South Carolina Business Law Blog

Explaining these issues is currently beyond the ken of this blog. But not for the folks on the Lawyer2Lawyer Podcast on the Legal Talk Network . I have discussed the benefits of podcasts for attorneys here and here over at the Practice and Productivity Blog , and Lswyer2Lawyer is an excellent example. This podcast episode features Mike Koehler , Assistant Professor of Business Law at Butler University and Jane E. Kirtley , the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota . Along with co-host, Bob Ambrogi , these professors discuss "the legal issues including charges, privacy rights, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , the scandal’s impact on journalism and the fate of the Murdoch news empire." Worth a listen, as are many of the podcast epidodes these folks do.

By Shaun Blake An Offer of Judgment may provide a litigant facing some exposure to a claim with cost-shifting leverage in aid of a potential resolution. However, the failure to “precisely draft” an Offer of Judgment can result in harsh consequences. Rule 68: An Overview of the Federal and State Rules In both South Carolina state court and in federal court, a litigant defending a claim can make an Offer of Judgment, before or after liability is determined, by allowing the claimant the chance to accept some judgment on specified terms. In federal court, the litigant may serve the claimant with the Offer, and the claimant has 14 days after service of the Offer to accept it in writing. In South Carolina state court, the rules require the Offer to be filed and served and allow the claimant 20 days to accept the Offer by filing an acceptance with the Court. The advantage of an Offer of Judgment is that, if the claimant rejects the Offer and ultimately fails to recover an amount le...

The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has a great post about two United States Supreme Court decisions issued late last month and addressing for the first time in decades the issue of personal jurisdiction. In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , the Court turned its attention to the question of what constitutes "purposeful availment" sufficent to subject a foreign entity to the personal jurisdiction of a state. The University of South Carolina Law Review is going to hold a symposium on October 13th and 14th to consider the impact of these two cases going forward. Details here .

On June 14th, Governor Haley signed into law H 3713 . Dubbed the “point of sale bill,” the legislation limits increases in the fair market value of commercial property brought about by assessable transfers of interest. When commercial property (all real property other than that used as the primary residence and for manufacturing) undergoes an assessable transfer of interest (as defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3140 ) after 2010, and its assessable transfer of interest (ATI) fair market value is greater than the current fair market value on the books of the property tax assessor, then the excess amount (up to twenty-five percent of the transaction fair market value) is exempted from property tax. The exemption value (the transaction fair market value less the exemption) cannot be any less than the current fair market value, and in the event the transaction market value is less than the current fair market value, then the transaction market value applies. Examples : If commerci...

Third in a series of posts discussing the United States Supreme Court's decisions addressing arbitration, in the context of existing South Carolina case law and particularly the South Carolina Supreme Court's Herron decision. Previous posts are here and here . The Herron Result The South Carolina Supreme Court determined that the prohibition against class actions found in the parties' arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it conflicted with clear language in the Dealers Act allowing class actions. Because the arbitration agreement contained a severability clause ("[i]f any part of this Agreement shall be deemed or found unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain enforceable"), the class action prohibition would be stricken from the agreement and the case could go forward in arbitration. However, the S.C. Supreme Court declined to compel the matter to arbitration, based upon a statement by counsel for Century at o...

By Shaun Blake This post is the second in a series discussing the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Herron in the context of recent United State Supreme Court decisions addressing arbitration. Click here for part one. Update: you may want to click here and listen while you read. Shady Grove In Shady Grove the Petitioner filed a putative class action in Federal District Court under CAFA to recover from Allstate interest on an insurance claim allowed under a New York law. The District Court dismissed the action after concluding it lacked jurisdiction because N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. §901(b) explicitly bars claimants from pursuing a class action to recover a "penalty" such as statutory interest. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision in a plurality decision, holding that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and §901(b) conflicted, and therefore Rule 23 allowed the Petitioner to pursue a federal class action despite...

The U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions this term addressing “arbitrability”—what matters are appropriate for arbitration-- pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (the “Act”): Shady Grove , Stolt-Nielsen , and Rent-A-Center . The South Carolina Supreme Court also recently issued a significant decision addressing arbitrability in the context of the Act. Herron v. Century BMW (“ Herron ”) was briefed and argued before all three of these Supreme Court decisions were issued. This post and two subsequent posts will analyze Herron in the context of some of the issues in play in Shady Grove , Stolt-Nielsen , and Rent-A-Center . Herron Plaintiffs brought a class action in state court against Century BMW and other South Carolina auto dealers alleging that the dealers charged an illegal administrative fee in violation of the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act ("Dealers Act"). Century moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a ...