Law firms seem to have class-action targets on backs
Class Action News
It appears law firms are wearing class-action targets on their backs over tax and securities advice.
McMillan has become the latest big-name law firm hit with a class action. It was sued by an investor in March over the tax advice the firm issued involving the Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc.
Investor Melvin Schneider wants to represent between 250 and 300 investors in a suit against Royal Crown, its promoters and McMillan over the tax shelter.
Royal Crown's mandate was to purchase gold properties in Canada and develop them into profitable businesses. It had claims in British Columbia.
The lawsuit alleges that a tax opinion offered by Mc-Millan partner Michael Friedman determined that the "amounts paid by investors to acquire a legal and beneficial ownership of a mining claim should constitute a Canadian Development Expense for the purpose of s. 66.2 of the [Income] Tax Act."
According to the lawsuit, investors would buy four units in a cell of land for $100,000. The claim alleges that under the offering memorandum, investors would put up $20,000 and provide a promissory note for $80,000.
They would then pay $3,200 in interest on the note, which would be tax deductible, and receive a $3,000 royalty payment. The claim alleges that over three years, the scheme provided investors with returns of 39.23%, 92.78%, and 34.02%.
However, the Canada Revenue Agency later rejected the proposed tax deductions because Royal Crown had not obtained a tax shelter number, the development expense was "inflated, unreasonable and unsupportable" and the promissory note was a contingent liability.
It reassessed investors and charged them penalties and interest. The lawsuit accuses McMillan of negligence, alleging it "provided the tax opinions to the promoters which were a necessary prerequisite for the promotion and sale of the units as a tax deductible investments.
Related listings
-
Miami Law Firm Joins Class Action Suit Against Yelp
Class Action News 02/24/2010To loyal users, Yelp.com is a helpful way to find and share reviews of local businesses, but some business owners claim that the website's business practices represent something closer to an extortion scheme.Miami-based law firm Beck & Lee has jo...
-
Class-Action Suit Filed Against Google, and Buzz
Class Action News 02/19/2010Law firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., Wednesday filed a class-action complaint in San Jose, Calif., federal court against Google, and its Buzz technology, on behalf of Eva Hibnick, a 24-year-old Harvard Law School student.The suit, reporte...
-
Law Firm Group Seeks National Suit Against Toyota
Class Action News 02/11/2010Lawyers with nearly two dozen firms around the country hope to consolidate their claims that Toyota Motor Corp.'s recalls have cost customers billions of dollars.P. Tim Howard, a Northeastern University law professor leading the group seeking class-a...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.