Az Business Law

Builder be Aware

Posted on July 11, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Home Builder be Aware!

On April 22nd, 2014, HB 2018 was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer. The bill will amend two key anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814, the former relating to judicial foreclosures and the latter to non-judicial foreclosures. Borrowers have relied upon both of these statutes in order to avoid liability on mortgages or deeds of trust after foreclosure. On top of amending the statutes, HB 2018 also includes additional provisions to both of the statutes; the provisions serve to elucidate and limit anti-deficiency protections for borrowers on all mortgages and deeds of trust executed after December 31, 2014.
Deficiency protections for commercial homebuilders, who receive loans for the purpose of constructing new homes to sell but the homes are not completed or occupied at the time of foreclosure, will be eliminated by the amendments to A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814. Should the property under consideration never be completed or actually made use of by the borrower, the amendments also clarify that the borrower is not entitled to anti-deficiency protection.
The amendments will give more guarantees to lenders for loans to commercial and residential homebuilders, even though there has been a downward trend in underwater mortgages over the past couple years.
We have represented many home builders over the years, if you have questions about this new law give Bill Miller a call at 602-31-6899 or stop by the office at 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85253.

The Confidentiality Agreement

Posted on June 15, 2014 in Arizona Real Estate

Confidentiality agreements are common in real estate & business. Sometimes they are used to get an investor to get his ‘eye off the ball’. Or they are often viewed as routinized documents unworthy of close reading. WRONG! When drafting and negotiating confidentiality agreements you should be aware of broad restrictions on your actions. For example, in an acquisition deal, a “use” restriction can be the source of a creative argument for a seller seeking to prevent an unsolicited offer or other activity that arguably requires use of the seller’s confidential information.

In a confidentiality agreement, a disclosing party will want to do more than contractually prohibit a receiving party from sharing the disclosing party’s confidential information with others. A nonuse provision—a common feature of most any confidentiality agreement—restricts how the receiving party may use the disclosing party’s confidential information.

A flat prohibition on the use of confidential information would likely be overly broad in many deal contexts in Arizona. I think the Maricopa County Judges are very savvy. They really get business. For example, an employer likely wants its employee to use confidential information disclosed by the employer when it helps the employee to do a good job. In an acquisition, a seller likely wishes a potential buyer to use the confidential information disclosed by the seller for the purpose of evaluating the potential transaction. Indeed, confidentiality agreements are often put in place because there is a desire on the part of both parties for at least one party to use the other’s confidential information. Fraudsters will use items you give up absent these!

Drawing the outer bound of a nonuse restriction in terms of an agreement or transaction’s purpose will often track the parties’ mutual interests in entering into the confidentiality agreement in the first place—to provide some comfort and space for exchanging information as is often necessary for cooperative activity (be that exploring a potential acquisition, entering into an ongoing services agreement, etc.).

However, the analysis of a use restriction’s scope does not end there. The above example provision kicks the issue of devilish details over to the definition of “Transaction,” as is common, especially in acquisition contexts.

For example, if Transaction is defined as a possible business combination transaction between the parties (as it was in the confidentiality agreement at issue in Martin Marietta, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co., 68 A.3d 1208, 1212 (Del. 2012)), a restriction that permits the use of confidential information solely for the purpose of evaluating a Transaction could be found to prohibit a party from using that information in seeking to acquire the other party’s stock directly from its shareholders (again, as was found in Martin Marietta).

Where a use restriction is tied to the definition of “Transaction” or “Purpose” (or any other concept), as with the example provision above, the receiving party will want to consider if the defined concept is broad enough to permit the range of activities for which the receiving party might wish to use the information. (For example, in Martin Marietta, a definition of Transaction that included not just transactions between the parties but also any transaction related to the parties might have given the acquirer the scope it needed to use the target’s confidential information in connection with tendering an offer to the target’s shareholders.) The receiving party, in drafting a broad scope of use, will also consider any other activities in which the disclosing party might argue that the receiving party “inevitably” had to have used the disclosing party’s information, even if the receiving party claims it did not actually do so.

If you need one, have already signed one and want out or need one enforced, call Bill Miller of Scottsdale Arizona. He has written, litigated and enforced scores of these in Paradise Valley, Phoenix and Scottsdale for over 27 years. Bill’s number is 602-319-6899. The office is located off the 101 in Scottsdale at 8170 North 86th Place suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258.

Z’Tejas 1 vs. Zipps 0

Posted on January 24, 2014 in Arizona Trials

What happened when a local powerhouse sports bar, http://www.zippssportsgrills.com/ sued a developer for trying to add a southwestern grill known as, http://ztejas.com/ to one of its shopping centers?

The developer fights back.

The Law Firm of William A. Miller is proud to announce the developer of the shopping center at 16th and Bethany in Phoenix, Arizona used our firm to fight this case. We are also happy to state that, we won. Patrons are now enjoying their margarita’s at Z’Tejas and Zipps is licking its wounds for filing such a case in the first place.

It was a classic war. Millions and millions in valuation and cash-flow were at stake. Zipps hired one of the top law firms in Arizona and every phone call, letter, email, pleading and the actual hearing was fought tooth-and-nail. But, in the end the Court saw through the smoke screen that Zipps had offered to stop the Z’Tejas from breaking ground and it was not long before the case was dismissed.

The case was covered in the Arizona Republic: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130419phoenix-ztejas-location-opens-legal-battle.html

The docket can be found at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2012-006285

Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 if you need help in a complex case or one requires that extra effort that a big firm simply can not provide.

We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.

Landlord Liability for Tenant Acts

Posted on July 31, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If a landlord knew or should have known of activities by the tenant that could cause a danger or nuisance, i.e., damage to neighbors, to surrounding property owners, or even to a passerby, then the landlord can be held liable for tenant bad acts. See Klimkowski v. De La Torre, 175 Ariz. 340 (1993). In the Klimkowski…

Read More

No Statute of Limitation on Quiet Title!

Posted on June 12, 2013 in Az Business Law

On May 28, 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside that there is no statute of limitations for a quiet title lawsuit. 1 CA-CV 12-0258. In short, if an owner of real property gives permission to a neighboring owner to drive over their property for ten or twenty years, the…

Read More

Your Word is Your Bond

Posted on March 21, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

It’s hard to figure out why lawyers will not quote what the cost of a suit will be. While, variables do exist, your lawyer should know what these variables might be. That can be factored in. Well, the legal marketplace is changing, and companies are now demanding value-based engagements with their outside firms that create…

Read More

The End of National Century

Posted on March 15, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Just weeks before a scheduled trial, Credit Suisse has reached a $400 million settlement in litigation over the demise of National Century Financial Enterprises. The settlement resolves claims that bondholders were defrauded to the tune of $2 billion when National Century collapsed amid a health-care financing scandal in 2002 — and reportedly brings the bondholders’…

Read More

Arizona Anti-deficiency law

Posted on February 27, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

In M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller, 1 CA-CV 10-0804, the Arizona Court of Appeals said that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute applies to those who buy land with the intent to occupy the property upon completing building a home even if they do not complete construction and actually occupy the property.  In Mueller, the family bought…

Read More

Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement

Posted on February 15, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Some folks love and others hate the recent $25-billion federal-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, but there’s no getting around one huge and significant issue: Besides, prolonging the crisis, there’s a large, sink hole right in the middle of it. The hole is that if your home loan has been bought from your lender by Fannie Mae…

Read More

Mortgage Forgiveness & Taxes

Posted on December 13, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

When your lender reduces and “forgives” debt, it used to send a Form 1099 for the amount of reduced or forgiven debt. This amount needed to be included as income on your tax return. It is often called phantom income. But, because of new law, there’s a big exception when it comes to mortgage debt…

Read More
© Copyright 2008 William A. Miller, Esq., All Rights Reserved