Legal Considerations for Your Missouri Leasing Business: What You Should Consider Now, Later, and Throughout the Process

David A. Zobel

By David A. Zobel



For many folks, the thought of extra income from leasing commercial or residential real estate is quite attractive and straightforward:

  1. Buy property,
  2. Get tenant, and
  3. Collect rent.

As many brokers and managers in the industry will tell you, it doesn’t always work out that way. Real estate leasing is a risky business. There are countless ways for your business to fail and end up not as a benefit to, but drain on your finances. Continue reading »

What to Do When You Are Served with a Lawsuit

Jeffrey R. Schmitt

By Jeffrey R. Schmitt



For many individuals and businesses, being served with a lawsuit is an uncommon, or possibly even a once-in-a-lifetime, situation. Litigation can be stressful and being served with a lawsuit is often surprising as well.  However, in all situations when you or your business is served with a lawsuit, there are three simple, basic steps to best preserve your rights and protect yourself from the outset.

  1. Make Some Quick Notes

Often, as a result of the frustration or surprise associated with being served with a lawsuit, most people don’t pay attention to the details of how they were served. These details can be very important. There are specific rules and procedures about proper service of lawsuits, depending on the type of lawsuit and the court.

Take a few minutes to jot down notes related to the service. Specifically, identify the date and time of service, the manner of service including whether a sheriff or process server handed you papers or if the lawsuit was received by first-class or certified mail, and the recipient of those papers. These may be important facts for your attorney to know in determining whether or not service was proper and if you should contest service as a result.

Also, don’t assume that service is improper without getting legal advice. In some instances, service by mail or serving papers on your 16 year old son or daughter when you are not home can be proper service. Continue reading »

Missouri Finally Has a New Statute Governing Receivers and Receiverships

A. Thomas DeWoskin

By A. Thomas DeWoskin



As most commercial attorneys in Missouri know, the previous Missouri statute governing receiverships, which was enacted in 1939 and consisted primarily of one sentence, provided very little guidance to attorneys, judges, or the parties involved.  Missouri’s new receivership statute solves that problem.  Effective August 28, 2016, and consisting of some 34 sections, the statute now provides guidance regarding the appointment of a receiver, the powers of a receiver, the rights and duties of the parties, and claim and distribution procedures.

A petition to appoint a receiver is now an independent cause of action.  It does not need to be merely an “add on” request to some other claim the creditor has against the debtor.  Receiverships can be instituted in order to dissolve an entity, enforce a lien, enforce a judgment, and other specific purposes, as well as any other situations in which the court may find a receivership appropriate.

Commencing a receivership is also a useful new way to resolve an ownership dispute or allow a majority shareholder to challenge a misbehaving management without destroying the business.

One of the most important improvements in Missouri’s receivership process is the requirement of notice to debtors.  Continue reading »

Investment Crowdfunding Requires an Attorney — with Long Securities Law Experience

Joseph R. Soraghan

By Joseph R. Soraghan



The entrepreneurial press, indeed, even the popular press, is abuzz about regulation crowdfunding (i.e., investment crowdfunding), which became legal on May 16, 2016.  And according to some advertisements (primarily by portals, the businesses which will provide the platforms for such crowdfunding), the fund-raising company does not need an attorney, although it would be “nice.”  Rather, they say, or imply, small and large businesses with their portals can simply get on the internet to quickly fund their ideas and better the economy at the same time!

Do not believe either the buzz or the advertisements.

Regulation CF is Only a Small (Albeit Very Important) Part of the Applicable Law

Regulation crowdfunding (17 CFR Parts 200,  et seq.)(“Reg. CF”) though it is a sea change from (some of) the rules governing entrepreneurial finance, it is not for everyone.  Indeed, for most entrepreneurs it should be considered as a last resort only.  (See, for example, “Regulation Crowdfunding; Is it Right for You?”, St. Louis Small Business Monthly, June 2016, p. 29.)  Secondly, Reg. CF adds to the rules and required steps for legally raising capital , and thus creates even more of a need for the assistance of a lawyer.

That is, the only (albeit very important) change in the law is that now certain “general solicitation” is allowed to promote certain types offerings of securities.  But not all general solicitation is allowed.  (For example, much information which could be promulgated other than on the platform of a portal such as by newspaper or television is still illegal.)

Virtually all other regulations, statutes, laws – and judicial lore – applicable to raising capital prior to Reg. CF remain applicable and will be applied by securities regulators – and by attorneys for investors who lose money in their crowdfunded investments. The securities regulators, which have authority to prosecute suspicious offerings,  have been opposed to and wary of investment crowdfunding since it was required by the JOBS Act in 2012, including Missouri (see, for example, “Kander Issues Investor Alert on Crowdfunding.”)

With the exception of allowing (limited) general solicitation, all the law (and the lore of the regulators and courts which developed since the Securities Act of 1933) still applies to all offerings, including crowdfunded offerings.  So do the complicated rules and methods. For example: Continue reading »

Uncertainty Regarding the Department of Labor’s Salary and Overtime Regulations

Brian C. Zaldivar

By Brian C. Zaldivar



A federal district court in Texas has delayed the enforcement of the Department of Labor’s changes in overtime regulations.

In May 2016, the Department of Labor published a final rule that has caused a fury of scrambling amongst employers, in both the public and private sectors, to review their employee’s salary levels and exempt statuses. This final rule relates back to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”), enacted in 1938, which set minimum wages and provided for overtime pay for hours worked above 40 in a week. Section 213(a)(1) of the Act, however, exempted overtime provisions for any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity. This is known today as the “EAP” or “white collar” exemption. The Act also gave the Department of Labor regulatory authority to “define and delimit” those exemptions.

The current regulations concerning the white collar exempt status, promulgated in 2004, required an employee to meet three criteria. First, an employee must be paid on a salary basis (the “salary-basis test”). Second, an employee must be paid at least the minimum salary level established by the regulations (the “salary-level test”). And third, an employee must perform executive, administrative, or professional duties (the “duties test”). See “It’s Almost Time: DOL Overtime Exemption Rules Effective Dec. 1, 2016” for more information on the current regulations.

The final rule, previously scheduled to be enforced December 1, 2016, revamped the white-collar exemption by increasing the salary-level test from $23,660 to $47,476. Any employee earning less than the new amount, but still paid on a salary basis and meeting the duties test, would be entitled to overtime pay at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked above 40 in a week.

Employers had a few options to become compliment with the final rule and avoid paying overtime, most popular were: Continue reading »

Your Restaurant is Failing – Now What?

A. Thomas DeWoskin

By A. Thomas DeWoskin



Restaurants fail for a variety of reasons, from failure to watch costs to failure to develop the right menu to a nearby construction project eliminating most of your on-street parking.  If you followed the tips in my previous article, you should have some money to rely on going forward.

If your financial problems are operational or managerial, one of the things you can do at this late stage is to hire a consultant to help you tweak your menu, streamline your operations, or take any of a number of additional steps to bring you back to profitability.  This is the time to be humble, rather than arrogant – ask for help!  You should also consult with a bankruptcy lawyer at this point.  That does not mean you are necessarily going to file bankruptcy, but an attorney knowledgeable in this area can tell you what to expect if different scenarios unfold. Unanswered ‘end-game’ questions will add to your stress and divert you from your primary mission of saving your restaurant. You can learn a lot of useful information for not a lot of money, and gain some peace of mind as well.

A bankruptcy attorney also can help with your current problems. For instance, the attorney can negotiate with the landlord, either to reduce the rent or give back some space.  He can negotiate with your lender and your suppliers to negotiate better terms, or a temporary break in your monthly payments. Continue reading »

Opening a Restaurant: Plan for Success – and Failure, Too

A. Thomas DeWoskin

By A. Thomas DeWoskin



Failure is a topic most restaurateurs would prefer to avoid when setting up a new venture, when their heads are full with visions of success. However, the restaurant business is tough, and problems can arise due to circumstances both within and outside of your control.

A great time to protect yourself from potentially devastating problems is now, while you are setting up your business and you can plan calmly.

In this post, I will discuss several of the initial legal steps you can take to prepare for a potential failure.  In my next post, I will turn to the ramifications of failure and what actions you can take at that time.

First, consult an attorney to prepare your initial legal documents.  There are many issues of which you may be unaware, or that you may not know how to resolve. You need to choose an appropriate legal structure and learn about human resource issues. Especially if you have a partner, you will want to deal with buyout issues, succession issues and how to handle deadlocks if multiple owners are unable to reach decisions on major issues.  As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Continue reading »

It’s Almost Time: DOL Overtime Exemption Rules Effective Dec. 1, 2016

Ruth Binger

By Ruth Binger



Changes are coming soon to overtime exemption rules. Issued in May 2016 by the United States Department of Labor (DOL), the updated final overtime rule (Final Rule) will be effective December 1, 2016.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, unless considered “Exempt,” an employee must be paid overtime pay of time and one half of regular hourly rate (150%) for all hours worked over 40 in a seven-day regular workweek. Currently, in order to be exempt, the employee must meet all parts of a three-part test:

  1. Salary level test (currently $455 per week or $23,660 per year),
  2. Salary Basis test (employees must be paid a pre-determined salary that is not subject to reductions based upon quality/quantity of work), and
  3. Duties Test for White Collar Employees. Employees engaged in bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacities that meet a prescribed “duties test” (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative, or teacher in elementary or secondary schools or in the capacity of an outside sales employee, computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer and other similarly skilled computer engineer (“White Collar Exemptions”).

The Final Rule changes effective in December 2016 are only directed to the Salary Level Test; the remaining two parts remain the same. Those changes are as follows: Continue reading »

Best Practices for Avoiding Misleading Browsewrap and Clickwrap Agreements in Cyberspace

Ruth Binger

By Ruth Binger



Visiting a website and merely viewing its contents can bind you to an internet “Terms and Conditions” or “Terms of Use” (“browsewrap” or “clickwrap”) contract.

Website owners, as technology providers, have a dilemma as they wish to facilitate business in the most efficient way. Maintaining the integrity of their software by controlling the scope of the limited software license they are offering is essential to protecting their copyrighted technology.

Given website owners are offering their services to the world, a pressing concern is a disgruntled website user who sues via a class action in the user’s home state. The issue for the courts is how many dispute resolution pre-existing legal rights a website owner can remove through its browsewrap contract, often called “Terms and Conditions,” if the website user receives little to no notice of its existence or has no knowledge that such a notice refers to a binding contract.

If you look carefully at a website you frequently use, you are likely to see various notices in capital letters in highlighted colors referencing that your use of the website is an automatic agreement to the website policies of privacy and terms and conditions. You may not know that this means you are binding yourself to a contract. If you do click on that bothersome notice link, you will most likely notice a nonnegotiable contract that contains a choice of law, agreement to arbitrate, and/or class action waiver. Given the limited attention span of a website user, most users will not click on the link. This is especially true if the website owner has buried the notice at the very end of the page, made it as inconspicuous as possible, and does not require any action to proceed with using the website. Continue reading »

Investment Crowdfunding Will Be Legal But Will It Be an Improvement?

Joseph R. Soraghan

By Joseph R. Soraghan



In the JOBS Act adopted in April 2012, Congress required the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to adopt rules legalizing (i.e., exempting from the requirement to register with the SEC) the offer and sale of securities by small business issuers (which cannot afford registered public offerings) using mass media, to-wit: the Internet, social media, etc. Historically, both state and federal exemptions required “privateness” and forbade “general solicitation.”

On October 30, 2015, the SEC, in a 686 page release, finally adopted rules (see pages 547-686) to allow investment crowdfunding (the use of mass media to make offers and sales to non-accredited investors, i.e., persons with less than $1 million net worth and incomes under $200,000 annually). The rules will become effective in April 2016.

Supporters argue that these rules simply bring the offering and sales of securities into the modern age of mass media and allow persons of limited means to participate in the great boom of entrepreneurship. Critics, on the other hand, point out that those are the very persons who are the least investment sophisticated and the most vulnerable to financial fraud.

What Was Available Before Investment Crowdfunding?

Continue reading »