Ohio Enacts Law Acknowledging Blockchain Transactions and Granting Safe Harbor Protections to Eligible Businesses from Data Breach Claims
On Friday, August 3, Governor Kasich signed Ohio Senate Bill 220, which acknowledges for the first time the legitimacy of blockchain transactions as enforceable electronic transactions and creates an affirmative defense to tort actions against eligible businesses for claims relating to data breaches. The law goes into effect in 90 days. Read More ›
A lawyer’s usual task is to help solve the client’s current problem: resolve a dispute; close a loan; obtain a permit; avoid a conviction; etc. Lawyers are so task oriented that some consultants advise us to have task specific engagement understandings and send dis-engagement letters when a task is complete. For bankruptcy lawyers representing individuals in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the task at hand is getting clients to and through a confirmed Chapter 13 plan with the promised debt relief and fresh start. Read More ›
Lawyers representing creditors often compete with federal government claims against the same insolvent borrower/debtor. There are several common federal statutes that impact these disputes including: 11 U.S.C. Section 507; 26 U.S.C. Section 6321, et seq.; and 31 U.S.C. Section 3713. Read More ›
A federal tax lien arises when the Internal Revenue Service takes administrative action to note in its records that the taxpayer owes taxes – that is to say, when the tax debt is “assessed.” That lien attaches to all the taxpayer’s property and equitable rights to property as determined by relevant state law. 28 U.S.C. Section 6321. See https://www.blockchainandbanking.com/irs-liens-after-acquired-property-and-the-doctrine-of-choateness. Typically, assessment occurs when (i) the taxpayer files a return, (ii) the IRS adjusts a tax liability after an audit / appeal process, or (iii) the IRS files a “substitute return” for a taxpayer who failed to file a required return.
A prior blog post analyzed Green Tree Servicing v. Asterino-Starcher, et al., 2018-Ohio-977 (Franklin Cty. App., March 15, 2018), which advises, in part, “[a] foreclosure proceeding is a two-step process involving, first, the enforcement of a debt obligation, and, second, the creditor's right to collect against the security given by the borrower for that debt. . . . There is reason to distinguish the action on the note from the ensuing action against the associated collateral. The first claim involves only the maker of the note and the person entitled to enforce it. The second joins all those with an interest in the mortgaged property.” This article discusses what happens if a secured lender believes that quote and tries to collect the mortgage debt through two separate lawsuits. Read More ›
Foreclosure cases often proceed without participation or significant defense by the obligor / mortgagor because that party is without both any defense and any funds to pay counsel. That happened in Green Tree Servicing v. Asterino-Starcher, et al., 2018-Ohio-977 (Franklin Cty. App., March 15, 2018). In Green Tree Servicing, as sometimes occurs, a junior lienor had the motivation and resources to contest the foreclosure. Read More ›
Deal lawyers often seek to insure an outcome using multiple approaches simultaneously; this is colloquially labeled a “belt and suspenders” approach. Ohio’s Sixth Appellate District recently reminded us of the danger of over lawyering in an effort to secure a legal position. Read More ›
Internal Revenue Service liens attach to all a taxpayer’s “property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” 26 U.S.C. Section 6321. A taxpayer’s “property” is determined by relevant state law, but federal law determines lien priority. Read More ›
When does a modification to or extension of a commercial loan constitute the act of opening a “new account”? This question is now more than one of semantics. Effective May 11th of 2018, the new Beneficial Owner Rule under the Bank Secrecy Act will become effective. Read More ›
Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.07 is Ohio’s codification of the “Remedies” section of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). The first and primary remedy listed in O.R.C. Section 1336.07 (and the UFTA) is “avoidance of the transfer” that is improper under the statute. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.