May 22, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for business law

HB 13-1206: Modifying Cap on Incentive Payments or Credits as Business Incentive Agreements with Municipalities, Counties, and Special Districts

April 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On February 1, 2013, Rep. Brian DelGrosso and Sen. Mark Scheffel introduced HB 13-1206 - Concerning the Expansion of a Local Government’s Ability to Enter Into a Business Incentive Agreement with a Taxpayer. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

A county, municipality, or special district (local government) is currently authorized to negotiate an incentive payment or credit with a taxpayer that establishes a new business facility or expands an existing business facility (business incentive agreement).

As amended in the House, the bill expands the authority for a local government to negotiate a business incentive agreement with a taxpayer that has an existing business facility in the local government if, based on verifiable documentation, the local government is satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the taxpayer will relocate the facility out of state. The verifiable documentation must include information that the taxpayer could reasonably and efficiently relocate the facility out of state and that at least one other state is being considered for the relocation.

A local government negotiating any type of business incentive agreement is not required to inform a school district of the negotiations because school districts are no longer authorized to enter into business incentive agreements. The bill was given final approval in the House on March 5.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

e-Legislative Report: March 25, 2013

March 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Michael Valdez, the Director of Legislative Relations for the Colorado Bar Association, published his weekly e-Legislative Report on Monday, March 25, 2013. In this edition, he noted that the CBA’s Legislative Policy Committee did not meet, and discussed important bills at the capitol, followed by summaries of 20 Bills of Interest (10 from each house).

At the Capitol

  • The Long Bill
    The Long Bill, a/k/a the Budget Bill, takes center stage at the Capitol for the next two weeks. This year the bill begins its journey in the Senate. When the budget is being considered by the House or the Senate, the budget discussion and process will delay action on most legislation while the budget has everyone’s attention.
  • On March 19, the House gave final approval (36-Yes, 28-No, with one excused) to CBA sponsored HB 13-1138. Concerning benefit corporations. The bill is assigned to the Business Labor and Technology Committee in the Senate. Action in the Senate will follow the completion of the budget bill in the Senate.
  • The legislation that creates a guideline formula for courts to consider in determining marital maintenance has passed both houses. The bill, HB 13-1058. Determination of Spousal Maintenance upon Divorce, is opposed by the CBA Family Law Section. The bill was amended on 2nd Reading in the Senate; the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday, March 20. On Thursday, March 21, the House rejected the Senate amendments and asked for a conference committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
  • The update for the next two bills is exactly the same: On Tuesday, March 19, both bills were approved on 3rd and final reading in the House on vote of 64-Yes, 0-No, and one excused. On Wednesday, March 20, both bills were introduced in the Senate and assigned to the Judiciary Committee:
    HB 13-1204. Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act; and
    HB 13-1200. Uniform Deployed Parents Custody Visitation Act.
    See descriptions and CBA positions of both bills below.
  • Death Penalty: two bills.
  • The House Judiciary heard hours of testimony—pro and con—on HB 13-1264. Repeal of the Death Penalty, on Tuesday, March 19. Upon completion of the testimony, the bill was taken off the table and a final committee decision was delayed to a later date; the printed calendar shows the bill back on the calendar for Tuesday, March 26 at 1:30 p.m. for “action only.”
  • The House Local Government Committee heard hours of testimony—pro and con—on HB 1270. Refer Repeal Of Death Penalty To Citizen Vote, on Wednesday, March 20. Upon completion of the testimony, the bill was taken off the table and a final committee decision was delayed to a later date; the printed calendar does not have the bill listed.
  • On Thursday, March 21, the House Judiciary Committee gave its unanimous approval (9–0 with 2 excused) of the CBA-sponsored Probate Code Omnibus bill. The bill, SB 13-77. Concerning certain provisions of the Colorado Probate Code, is this year’s Trusts and Estates section continuing effort to seek out new amendments and boldly go where the Probate Code has never gone before. The bill next moves to the floor of the House for consideration on 2nd Reading.
  • Civil Unions signed into law.
    On Thursday, March 21, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed SB 13-11. Concerning authorization of civil unions at a packed bill-signing ceremony at History Colorado. The final text of the new act is available online.
  • Note: The vast majority of the act is effective on May 1, 2013.
  • To prepare practitioners for the new law, CBA CLE has planned a full day program on Saturday, May 1—the morning session is devoted to Family Law (Title 14 and Title 19 actions) and the afternoon session will have a Trust & Estate and Elder Law focus.
Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Contractual Provisions Barred Tort Claims Under Economic Loss Rule

March 21, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Engemen Enterprises, LLC v. Tolin Mechanical Systems Co. on Thursday, March 14, 2013.

Economic Loss Rule—Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff Engeman Enterprises, LLC appealed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Tolin Mechanical Systems Company. The judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff operates a cold storage facility that is cooled by an ammonia-charged cooling system. Defendant designs, installs, maintains, and repairs cooling systems. On June 27, 2008, high oil temperatures compromised plaintiff’s cooling system. Defendant inspected the system and recommended adding ammonia to lower the temperature. While defendant began this work,plaintiff’s representatives signed a Service Report and a Refrigeration Report, which stated defendant would perform its work in a “prudent and workmanlike manner” and disclaimed defendant’s liability beyond repairing issues caused by defective workmanship.

Instead of transferring ammonia from a tank into the cooling system, defendant’s employee mistakenly caused ammonia from the cooling system to flow out into the tank. The tank overfilled and exploded, permeating the facility with ammonia and resulting in cleanup costs, repair costs, and lost profits totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Plaintiff alleged claims for negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent supervision, but not breach of contract. Defendant moved for summary judgment, and the district court concluded that the parties were bound by the contracts and the duty of care agreed to therein. Consequently, the court entered summary judgment on plaintiff’s tort claims because they were barred by the economic loss rule. In addition, the trial court found that the willful and wanton conduct of defendant did not affect the application of the economic loss rule, because plaintiff did not assert a claim for willful and wanton breach of contract. Summary judgment was entered in favor of defendant on all of plaintiff’s claims.

On appeal, plaintiff argued its tort claims were not barred by the economic loss rule because: (1) defendant owed it an independent duty of care to safely handle ammonia; (2) the damage that its facility sustained was physical harm to property and not “economic loss”; (3) defendant owed it an independent duty of care to supervise and train the employees handling ammonia; (4) the economic loss rule should not apply to service contracts; and (5) defendant’s allegedly willful and wanton tortuous conduct precludes application of the economic loss rule. The Court of Appeals rejected all these arguments.

A party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law. The Court stated that the inquiry is to be focused on the “duty” issue.

The Court first found that contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant did not owe plaintiff an independent duty of care beyond its contractual duty to safely handle the ammonia. The Court came to this conclusion after analyzing three factors, (1) whether the relief sought in negligence is the same as the contractual relief; (2) whether there is a recognized common law duty of care in negligence; and (3) whether the negligence duty differs in any way from the contractual duty.

The Court found that the damages that could have been recovered under a tort claim of negligence and a breach of contract claim were identical. The limitation of liability clause did not alter the Court’s analysis because it could apply equally to contract and tort actions. If plaintiff had alleged willful and wanton breach of contract, it might have defeated the limitation of liability clause. Most important in finding the application of the economic loss rule appropriate was the fact of the limitation of liability clause was contractually agreed to by the parties. This demonstrated that the parties could have had a remedy in contract for such damages if they had not chosen to limit it.

Thus, the first factor weighed in favor of finding no independent duty of care. The Court found that because there was a duty of reasonable care in handling a hazardous substance, the second factor weighed in favor of finding an independent duty of care. The Court found the third factor weighed against finding an independent duty of care, because the common law duty of care was the same as the contractual duty and, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, there was no higher tort duty imposed on the handling of a hazardous substance. In essence, the highest standard of care in handling ammonia is precisely the type of care a reasonable person would exercise. In sum, the Court found that defendant owed plaintiff a common law duty of care in negligence, that the duty did not differ from the duty defendant owed plaintiff under the contract, and a breach of that duty would allow the same recovery under both tort and contract law.

Plaintiff argued that the economic loss rule was inapplicable because the damage was to plaintiff’s property. Because the Court had concluded there was no independent duty here, it made no difference whether the damages sought were for property damage.

Plaintiff contended that its claim for negligent supervision was not barred by the economic loss rule because defendant’s common law duty to properly supervise its employees is separate from its contractual obligations to plaintiff. Again, the Court found no difference between the duty of reasonable care defendant owed plaintiff under the contract and defendant’s common law duty of reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff from its employees’ conduct.

Plaintiff requested that the Court abolish the economic loss rule as it pertains to service contracts. The Court refused to depart from binding Colorado precedent to the contrary.

Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the economic loss rule should not bar recovery in tort when a defendant commits willful and wanton conduct. Because proof of such conduct is sufficient to defeat a limitation-of-liability clause in both contract and tort, the Court saw no reason that it should prevent application of the economic loss rule. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

HB 13-1193: Creation of the Advanced Industries Export Acceleration Program

March 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On February 1, 2013, Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp and Sen. Cheri Jahn introduced HB 13-1193 - Concerning the Creation of the Advanced Industries Export Acceleration Program. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill creates the advanced industries export acceleration program to be administered by the Colorado international trade office (office). The program, which lasts for five years, is for the benefit of the advanced industries. The advanced industries are advanced manufacturing, aerospace, bioscience, electronics, energy and natural resources, infrastructure engineering, and information technology. The program consists of international export development expense reimbursement, export training, and global network consultation.

Under the first part of the program, the office may reimburse a qualifying business for up to one-half of its international export development expenses. The maximum amount that a business may be reimbursed is $15,000. The office may conditionally approve an expense prior to the business incurring it and it may also establish conditions based on export sales under which the office receives payments from a business that received a reimbursement.

As part of the export training, the office is required to provide export training for businesses in the advanced industries to learn the fundamentals of exporting. The office may collaborate with private trade organizations and federal export assistance organizations to conduct the training. Examples of the types of training the office may offer are conferences, seminars, and workshops on trade-related topics. The office is permitted to charge reasonable fees for a business to attend a training session.

The global network consultation component of the program requires the office to develop a global network of trade consultants in key international markets to assist the office in accelerating advanced industries exports. The office may work with the consultants to increase its knowledge about the market and make the consultants available for Colorado businesses to access. The office may pay for these services on behalf of a business, and if so, recoup some of the fee from the business.

The bill also creates the advanced industries export acceleration cash fund. Contingent on the passage of another bill introduced in the 2013 legislative session, the state treasurer will annually transfer $300,000 to the fund over the next five years. Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the office for the administration of the program. The office is required to annually report to legislative committees about the program. On Feb. 14, the Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development Committee approved the unamended bill and sent it to the Appropriations Committee for consideration of the fiscal impact.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

Split Decision in the U.S. Supreme Court

March 13, 2013 by Leave a Comment

BNHoffmanBy Brian Neil Hoffman

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two much-anticipated decisions on securities law matters: One on the statute of limitations applicable in SEC enforcement matters in Gabelli et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 11-1274 (Feb. 27, 2013) and another on class certification standards in private securities class actions in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (Feb. 27, 2013). The rulings together present a “you win some, you lose some” outcome for securities law litigants.

In the Gabelli case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the SEC’s five-year time limit to recover civil penalties (contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2462) begins to run when the alleged fraud occurs, not when it is later discovered. The Court rejected the SEC’s attempt to graft a “discovery rule” onto the statutory limitations period. Unlike private plaintiffs, the Court reasoned, part of the SEC’s very mission is to ferret out potential securities law violations. The SEC has a plethora of tools available to aid in the effort — including examination and subpoena powers, the ability to pay whistleblower incentive awards, and cooperation agreements. As such, the Court found that the agency should not benefit from a presumption allowing further delays.

The ruling is bound to set the SEC scrambling to assess its current case load and prioritizations. Indeed, we may see a push to bring, or close, more dated cases, and a new urgency in cases approaching the five year mark. Importantly, the decision leaves untouched the SEC’s authority to seek a civil injunction, cease-and-desist order, and disgorgement at any point – even more than five years after the misconduct. Yet the staff may be reluctant to seek these remedies unaccompanied by claims for a civil penalty. Moreover, the Court did not address whether the SEC could rely on equitable tolling (that is, when a defendant takes steps – independent from the fraud itself – to conceal his or her actions) to seek penalties after the five year period. Nor did the Court address whether the ruling applies to other punishments that the SEC could seek: officer-and-director or securities industry collateral bars. Despite these uncertainties, registered entities, public companies, auditors, and other market participants can breathe a small, brief sigh of relief that there is now at least some certainty about how long a potential SEC enforcement action may be afoot.

The Amgen decision, however, is less defendant-friendly. In this 6-3 ruling, the majority held that private securities class action plaintiffs do not need to prove that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions were material at the class certification stage. Class action plaintiffs seeking class certification frequently rely on the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption to overcome a need to prove reliance by each individual class member. The presumption allows a court to presume that the price of a security in an efficient market reflects all publicly-available material information, which a buyer presumptively relied upon when purchasing the security. Although the efficiency of the market for Amgen’s securities was not in question, Amgen challenged the materiality of the challenged misrepresentations or omissions and, thus, the appropriateness of using the fraud-on-the-market presumption to overcome individual reliance issues. The Supreme Court majority rejected this argument. Rather, it held that materiality is evaluated on an objective standard, and thus raised a question common to all class members.

The Amgen decision is a disappointment to entities and individuals named as defendants in securities class actions. Rulings on class certification are important mileposts in a private securities lawsuit, often significantly affecting damages and sometimes dictating whether a case even proceeds at all. Yet decreasing plaintiffs’ burden at this stage, as the Amgen decision does, only increases the pressure on defendants to try and resolve or narrow claims at other stages of the case. The Amgen case is not a total loss for defendants, though. Justice Alito’s short concurrence noted that “more recent evidence suggests that the [entire fraud-on-the-market] presumption may rest on a faulty economic premise.” Time will tell the uses to which lower courts and the defense bar put this missive.

For litigants, the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gabelli and Amgen are both immediate and concrete. Both decisions, albeit in different contexts, ultimately address whether and how a securities case will proceed. And both decisions significantly affect the remedies that may be awarded in those cases. Yet perhaps most importantly, both decisions — whether viewed favorably or unfavorably — provide some degree of certainty in a previously uncertain area.

Brian Neil Hoffman is Of Counsel in Morrison & Foerster’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement, and White-Collar Defense Group. He recently served as a Senior Attorney in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. He now represents entities and individuals in government and self-regulatory organization investigations and proceedings; conducts corporate internal investigations; and defends shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits. He can be contacted at bhoffman@mofo.com and (303) 592-2227.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: , , , ,

HB 13-1138: Establishing Requirements for Corporations to Become Benefit Corporations

March 13, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On January 18, 2013, Rep. Pete Lee and Sen. John Kefalas introduced HB 13-1138 - Concerning Benefit Corporations. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

On and after Jan. 1, 2014, the bill permits a corporation to become a benefit corporation if it includes a statement to that effect in its articles of incorporation and also specifies in its articles of incorporation an additional purpose of providing a general or specific public benefit. A corporation needs to obtain two-thirds of the shareholders’ consent to amend its articles of incorporation to become a public benefit corporation; shareholders have dissenting rights.

The corporation and its directors and officers are not liable for failure to pursue or create a general or specific public benefit. The bill specifies directors’ and officers’ standards of conduct. A benefit corporation must prepare a benefit report if so required by its articles of incorporation, and must send the report to its shareholders. The report may assess the corporation’s performance in achieving its general or specific public benefit against a third-party standard. This legislation is sponsored by the CBA. On March 8, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill and sent it to the House for consideration on 2nd Reading.

Since this summary, the House Second Reading was laid over daily.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

So You Want to Self-Publish?

March 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

I’ve read some terrific books written by Colorado lawyers—fiction, non-fiction, and history books. Lawyers are a talented, creative group and many love to write as a hobby, writing even when spare time is limited—finding time at night and on the weekend to fulfill a passion. If you decide to take the plunge to publish a book or even several, it’s time to get serious. Getting a traditional publishing contract can be difficult, however, and self-publishing has become very popular in the past several years.

Jon Tandler, an attorney with Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, practices corporate, intellectual property, and publishing law. He works extensively in the publishing industry, representing publishers, distributors, agencies, trade associations, authors, and others as to content acquisition, contracts, licenses, and other legal matters. Jon says that there are many considerations to self-publishing, including one that many people fail to do—creating a business plan. A business plan includes researching the market for your publication, setting a publishing schedule, finding assets, and researching sales and distribution channels.

On March 18, Jon is speaking on self-publishing at a CBA-CLE presentation. The program will be a practical tutorial on several business and legal aspects of self-publishing books and other literary content. He’ll also touch on the issue of plagiarism, which seems to be an increasing problem in the industry.

So, if you’ve seriously thought about self-publishing or just want more information, this seminar will provide some critical, concrete steps to take—before you start.

CLE Program: Self-Publishing—Business and IP—Important Things to Know Before You Start

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, March 18, 2013, at 12:00 p.m. (noon). Click here to register for the live program, and click here to register for the webcast.

Can’t make the live program? Click here to order the homestudy.
Filed Under: CLE Tagged With: , , , ,

e-Legislative Report: March 11, 2013

March 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Michael Valdez, the Director of Legislative Relations for the Colorado Bar Association, discusses notable bills at the Capitol in this week’s edition of the e-Legislative Report. The Legislative Policy Committee did not meet on March 8, so there is no update from LPC.

At the Capitol

  • HB 13-1138. Concerning Benefit Corporations. By Rep. Lee and Sen. Kefalas. On Friday, March 9, the House Appropriations moved the bill to the full House for consideration on 2nd Reading. The bill will be on the calendar for 2nd Reading sometime during the week of March 11.
  • On March 8, Governor Hickenlooper signed into law, HB 13-1035. Concerning an increase in the number of judges in certain judicial districts, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation. The bill creates two new district court judgeships; one each in the 5th and 9th Judicial Districts. Although the bill was signed on March 8, the act doesn’t take effect until July 1.
  • Almost 10 years in the making, SB 13-33. Concerning in-state classification at institutions of higher education for students who complete high school in Colorado was given final approval by the House of Representatives on Friday, March 8. The bill requires an institution of higher education in Colorado to classify a student as an in-state student for tuition purposes if the student: 1) attends a public or private high school in Colorado for least 3 years immediately preceding graduation or completion of a general equivalency diploma (GED) in Colorado; and 2) is admitted to a Colorado institution or attends an institution under a reciprocity agreement
  • Civil Unions watch: SB 13-11. Concerning authorization of civil unions, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation. By Sen. Steadman and Rep. Ferrandino. On March 6, the Finance Committee approved the bill and referred it to the Appropriations Committee. On March 8, the Appropriations Committee adopted the bill and sent it to the full House for consideration on 2nd Reading. Why all the attention to SB 11? Once approved, the vast majority of the bill goes into effect on May 1. View the current bill version online.

Also available in the e-Legislative Report are summaries of 20 bills of interest — 10 from each house. Click here for the full list of bill summaries, or stay tuned to CBA-CLE Legal Connection.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Social Media Policies: Permissible Employer Regulation

March 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Joel Jacobson_pictureBy Joel Jacobson

Social media use is rapidly increasing and has become central to the workforce. Employers recognize that public information posted online is useful for monitoring employee activity and the portrayal of the company. However, new technologies result in unintended, legal consequences. Recently, an Applebee’s waitress was terminated after posting a customer’s receipt on reddit and the SEC warned Netflix’s CEO that his Facebook post might trigger securities regulations. Colorado attorneys should pay attention to legal developments within the social media context because the appropriate level of employer regulation of employee social media use remains unsettled.

Many laws are potentially implicated when an employer improperly regulates or misuses information from social networking sites. Notably, Anti-Discrimination laws (ADA, Title VII, ADEA), Stored Communications Act, National Labor Relations Act (protecting concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection), Lawful Off-Duty Conduct, and common law privacy claims should be considered. Recent decisions have targeted social media policies that are wide sweeping and impinge on protected employee action. In fact, rulings by the NLRB led large, publicly traded companies including GM, Target, and Costco to rewrite their social media policies.

The chairman of the NLRB explains that social media is the “new water cooler” and that current government regulation results from “applying traditional rules to new technology.” Application of the traditional rules takes place on a case-by-case basis and the NLRB found it permissible to terminate a single employee whose internet posts harmed the company and had no relation to protected activity. Workers have the right to talk with each other for the goal of improving pay, benefits, and working conditions. As such, social media policies should be revisited to determine whether they are too restrictive. Courts will look to company policies, procedures, and conduct so it is essential that Colorado attorneys help draft guidelines tailored to accomplish a specific, lawful end.

Employers will continue to turn to lawyers for guidance in this developing area of law. To this end, Colorado lawyers should know that employers must not access employee, online information by deceitful means. Also, common law privacy claims can be addressed with a written policy that defeats an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Finally, a savings clause in a social media policy can explicitly state that the policy is not meant to prevent employees from engaging in protected, concerted activity.

Joel Jacobson is a Contracts and Operations Associate with H.B. Stubbs Company, LCC – a national design and fabrication firm headquartered near Detroit, MI for exhibits displayed by technology and automotive companies. He focuses on contracts, employment law, and a variety of non-legal business issues. Joel serves on the Executive Council of the Denver Bar Association Young Lawyers Division and has an interest in topics impacting start-up companies in the Denver entrepreneurial community. He can be reached by email at jmjacobson1@gmail.com or on Twitter @J_m_Jacobson.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: , , , , , ,

HB 13-1084: Requiring State to Treat Previously-Licensed Child Care Facilities as Renewals When Issued New FEIN

February 27, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On January 16, 2013, Rep. Brian DelGrosso and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 13-1084 - Concerning the Licensing Status of Entities Under the “Child Care Licensing Act” when a New Federal Employee Identification Number is Issued. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’se-Legislative Report.

Under current law, when an entity licensed under the “Child Care Licensing Act” (a child care center, children’s resident camp, secure residential treatment center, residential child care facility, homeless youth shelter, day treatment center, specialized group facility, or child placement agency) is issued a new federal employee identification number (FEIN), the entity is required to fill out an original application for a license from the state department of human services (state department), thus triggering new inspections of the facility and criminal background checks of employees.

This bill requires the state department to treat a previously licensed entity that is issued a new FEIN as a renewal instead of requiring submission of an original application when the following occur:

  • The reason for the new FEIN is solely due to a change in the corporate structure;
  • The management or governing body of the entity remains the same as originally licensed; and
  • The facility or facilities are the same as those originally licensed.

The bill requires that only newly hired employees undergo criminal background checks. On Feb. 4, the Senate gave final approval of the bill; the bill is assigned to the House Health & Human Services Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

HB 13-1046: Prohibiting Employers from Requiring Employees or Applicants for Employment to Disclose Personal Electronic Communications Usernames and Passwords

February 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On January 9, 2013, Rep. Angela Williams and Sen. Jessie Ulibarri introduced HB 13-1046 - Concerning Employer Access to Personal Information Through Electronic Communication Devices. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill prohibits an employer from requiring an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through an electronic communications device. This does not include access to nonpersonal accounts or services that provide access to the employer’s internal computer or information systems. The bill also prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, penalizing, or refusing to hire an employee or applicant who does not provide access to personal accounts or services.

The bill clarifies that an employer may investigate an employee to ensure compliance with securities or financial law or for suspected unauthorized downloading of proprietary information based on the receipt of information about these activities. Assigned to the Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development Committee.

Since this summary, the bill was amended by the Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development Committee and referred to the Appropriations Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

HB 13-1042: Providing a State Income Tax Deduction to Marijuana Businesses That Are Precluded from Claiming a Federal Deduction

February 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On January 9, 2013, Rep. Daniel Kagan and Sen. Lucia Guzman introduced HB 13-1047 - Concerning a State Income Tax Deduction for a Taxpayer Who is Prohibited from Claiming a Federal Income Tax Deduction by Section 280e of the Internal Revenue Code Because Marijuana is a Controlled Substance under Federal Law. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The starting point for determining state income tax liability is federal taxable income. This number is adjusted for additions and subtractions (deductions) that are used to determine Colorado taxable income, which amount is multiplied by the state’s 4.63 percent income tax rate.

Section 280E of the internal revenue code (section 280E) prohibits a trade or business that is illegally trafficking controlled substances from claiming any federal income tax deductions. This increases federal taxable income and, consequently, state income tax liability.

The bill allows a taxpayer who is licensed under the “Colorado Medical Marijuana Code” or under regulations promulgated by the department of revenue pursuant to amendment 64 to claim a state income tax deduction for an expenditure that is eligible to be claimed as a federal income tax deduction but is disallowed by section 280E because marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law. Taxpayers eligible for this deduction include medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation operations, medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers, marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana testing facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and retail marijuana stores. On Feb. 6, the Finance Committee amended the bill and sent it to the Appropriations Committee for consideration of the fiscal impact on the state.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»
Protected

2013-05-23 12:39:44