While a primary need of small businesses is the funding to establish operations, the capital to maintain and expand business operations is just as important. Funding is necessary to pay employees, buy supplies, and market the business. And these are just some of the primary costs of operating a business as there are various other expenses depending on variables such as the type of business and related legal regulations.
In 2018, California real estate agents and brokers became subject to a new set of regulations applicable to advertising by the enactment of AB 1650. Although the bill was signed into law by Governor Brown in August of 2016 (8/19/16), it did not become effective until January 1, 2018. The act in substance was referred to by California legislators as containing “uniform advertising standards.”
Assembly Bill 3207 is a California bill aimed at commercial transactions that will change the law defining brokers in California. On August 6, 2018, the bill, in the committee process, was placed on suspense file by a unanimous vote.
SB 1235 is one of two bills in California aimed at commercial transactions that will change California’s Finance Laws. The bill is an act that would be added to Division 9.5 (commencing with Section 22800) to the Financial Code, relating to commercial financing. SB 1235, introduced by Senator Steve Glazer (D), was referred to the Senate Banking and Finance Committee, passing through committee on June 25, 2018.
Assembly Bill 3207 is one of two bills in California aimed at commercial transactions that will change California’s Finance Laws. The bill is an act to amend Sections 22004, 22059, 22100, 22337, 22338, 22602, 22604, and 22701 of, and to add Sections 22005.5, 22010.5, 22050.1, 22337.5, 22338.5, and 22348 to, the Financial Code, relating to finance lending. The hearing date before the Banking & Finance Committee is scheduled for August 6, 2018.
As summer began, the judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (E.D. Cal.) drafted a letter to the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives providing notice of a current crisis as well as a warning that any exacerbation of this crisis will have serious and devastating consequences. The most significant consequence is that the eight million residents of the Eastern District face inaccessibility to the United States Federal Court system.
Today’s blog reviews a case where the plaintiffs were time-barred from filing their lawsuit by the statute of limitations, but tried to claim that the filing of a different lawsuit by a third-party satisfied the statute. In Reid v. City of San Diego - filed May 25, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One 2018 S.O.S. 2617, Plaintiffs, Yvonne Reid and Serena Wong, sued the City of San Diego (City) and the San Diego Tourism Marketing District (TMD) in a putative class action complaint, claiming that the defendants were charging “an illegal hotel tax.”
In Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong, 2018 S.O.S. 2627, the plaintiff, Stephen Bushansky, filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a nominal defendant, NantKwest, Inc. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a forum selection provision in NantKwest’s certificate of incorporation that named Delaware as the forum for shareholder derivative actions. The forum selection clause required that the parties file any disputes in Delaware, “subject to the court’s having personal jurisdiction over all indispensable parties named as defendants.”
Enacted in 1994, the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA) became effective in 1996. The California Assembly formulated the CRMLA as an alternative to existing regulations that licensed lenders under existing law including the California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL). The purpose of the CRMLA was to provide a licensing law specifically intended to regulate mortgage bankers and their primary functions of originating and servicing residential mortgage loans.
In February of 2018, the State Regulatory Registry, LLC (the “Registry”) reached out seeking public comment on proposed changes to the NMLS Mortgage Call Report, which provide information about a licensed mortgage business enterprise’s financial condition, loan activities, and loan origins. However, the Registry issued a notice in June stating that the implementation of planned changes to reporting requirements for the Nationwide Multi-state Licensing System has been delayed.