M International (“M”) and W Inc. (“W,” a competitor of M) have been engaged in long- standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Below is a summary timeline of specific events that have taken place related to this matter: • In May 2007, W filed a claim against M for patent infringement. • For the year ended December 31, 2007, management of M determined that a loss for this matter was probable and represented that the estimate of loss was in the range of $15 million to $20 million, with $17 million being the most likely amount of loss within the range. • A jury trial took place in September 2009. • The jury reached a verdict on September 24, 2009, and a judgment was ordered in favor of W. The judgment required M to pay W $18.5 million.
Jane Smith tax issues: Issue a) What are the different tax consequences between paying down the mortgage (debt) and assuming a new mortgage (debt) for federal income tax purposes? Jane questioned whether they should take the $300,000 fee and use it to pay off their house, so that they could purchase a bigger house. She is asking if they should pay off the current house first and purchase a new one; or, buy a new house first and then sell the old house. Applicable Law & Analysis: The tax savings from the mortgage interest is only based upon the additional amount that the itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction. (Military.com, 2012).
I understand your concern for the financial statements. Thank you for the questions you asked concerning the effect on your financial statements if you lost the lawsuit. You have various questions regarding the mortgage, Chapter 11, patent impairment, and contingencies in the event Fabrikam lose the lawsuit. Filing Chapter 11 does not forgive debts. Rather, it only reorganizes debts and formats them for you to repay over time.
Brian S. Camp, of Brian S. Camp, PC, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. (LILES v. DAMON CORPORATION, 2007-2008) Procedural History: Plaintiffs brought this action under ORS 646A.400 to ORS 646A.418, commonly known as Oregon's Lemon Law, seeking replacement of a motor home that they had purchased. The issue on review concerns the proper interpretation of ORS 646A.402, which
Divorce Decree Brandon D. Pierce Kaplan University PA250-02 Professor Toni Starcher July 1, 2011 In The District Court of BUFFALO County, Nebraska Patty Bean, ) Plaintiff, ) Case Number: CI 05 424 ) Vs. ) DECREE OF DISSOLUTION ) David Bean, ) Defendant. ) On the 7th day of July, 2011 this matter came on the final hearing and the Court, after being fully advised in the premises, hereby finds, orders, adjudges and decrees as follows: 1. APPEARANCES: The Plaintiff was represented by Brandon D. Pierce, the Defendant filed a Voluntary Appearance. 2. JURISDICTION: At filing, the Plaintiff resided in this county, and Plaintiff now resides in this County.
amortized over the legal life of the purchased patent. added to factory overhead and allocated to production of the purchaser's product. amortized over the remaining estimated life of the original patent covering the product whose market would have been impaired by competition from the newly patented product. 3. (TCO C) Intangible assets are reported on the balance sheet (Points : 5) with an accumulated depreciation account.
Hence, the SEC asked Kodiak Energy to perform a restatement under item 4.02 of the 8k disclosure rules. This item covers non-reliance on a previously filed financial statement and the related audit report. In accordance with the SEC’s request, Kodiak Energy put in a notification of late filing for their 2008 fiscal report and corrected for the transaction errors in March 2009. After the error adjustments, the restated financial reports showed an overall increase of 3.5 million dollars in the reported acquisition cost and related issuance of common shares. After the fiasco surrounding the acquisition of the Thunder River assets, shareholders lost faith in Kodiak Energy.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting through the Attorney General’s office brought a consumer protection enforcement action against the defendant, Fremont Investment & Loan claiming that in originating and servicing 14,578 loans, 50-60 percent of such loans were “subprime” mortgage loans on borrowers’ homes between 2004 and 2007 acted unfairly and deceptively in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A § 2. Fremont’s ability to foreclose on loans with features that the judge described as “presumptively unfair.” Issue. Whether the subprime loans made by Fremont constituted unfair and deceptive acts in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2.
The previous negotiator said this would not be possible but I currently have the file with another negotiator (KIM PSHIRER) who may be able to assist. 11-19-09 I spoke to Bank of America on 11-09-2009. The rep stated that the borrower will be able to modify his mortgage but he needs to escrow the taxes and insurance with the mortgage payment. I was faxes the documentation supporting the yearly amount to be escrowed. I called today 11-20-09 > they are processing the documentation and doing their calculations.
Professor …, You asked me to research whether Jettison Manufacturing can reclassify the short-term debt into long-term debt before preparing year 2’s financial statements. Given my understanding of Jettison Manufacturing financial situation, I assume that the National Bank let the company not to repay the debt within six months. As the company has been able to correct the debt agreement violation and restore the current ratio to 2:2:1, which is acceptable to National, it can not to repay the debt yearly. The company has already reclassified the long-term debt into a short one, and now it wants to reclassify the debt again from the current liability to a long-term one. The key words of the search are “liabilities” and “debt”.