Run by Michael Bonasera from the Columbus office of Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, the blog addresses many of the new and developing issues that seem to arise all the time in the area of trusts, estate planning and probate matters.
Be sure to check it out and add it to your RSS feed!
After spending the better part of the last six weeks fighting off one cold and virus after another, I have risen from the safety and tranquility of a big box of tissue, non-stop Comtrex and Afrin.
As the old joke goes, time to get back on my head …
The First District Appellate Court gave a good tongue-lashing to some attorneys for their fine toddler-esque behavior.
Seems that a couple appellees in a case filed a motion before the appellate court that was a couple of pages too long. The appellant, represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in Cincinnati, objected and filed a motion to strike. In the words of the Court, “Egad.”
But when appellant’s counsel went so far as to redraft the offending motion (in an effort strengthen the appellant’s argument), the court took particular note of the amount of free time that counsel has.
The kind folks at Reuters in London provided us with this latest example of the British tort system at its finest:
A devout Christian who said an accident at work boosted his libido and wrecked his marriage as he turned to prostitutes and pornography was awarded more than 3 million pounds in damages on Tuesday.
Stephen Tame, 29, from Suffolk, suffered severe head injuries in a fall, transforming him from a loyal newlywed into a “disinhibited” character who had two affairs.
He was in a coma for two months after falling from a gantry while working at a bicycle warehouse shortly after his marriage in January 2002. Doctors said it was a miracle he survived.
Awarding him 3.1 million pounds in compensation at London’s High Court, Judge Michael Harris said: “His life and the life of his young wife were shattered”.
His former employer, Professional Cycle Marketing, of Essex, had argued through their lawyers that his injuries were not as bad as suggested in court.
The August edition of Chief Executive magazine ran an interesting article (”Crashing Boards: Telling the soundrels from the fakes,” by Joe Queenan) about the rise of phonies in our society. It notes that the movie Wedding Crashers has inspired wedding parties to “routinely hire guards to inspect guests’ credentials and make sure no pranksters slip through.”
The interesting part is that, apparently, pranskters (I prefer the term phonies) have made their way into several corporate board rooms. “Some board crashers are little more than industrial spies who pretend to be directors to gather valuable intelligence for the firms that employ them. But most of the board crashers are doing it just for laughs.”
In my mind, this raises of question of liability. Directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. Shouldn’t that include knowing the identity of fellow directors? The author notes that a sense noblesse oblige discourages real directors from confronting phony directors. And if confrontation occurs, there’s no telling the result….
Quoting an retired octogenarian director, the article retold an amusing story. “There was one feller down at the far end of the table who kept rattling on and on about maximixing shareholder value, something we never, ever did at meetings. Well, the way he carried himself just didn’t sit right with me, and finally I got right in his face and asked who the hell he was. Damned if it wasn’t Donald Trump himself. Guess my eyesight isn’t what it used to be.”
My thinking is that if shareholders elect directors to run a company, the least a director can do is risk a little embarrassment and ask “Who are you?” Failure to do so may open the gate to an enterprising plaintiff’s attorney …
