Gibbons Law Alert Blog

NJABC Issues Order Extending 2019-2020 License Term

The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the “Division”) issued an order on April 13, 2020, extending the 2019-2020 license term for all municipally-issued and state-issued licenses until September 30, 2020. Under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (the “Act”), local governing bodies (known as local issuing authorities) have the authority to issue and renew retail licenses. These retail licenses are in effect for a one-year term, beginning on July 1 of each year. In certain instances, the licenses can also be extended by the Division through ad interim permits. The licenses for the 2019-2020 term were set to expire on June 30, 2020. The Division, rather than local issuing authorities, issues and renews wholesale and manufacturing licenses and associated permits, known as State-issued licenses, which have the same license term as retail licenses. These State-issued licenses include, but are not limited to, Plenary, Limited, and Restricted Brewery Licenses and Plenary, Limited, and Craft Distillery Licenses. Some associated State-issued permits include, but are not limited to, Special Concessionaire Permits, Sampling Permits, Consumer Tasting Permits, and Off-Premise Storage of Records Permits. These State-issued licenses and permits were similarly set to expire on June 30, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and its associated consequences, the Division found that many licensees will be unable to renew their licenses by...

Antitrust Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic is having repercussions in all sectors of the legal community, as illustrated in the prior entries in our “The Coronavirus Pandemic and Your Business: How We Can Help” client alert series. Antitrust law is no exception. The Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have put out two joint statements in response to COVID-19, one on March 24 and another just last week. Both contain reminders and useful guidance concerning cooperation among market participants during these unprecedented times. Recognizing that meeting the challenges posed by the pandemic will require collaborative efforts to address pressing health and safety needs, FTC and DOJ highlighted in their March 24 statement certain types of coordinated activity that the antitrust laws generally permit – because they lead to outcomes that are efficiency-enhancing and pro-competitive. These include: Collaboration on research and development, as may be the case with R&D for developing a potential vaccine. Sharing of information regarding technical know-how as opposed to firm-specific data on prices and outputs. Standard setting designed to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision-making. Joint purchasing arrangements among medical providers that aid procurement, perhaps of PPE, and reduce transaction costs. Lobbying of the federal government regarding the passage and enforcement of...

Navigating the Impact of Executive Orders on Shore Rentals and Hotels

With prom season and summer approaching, the COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges and confusion for shore rentals and hotels. Unlike the regulation of most other businesses during the pandemic, the regulation of short-term lodging and hotels has been delegated to municipalities and counties by the state. As a result, there now exists a patchwork of varying regulations on a county-by-county and town-by-town basis. Those who own hotels or rental properties, and thwarted travelers looking for remedies, must undertake a careful evaluation of municipal and county directives in effect for the relevant locations. Executive Orders No. 107 and No. 108 and Administrative Order No. 2020-8 Executive Order No. 107, entered March 21, 2020, expressly closed all “non-essential retail businesses” and all recreational and entertainment businesses. In an effort to standardize restrictions throughout the state, Executive Order No. 108, entered on the same day, invalidated any existing or future restriction by a county or municipality that “in any way will or might conflict with any of the provisions of Executive Order No. 107, or which will or might interfere with or impede its achievement, or the achievement of Administrative Orders issued as authorized by [the Governor’s] Executive Orders.” Executive Order No. 108, however, had an exception for the lodging industry. Specifically, the Governor granted the Superintendent of...

New York State Enacts Expansive Statewide Sick Leave Law

On April 3, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed into law New York State’s fiscal year 2021 budget, which adds a new section 196-b to the New York Labor Law to include sick leave requirements for New York employers of all sizes, and which the Governor’s office has described as the strongest paid sick leave law in the nation. Although employees may not begin to use sick leave under the new law until January 1, 2021, current employees begin to accrue leave on September 30, 2020. (As discussed in our prior blog, the State also recently passed a COVID-19 sick leave law that provides leave for New York employees who are subject to a mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19.) Key provisions of the new law are summarized below. Amount and Accrual of Sick Leave The amount of sick leave an employer must provide employees, and whether such leave must be paid, depends on an employer’s size, and for certain employers, income level. Employers with four or fewer employees in any calendar year must provide employees with up to 40 hours of unpaid sick leave in any calendar year; except that if such an employer has a net income of greater than $1,000,000 in the previous tax year, the leave must be...

COVID-19 – The “Real World” Market Impact We See To Date

Over the last several weeks, our phones have been ringing – a lot. Landlords and tenants want to know what lease obligations they can temporarily forego and what rights they do or do not have, given all that has been wrought by COVID-19, including mandatory closures, suggested closures, social distancing, and the inability to access government offices or courts, to travel, to obtain inventory, supplies, or materials, and, generally, to conduct business and meet responsibilities as contemplated when the governing document was signed. In the last four weeks, there has been much written about the lease clauses and avenues to pursue that are the most relevant to a technical analysis of the questions posed – the force majeure (a/k/a impossibility of performance) clause; the long-shot condemnation clause; the equitable theories based on impossibility, mutual mistake, or simple fairness; insurance recovery; and bankruptcy. So what’s happening in the “real world”? Here’s what we are seeing in our practice. 1. Everyone is nervous. Although this anxiety is, in large measure, due to the facts that we know, it is also clearly driven in large measure by having to plan for the unknown – how bad, how long, what does the “recovery” look like? 2. Obviously, many businesses have already seen drop-offs – in many instances, precipitous drop-offs...

IRS Extends Deadlines for Section 1031 Exchanges and Investments in Qualified Opportunity Funds

In response to the challenges faced by taxpayers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS issued Notice 2020-23 on April 10, 2020, which extends many tax filing and payment due dates to as late as July 15, 2020. Notably, this guidance includes deadlines associated with like-kind property exchanges under Section 1031 and investments in Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) under the Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ) regime. A like-kind exchange is a tax-deferred transaction that allows for the disposal of an asset, typically real property, and the subsequent acquisition of another similar asset without generating capital gains tax liability from the sale of the initial asset. QOFs allow taxpayers to invest qualified capital gains into real property or businesses located in QOZs, and to defer and partially reduce taxation on the original capital gain while potentially eliminating all taxation on appreciation while in the QOF. Under Notice 2020-23, any person with a specified federal tax payment obligation or a federal tax return or other form filing obligation that would otherwise be due to be performed (originally or pursuant to a valid extension) on or after April 1, 2020 and before July 15, 2020 is deemed to be an affected taxpayer eligible for the later due date. The Notice also lists time-sensitive actions that may be...

The U.S. DOL Issues Updated Guidance on CARES Act Unemployment Programs

Since our March 28, 2020 post, “Phase Three COVID-19 Response Bill Now Law: What it Means for Businesses and Employees,” the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued three additional Unemployment Insurance Program Letters (UIPL), No. 15-20, No. 16-20, and No. 17-20, to provide additional guidance to states on the administration of the three unemployment insurance programs available under the CARES Act. UIPL No. 15-20 UIPL No. 15-20, issued on April 4, 2020, addresses Section 2104 of the CARES Act—Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits—which provides “eligible” individuals who are already collecting state-provided unemployment benefits an additional $600 per week in federal benefits through July 31, 2020. Who is eligible for the additional $600 FPUC payments? Individuals collecting regular unemployment compensation under state programs, Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Extended Benefits (EB), Short-Time Compensation (STC), Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA), Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), and Payments under the Self-Employment Assistance (SEA) program. FPUC is not available, however, for those receiving “additional benefits” (referred to as “extended benefits” by state UC programs) that extend the duration of benefits during high unemployment to those in approved training programs who have exhausted benefits, or for several other reasons. Individuals must be eligible for and receiving benefits under the above programs in order to be...

Relaxation of Notary Rules Allows Remote Notarization in New Jersey and New York

With some banks and municipal offices closed to walk-ins, non-essential employees working from home, and social distancing requirements in place, the ordinarily mundane task of having documents notarized has become much more challenging. The very act of taking an acknowledgment requires that the notary personally interact with the signatory, verify identity, and witness document execution. This, of course, is wholly inconsistent with the COVID-19 world in which we find ourselves. Although electronic (rather than pen and ink) notarization has become more common in many jurisdictions, few states permit online or webcam notarization where the person signing a document is not in the physical presence of the notary. As a result of COVID-19, the rules have been relaxed in New Jersey and New York in order to permit video notarization in some instances. New Jersey New Jersey is utilizing a legislative process to amend the Notaries Public Act of 1979 (the “Act”). A bill designated as A-3903 was signed into law on April 14, 2020, as P.L. 2020, ch. 26. It takes effect immediately and will remain in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency as declared by the Governor in Executive Order 103. It provides that a notary appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Act or an officer authorized to take oaths, affirmations,...

U.S. EPA and New York ESD Provide Updated Guidance Regarding Environmental Work Permitted for During COVID-19 Pandemic

Within the past several days, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York Empire State Development Corporation (ESD) have provided updated guidance clarifying the standards for deciding what types of work may proceed at hazardous waste sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. EPA Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Due to Impacts of COVID-19 EPA’s April 10, 2020 interim guidance supplements the previously-issued March 19, 2020 guidance from the Office of Land and Emergency Management. It applies to response actions at cleanup and emergency response sites where EPA is the lead agency or has direct oversight or responsibility for the work, including response action work that may be conducted by states, tribes, other federal agencies, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs). At these sites, EPA will continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis regarding ongoing site activities, with top priority given to protecting the health and safety of the public and maintaining the health and safety of EPA personnel and other on-site cleanup partners. The guidance also directs Regions to consider other important priorities, such as whether local officials have made specific requests to suspend work, whether on-site workers have tested positive or shown symptoms of COVID-19, and whether social distancing at specific sites is possible. In making decisions to reduce or suspend...

New Jersey Supreme Court Allows Disability Discrimination Claim Brought by Medical Marijuana User Employee to Move Forward

Last month, New Jersey’s high court ruled in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. that an employee’s disability discrimination claim brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), arising from being terminated for his use of medical marijuana, was not barred by the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA), and that he had sufficiently stated his claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, a funeral director, brought suit against defendant-employer/Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (“Carriage”), and others, based on, among other things, allegations that defendants violated the LAD by terminating him due to his disability and failing to accommodate him, as a result of his lawful use of medical marijuana for treatment of his cancer, as permitted by the CUMMA and in accordance with his physician’s treatment plan. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and the trial court granted the motion, with prejudice, finding plaintiff was lawfully terminated for violating Carriage’s drug use policy after a positive drug test, given to him by his employer after plaintiff’s car was struck by another vehicle while plaintiff was driving for work purposes. In reaching its decision, the trial court relied, in part, on the CUMMA’s declaration that employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate...