assets to different lenders as security for two or more loans.  Obviously, in that circumstance someone is going to be left holding the bag.  (Yes, fraudsters are that shameless.)  Using proper real and personal property title examinations and lien searches and using appropriate documentation for loans and guarantees is critical.  For example, in Kentucky, in order for a personal guarantee of debt to be enforceable, it must follow specific statutory requirements.  Without that, it’s worthless.
  • Don’t put checks or other key financial documents in blue U.S. Post Office boxes on the streets and don’t have checks sent to a mail box at your business or residence that is accessible by others.
  • As to wire fraud, you can’t be careful enough.
    • The sender of a wire should assume everything you see is a lie, the fax, the email, the logo, the wire instructions, the sender web site, the sender.  Everything.  Always verify everything via voice using a trusted and known telephone number for the wire recipient.
    • If you smell a rat, don’t initiate the wire.  Wait and check some more.  Urgency — especially inappropriate urgency — is a key indicator of fraud.
    • Read carefully the sender email addresses and the email.  Many times the email domain of a fraudster does not exactly match the domain name with which you have been dealing.  Note misspellings and grammatical errors in the text of an email that may come from a foreign sender or one unfamiliar with the parties and the transaction.
    • Note last-minute changes, especially of wiring instructions.
    • Note changes made on the Friday before a holiday weekend or before another holiday, and before the end-of-month, when Realtors and title company employees are more likely to be busy and careless.
  • Buy cyber insurance.  Your property and casualty insurance agent can offer your business cyber protection.  It requires you to use good practices for the insurance to invoke, but both the coverage and the required procedures are a critical part of best practices protection.
  • As to ransomware attacks, we have two pieces of advice:
    • First, according to the Harvard Business Review (citing IBM), 60% of cyber attacks originate inside your organization.  Either a malevolent employee or ex-employee intent on theft or vandalism (75% of attacks) or a negligent employee (25% of incidents) who falls for a phishing attack scam cause most losses.  So, hire and retain employees of good character, monitor their activities, and carefully, comprehensively and quickly cut off computer access of former employees.  Segregate access to data in your organization to those who need that data, and no one else.
    • Second, every computer system is vulnerable.  Every one.  But homegrown (premises-based and self-maintained) servers are more vulnerable to a hack (in my opinion).  As a result, we (a) have migrated the vast majority of our data into the Microsoft cloud (other providers are also available) (heaven help the world if they hack the Microsoft cloud!), (b) have segregated access to data to employees who need that access, and (c) have make serial backups of data that is not in the cloud.
  • Understand the risks, develop training and systems to avoid the risk, and train all of your employees on cyber security procedures.

As our attorneys can assist with due diligence and proper documentation (including title insurance) of your transactions, call us!

The anonymity of beneficial ownership of corporate and LLC interests has been a “feature” of small business governance for time immemorial.

This has vexed federal, state and local regulators, as well as private litigants trying to get to the bottom of their ownership puzzle.  And it has been a source of comfort to owners who want — for whatever motivations — to remain anonymous.  As a result, there are limited circumstances in which states (Kentucky, for example) and cities (City of Cincinnati, for example) presently do require disclosure of ownership of LLCs and corporations that hold real property in their jurisdictions.

But, by and large, the beneficial ownership of closely-held corporations and LLCs is a “black hole” in terms of registration of the identities of owners of closely-held businesses and limited liability companies.

In a limited way, that anonymity comes to an end in one year according to a final federal rule issued in September:

  • As of January 1, 2024 the Corporate Transparency Act requires newly-formed LLCs and corporations to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within 30 days, and
  • Corporations and LLCs that existed prior to January 1, 2024 must make that same disclosure by January 1, 2025.

The reason for the new law, according to FinCEN, is “to crack down on illicit finance and enhance transparency…to stop criminal actors, including oligarchs, kleptocrats, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and those who would use anonymous shell companies to hide their illicit proceeds.”

FinCEN has also issued a proposed rule (to be finalized later this year) for sharing the information with other federal, state and local agencies.  From the proposed rule:

FinCEN’s proposal limits access to beneficial ownership information to Federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities; state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies with court authorization; financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements and regulators supervising them for compliance with such requirements; foreign law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, and other agencies that meet specific criteria; and Treasury officers and employees under certain circumstances. FinCEN further proposes to subject each category of authorized recipients to security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

In other words, the general public will not have access to beneficial ownership information filed with FinCEN, but it will be shared with state and local law enforcement as appropriate.

These rules will certainly call for the end of 100% anonymity for closely-held corporations and LLCs and a mandatory new federal filing requirement for each entity (presumably updated as ownership changes from time to time).  Whether it will change the way small businesses in America are substantively regulated is yet to be seen.

Please contact Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853), Isaac Heintz (513.943-6654) or Casey Jones (513.943.5673) for more information on the Corporate Transparency Act and these new regulations or about your closely-held business issues generally.

Properly drafted written contracts are typically enforceable as against the parties thereto, with few exceptions – fraud being one of them. The manner in which written contracts are treated upon the allegation of fraud is highly dependent on the type of fraud alleged. In short, it is a question of whether the party claiming fraud alleges that they were defrauded as to the terms or nature of the contract or as to the facts and representations underlying the contract.

Void and Voidability

One of the most common scenarios in which this question arises is relative to settlement agreements and/or “releases,” where one party gives some consideration (e.g., money) in exchange for the settlement and release of actual or potential legal claims. The type of fraud being alleged determines whether the contract or agreement is automatically void (void ab initio) or merely voidable. “A release obtained by fraud in the factum is void ab initio, while a release obtained by fraud in the inducement is merely voidable upon proof of fraud.” Haller v. Borror Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 10, 13 (1990). “Whether a release was procured through fraud of either type is a question for the trier of fact [such as a jury]. Whether the fraud as alleged is in the factum or in the inducement is an issue of law for the court.” Id., at 14-15.

Fraud in the Factum

“A release is obtained by fraud in the factum where an intentional act or misrepresentation of one party precludes a meeting of the minds concerning the nature or character of the purported agreement.” Id. Imagine a grandchild telling her grandmother that she is signing a letter for school when it is really a change to her estate plan. “Where device, trick, or want of capacity produces ‘no knowledge on the part of the releasor of the nature of the instrument, or no intention on his part to sign a release or such a release as the one executed,’ there has been no meeting of the minds.” Id., quoting Picklesimer v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 151 Ohio St. 1, 5 (1949).

Fraud in the Inducement

As the title would suggest, “[c]ases of fraud in the inducement. . . are those in which the plaintiff, while admitting that he released his claim for damages and received a consideration therefor, asserts that he was induced to do so by the defendant’s fraud or misrepresentation.” Haller, at 14. In Haller, the alleged fraud involved the financial solvency of a defendant company. In essence, a representative of the company allegedly represented to the plaintiffs that the company would soon be closed and, therefore, if Plaintiffs did not accept the offered settlement, they would likely receive nothing with respect to their claim(s). Id., at 11-12. The plaintiffs apparently later learned that this was not true. The Ohio Supreme Court found these allegations consistent with a claim of fraud in the inducement.

Practical Considerations

“A release of liability procured through fraud in the inducement is voidable only, and can be contested only after a return or tender of consideration.” Haller v. Borror Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 10, 14 (1990); see also Berry v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, L.L.P., 127 Ohio St. 3d 480, 483 (2010) (“[A]n action for fraud in the inducement of a settlement of a tort claim is prohibited unless the plaintiff tenders back the consideration received and rescinds the release.”); Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Burke, 69 Ohio St. 294 (1903).

While it may seem obvious, one cannot seek to void a contract while retaining the consideration they received for the same. In Haller, the plaintiffs received $50,000 in exchange for a release of their prior claims. The Court, finding their allegations of fraud to be consistent with fraud in the inducement, held that the plaintiffs were required to tender back the $50,000 to the defendants before they could seek to void the settlement agreement and release. Because they had not done so, the release they signed remained valid and enforceable, and their claims (including those released under the settlement agreement and that of fraud in the inducement) were dismissed. This is consistent with the idea that one cannot “cherry-pick” which parts of a contract to enforce; they cannot denounce their obligations under a contract while retaining the benefits thereof.

When it comes to contract negotiations, these cases demonstrate how important it is to (a) start from a properly drafted contract, and (b) do your due diligence in order to mitigate the risk of later disputes and litigation. Our transactional team is uniquely positioned to help in these negotiations, having significant experience in contract drafting, negotiation, and disputes.

For assistance with contractual matters, contact Casey Jones (513.943.5673 )

We all know of creative and incessant attempts to defraud us of our hard-earned money, many (but not all) internet- and email-based.  But nonetheless (i) the efforts of snooker us never stop, and (ii) we must constantly tell others in our family and our organization to be wary.  Eternal vigilance is a business and personal requisite these days.  The criminals are absolutely relentless.

Just this last week, our firm and my family were “almost” taken in by two of these international criminals:

  • Our firm (because we have a great web site and use internet marketing tools) constantly gets “new client inquiries” (usually via our web portal or regular email) from fraudsters asking us “do you review contracts?” or “can you sue someone for us?,” pretty generic and bland (but transparently fraudulent) inquiries.  I generally just “delete,” but one of these made it to one of our newer associates.  It was a client from Dubai who wanted us to assert certain contractual claims against another party.  We did so, and the matter instantly settled with a $385,000 certified check payable to our firm escrow account.  The fraudulent client then wanted us to wire the escrowed monies to him and a third party, both overseas (major red flag there!).  Fortunately, our crack bookkeeping staff saw the certified check was dishonored before we wired out the funds — disaster averted!.  But it was a close call.

[Something to note about these fraudulent inquiries: (i) they never want to communicate via telephone (but rather by email), (ii) the phone number they provide is always bad, and (iii) they always have some bland *@Gmail address.”  I sometimes respond to the email address they provide “please call me,” and they never do.  I call the phone number and it is bad for one reason or another.]

  • Sunday, right before the Superbowl, I stopped to have lunch with my wife.  She related to me that a piece of furniture she had for sale in Facebook Marketplace had sold to a buyer in California.  He was going to send us “certified funds” and then wanted us to pay his moving company to bring the piece to California.  “Wait a minute,” I said.  “why would we pay his mover,” and it vaguely reminded me of a fraud scheme I had heard from a client or read about on the internet.  Sure enough, I Googled “pay the mover” and found out this is a common scam.  You wire or pay funds to a mover, and later the “certified funds” are dishonored.  The victim is “out” the moving fee and the scammer never intended to pay for your furniture!  My wife told the would-be buyer that we would hold the “certified funds” for 10 days before shipping the goods, and he went radio silent immediately.  Fraudster!

Our firms, and our title company in particular, are attacked by fraudsters almost daily.  Fortunately, we are alert to the most common scams, and have avoided them all (we have clients who have not been so lucky).  But these two close calls — at the office and at home – remind us that vigilance is required and gullibility, and trust, in the internet era are simply foolish!

Be cautious with your funds and your property.  There are loads of fraudsters — some anonymous on the internet and some that you think are your friends — who will gladly and shamelessly steal your money and leave you wondering why you fell for their scam!

Be cautious!  Be aware!  Trust very few.

Earnest Money vs. Liquidated Damages

As Chris Finney has addressed extensively in prior blog entries, “a common misunderstanding of parties to a purchase contract is that the escrow money is some sort of measure of or limitation on damages for the buyer’s breach, or, conversely, that the return of the earnest money ‘cures’ the seller’s breach and is the limitation on his damages as well. However, unless the real estate purchase contract specifically calls out either of those limitations, neither of those propositions is true.” In other words, an earnest money deposit is in no way representative of the amount of “damages” caused by a breach of the contract unless the parties to that contract say it is.

Consider the following example: A Buyer contracts to purchase a home for a purchase price of $350,000. Buyer deposits $5,000 in earnest money. Buyer decides to buy a different home instead and breaches the contract to purchase the first home. The Seller of the first home has a tough time selling it after Buyer backs out but, eventually, finds someone else to buy the home. However, the new buyer will only pay $320,000. Seller can typically seek damages from Buyer based on the difference in the purchase price, i.e., $30,000, because that is the amount that places Seller in the position he would have been but for Buyer’s breach. Seller is NOT limited to merely collecting the $5,000 earnest money.

So then what does the phrase “unless the parties to the contract say it is” really mean? How can the parties to a contract predetermine what the damages will be if one of them breaches?

A liquidated damages clause is a contractual vehicle through which the parties can stipulate – in advance – the amount of damages due and owing should one of them breach the contract. It can be a fixed amount or a percentage of the total contract price. Relative to real estate contracts, particularly in the commercial context, parties will sometimes agree, in the purchase contract, that the earnest money will act as liquidated damages in the event of breach. Thus, while liquidated damages are not necessarily equal to the amount of earnest money deposited, they can be if the parties so agree.

Are liquidated damages clauses enforceable?

As the Ohio Supreme Court has long held, “parties are free to enter into contracts that contain provisions which apportion damages in the event of default.Lake Ridge Academy v. Carney, 66 Ohio St. 3d 376, 381 (1993). However, many parties who later breach a contract after having agreed to such a provision unsurprisingly attempt to defeat the same by arguing that the provision to which they agreed is somehow unenforceable – most often, by arguing that the clause operates a “penalty.”

Ohio courts utilize a three-part test to evaluate whether a liquidated damages clause is, indeed, enforceable.

Where the parties have agreed on the amount of damages, ascertained by estimation and adjustment, and have expressed this agreement in clear and unambiguous terms, the amount so fixed should be treated as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, if the damages would be (1) uncertain as to amount and difficult of proof, and if (2) the contract as a whole is not so manifestly unconscionable, unreasonable, and disproportionate in amount as to justify the conclusion that it does not express the true intention of the parties, and if (3) the contract is consistent with the conclusion that it was the intention of the parties that damages in the amount stated should follow the breach thereof.

Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 12 Ohio St. 3d 27, Paragraph 2 of the Syllabus (1984).

Courts routinely uphold these clauses in the real estate context, in large part due to the unpredictability of the market. See, e.g., Cochran v. Schwartz, 120 Ohio App. 3d 59, 62 (2d Dist. 1997); Kurtz v. Western Prop., L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-6726 (10th Dist. 2011); Ottenstein v. Western Reserve Academy, 54 Ohio App. 2d 1, 4 (9th Dist. 1977); Schottenstein v. Devoe, 83 Ohio App. 193, 198 (1st Dist. 1948); Curtin v. Ogborn, 75 Ill. App. 3d 549, 555 (Ill. App. 1979) (outlining a general rule that liquidated damages are appropriate in amount where ten percent or less of the purchase price). This is because “although the contract price is easily ascertainable, the fair market value of real estate fluctuates, in some cases dramatically, and these fluctuations, based upon numerous independent variables, are unpredictable.” Kurtz, at ¶ 30 (relative to the first prong in the Samson test). “Difficulties inherent in assessing the fair market value of property due to the volatility of the real estate market have been the impetus for Ohio courts giving effect to liquidated damages provisions in real estate transactions.” Id., at ¶ 31.

Who does a “liquidated damages” clause benefit?

While it is perhaps easier to envision how liquidated damages provisions tend to benefit the non-breaching party, they can be just as advantageous to a breaching party. For example, consider a situation where Buyer is under contract to purchase a $1 million retail center with a $100,000 liquidated damages clause. Buyer elects not to purchase the property and breaches the contract. A week after Buyer’s breach, there is a down-turn in the real estate market and, now, Seller can only get $800,000 for the property. Rather than potentially being on the hook for the $200,000 difference between the contract price and ultimate sale price, Buyer’s liability is capped at the fixed liquidated damages amount of $100,000 because that is what the parties agreed to in the contract.

Liquated damages clauses can also be mutually advantageous inasmuch as it allows the parties to know what to expect. Circumstances may arise that require a party to choose between breaching the contract or incurring some other loss. In such a situation, the clause helps that party weigh their options and explore all possible outcomes in order to make an informed decision.

Is a liquidated damages clause a good idea?

Like so many legal questions, the answer is unfortunately the rather frustrating “it depends.” Ultimately, whether to include a liquidated damages clause in your contract or whether to agree to such a clause being proposed by the other side, is a decision that should be made on a case-by-case basis after considering all of the potential factors that may come into play.

Our firm has significant experience in dealing with these types of provisions – from drafting, to review, and to enforcement – and we can help you explore how including such a provision in your real estate contract may impact you, as well as answer any other real estate contract questions you may have.

10,000 Foot View of What You Need to Know

On February 11, 2022, Ohio’s law governing limited liability companies will change from its current form under Ohio Revised Code Chapter (“ORC”) 1705 (the “Old Law”) to its new form under ORC Chapter 1706 (the “New Law”). This means some significant changes for Ohio limited liability companies, which also apply to those organized under the Old Law. To make these changes less painful and reduce confusion, the New Law will use many of the same terms used in the Old Law. This blog is meant to provide an overview of some, but certainly not all, of those changes.

Changes Relevant to Operating Agreements

An operating agreement is a document governing the relations among the members of a limited liability company and the limited liability company. Many of the provisions of the New Law are default provisions, which a limited liability company can alter through its operating agreement. Due to the default nature of the provisions of the New Law, operating agreements existing under the Old Law should not be affected by the New Law.

Provisions That May Not Be Altered

Similar to the Old Law, a limited liability company may not alter certain provisions. For example, a limited liability company may not (i) eliminate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as discussed below; (ii) enforce promises to make capital contributions, which are not in writing; or (iii) create a situation where a limited liability company is not a separate legal entity. This is not an exhaustive list.

Limitation, Expansion, and Elimination of Fiduciary Duties

A limited liability company may alter certain duties and liabilities through an operating agreement. An example under the New Law is that a limited liability company may limit, expand, or eliminate fiduciary duties (defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a duty to act for someone else’s benefit, while subordinating one’s personal interests to that of the other person”) owed by members, managers, and others. However, this ability for a limited liability company to alter fiduciary duties is not absolute, as a limited liability company may not use an operating agreement to do away with what is referred to as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Old Law did not allow for the elimination of fiduciary duties but did allow for the limitation, expansion, and elimination of the duties of loyalty and care. 

            Penalties For Failure to Comply with an Operating Agreement

Under the New Law, a limited liability company may, also through its operating agreement, impose any penalty or consequence upon a member for failing to comply with its operating agreement. A couple of specific examples enumerated in the New Law include (i) forcing the sale of a member’s membership interest in a limited liability company and (ii) reducing a member’s proportionate interest in a limited liability company. The Old Law did not allow for such penalties.

            Third Parties’ Ability to Approve Amendments

Another wrinkle from the New Law dealing with operating agreements is that a limited liability company may vest the authority to approve amendments to its operating agreement in third parties (parties not involved in the limited liability company). The Old Law did not allow for this.

Separate Asset Series

One of the more critical changes in the New Law, which was not allowed under the Old Law, is the allowance for separate asset series in limited liability companies. Through its operating agreement, a limited liability company may establish separate series with separate (i) rights, powers, or duties regarding specified property or obligations of the limited liability company or its profits and losses; or (ii) purposes or investment objectives. Either of the foregoing is possible if each series has at least one member associated with it.

Where there is a separate asset series, the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses for that series are only applicable to that series, not any other series or the limited liability company in general, and vice versa.

To benefit from this treatment, a limited liability company must (i) maintain the assets of each series separately from any other series, and the limited liability company in general; and (ii) provide a statement in its operating agreement and its articles of organization (document filed with the Ohio Secretary of State to establish the limited liability company) similar to what is outlined in the preceding paragraph.

Membership Without Membership Interest or Contribution

Under the New Law, a party may become a member of a limited liability company without acquiring a membership interest or contributing to a limited liability company.

The Old Law required that a party be admitted (i) at the time a limited liability company was formed, (ii) by acquiring an interest directly from a limited liability company, or (iii) by acquiring an interest from a member of a limited liability company.

Statement of Authority

The New Law allows a limited liability company to file a statement of authority with the Ohio Secretary of State to state the authority of a specific party in a certain position to conduct business on behalf of a limited liability company. As such, where there is a statement of authority, it is no longer necessary to look to an operating agreement to determine who can conduct business on behalf of a limited liability company. Having a statement of authority will also limit the ability of third parties to enforce members’ and managers’ unauthorized decisions.

The Old Law did not provide for statements of authority but generally required parties transacting with a limited liability company to look to its operating agreement to determine who could conduct business on its behalf.

End of the Member-Managed and Manager-Managed Distinction

The New Law implicitly does away with the distinction between member-managed and manager-managed limited liability companies. A limited liability company no longer needs to make this distinction in its operating agreement, which was necessary under the Old Law.

Under the New Law, a manager is any party authorized to manage the activities of a limited liability company. Such a party does not need to be defined as a manager but can be called a director, officer, or anything else. This may allow for more flexible management structures, which the Old Law did not contemplate.

Mechanism for Barring Certain Claims after Dissolution

Known Creditors

Under the New Law, when dealing with known creditors, a dissolved limited liability company may give notice of its dissolution to known creditors, setting a deadline for them to bring their claims. Such a deadline may not be less than 90 days from the date of the notice. If the known creditors fail to bring their claims within that period, then their claims are effectively barred, protecting the dissolved limited liability company from those claims.

Unknown Creditors

Under the New Law, when dealing with unknown creditors, a dissolved limited liability company may now (i) publish a notice of its dissolution on its then maintained website, if any, and (ii) provide a copy of such notice to the Ohio Secretary of State for it to publish on its own website. If the dissolved limited liability company does so and requests that unknown creditors present their claims in accordance with the notice within two years from the date of publication (or if the statute of limitations runs during the two years), then those claims are effectively barred, protecting the dissolved limited liability company from those claims.

Under the Old Law, the dissolution of a limited liability company did not prevent the commencement of a proceeding against it.

Conclusion

The foregoing changes are only some of those seen under the New Law. If you need help navigating the New Law, it would be prudent to reach out to the Finney Law Firm. We can provide further guidance and a more in-depth explanation of the foregoing changes.  Contact Jennings Kleeman (513.797.2858) for assistance with your LLC or corporate affairs.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article about creative home buying by friends. Is this a good idea?

Well, economically, it could make sense.  A single person may not need a 4-bedroom home, but could easily share the cost of loan principal and interest, taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance costs with another friend with the same housing needs. But what happens when one friend loses their job? Has a drug or alcohol problem? Has a bad boyfriend (or girlfriend)?  Likes to party too much? Gets a job out of town?  Gets married? Has a different standard for maintenance and improvements to the home? No longer can afford “their share” of the expenses?

Let us assure you that without documenting the agreement carefully laying out expectations and contingencies of the parties going forward, co-ownership (known as co-tenancy in Ohio law, as counterintuitive as that may sound) could turn out to be expensive and legally problematic.

The bottom line is that co-owners, whether buying as an investment or to live in the property, should have a clear understanding in advance and in writing as to (a) the standard of maintenance and who decides, (b) the division of monthly expenses, and (c) an exit strategy on death, disability, or one co-owner just wanting “out.”

Finney Law Firm has drafted many LLC operating agreements, corporate buy-sell agreements, and co-tenancy agreements. Contact  Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853) or Jennings Kleeman (513.943.6650) for help with such an agreement.

Today, President Joseph Biden announced immediate and significant changes to the Paycheck Protection program, as follows:

  1. Priority period for businesses with fewer than 20 employees for two weeks starting this Wednesday, February 24th.
  2. Different loan (grant) calculation for sole proprietors and a set-aside of $1 billion for businesses in low- and moderate income areas.
  3. Made eligible those with non-fraud felony convictions.
  4. Made eligible business owners with student loan defaults.
  5. Made eligible all lawful U.S. residents with visas or Green Cards.

Forbes magazine has more details on these breaking developments here.

1 2 3 5