Business Law

Published on: July 2, 2012

New Jersey Law That Protects Creditors’ Rights

Creditors in New Jersey should not be dissuaded from trying to collect what is owed to them because debtors transfer their assets. New Jersey law protects creditors’ rights by imposing penalties for debtors who transfer assets to prevent collection of a valid debt.

The Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1919 has protected creditors’ rights in New Jersey for nearly a century. However, in 1988 the New Jersey Legislature updated New Jersey’s fraudulent transfer laws by passing the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), which replaced the former Fraudulent Conveyance Act.

The purpose of UFTA is to protect creditors from debtors who hide assets. Debtors are therefore prohibited from transferring assets to avoid paying debts, once creditors have a “right to payment.”

Under New Jersey’s UFTA, there are two ways creditors can establish that a fraudulent transaction has occurred. Creditors can prove that a transaction was done with actual intent to defraud the creditor. However, the burden of proof is on the creditor and it is often very difficult to meet. Therefore, the UFTA also allows creditors to prove “constructive fraud.” To prove this, creditors must show that a transfer was made without exchange of reasonably equivalent value, rendering a debtor insolvent.
Continue reading

Published on: March 4, 2012

Trade Secrets in the Realm of Commercial and Employee-Employer Disputes

by Pauline M.K. Young

Trying to determine what is and what is not a trade secret is often a complicated venture. A clear example, and one of the most heavily guarded of trade secrets, is the recipe for Coca Cola. However, the definition of trade secret can be interpreted as an all-encompassing category with little clarification as to what specific information is protected.

The New Jersey Trade Secrets Act, recently passed into law in January of 2012, defines trade secrets as:

Information, held by one or more people, without regard to form, including a formula, pattern, business data compilation, program, device, method, technique, design, diagram, drawing, invention, plan, procedure, prototype or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The Act codified accepted case law. Indeed, trade secrets have long been defined to include the any portion of technical information, designs, processes, procedures, and improvements which are secret and of value to the business holding them.
Continue reading

Published on: March 1, 2012

New Jersey’s Different Treatment of Employee Arbitration Agreements and Insurance Policies is Difficult to Reconcile

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey and Federal law have established a strong legal policy in favor of arbitration. New Jersey’s courts, like the federal courts, regularly uphold arbitration agreements in employment contracts. They have repeatedly enforced these agreements and do not consider them “contracts of adhesion.” This is starkly different than how New Jersey’s courts treat insurance policies, and ignores the long-established legal principles upon which its analysis of insurance policies rests.

Contracts of adhesion are agreements where the two parties have unequal bargaining power, and the party with the greater leverage forces “oppressive or unconscionable” terms on the other. They are often presented on a “take it or leave it” basis. When a New Jersey court finds a contract of adhesion, it will strain to protect the weaker party, whether by construing the agreement against the stronger party, eliminating unfair or oppressive terms, or voiding it in its entirety.

In Martindale v. Sandvik New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that despite forcing an employee at the company’s Fair Lawn plant to give up her constitutionally protected right to a trial by a jury of her peers, the agreement was not “oppressive or unconscionable.”

An employee and employer, especially a large, multi-national corporation such as Sandvik, simply do not have equal bargaining power. There is a large labor pool for employers to choose from, especially in these troubled times. This gives the employer the upper hand. Employers can – and do – tell employees to agree to arbitration or go look for work elsewhere; this is no choice at all for most employees. Indeed, this is all the more true when an arbitration requirement is adopted as a policy after an employee has already started work and is given the choice of either agreeing to arbitration or being out of a job, despite the years, and often decades, invested by the employee.
Continue reading

Published on: February 29, 2012

Looking for a Job in New Jersey – Employees Beware!

by Boris Peyner

Employers commonly require that potential employees sign agreements waiving their right to jury trials and, instead, requiring them to arbitration all disputes arising from their employment. New Jersey and Federal law supports enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Arbitration agreements are controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act and the New Jersey Arbitration Act. In arbitration, a dispute is submitted to a neutral third-party who makes a binding decision.

Although arbitration can be cheaper and faster than litigation, it is more advantageous to the employer. First, a decision is made by a single person (usually a lawyer or a retired judge) instead of a jury, which might be more sympathetic to an employee (especially since the arbitrator will know that the employer drafted the agreement and chose arbitration). In addition, discovery of information between the parties is significantly limited, favoring the employer which has most of the evidence, especially in a suit for wrongful firing. It is also difficult to appeal an arbitration agreement.

It is important to read employment documents presented carefully. People presented with arbitration agreements should seek an attorney’s advice because courts generally enforce arbitration agreements, even though they appear to be contracts of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is an agreement that is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis by a party with dominant bargaining power. Normally contracts of adhesion are unenforceable. However, in 2002 the New Jersey Supreme Court in Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., ruled that employment agreements requiring arbitration are not contracts of adhesion.
Continue reading