We’ve been speaking in recent posts about the merger review process, as well as a recent proposal to streamline that process. As these posts have made clear—at least in the context of dealing with federal regulators—mergers and acquisitions require a lot of planning, a lot of coordination, and a lot of work.

In our previous post, we began speaking about how companies can make the merger review process more efficient for themselves. As we noted, one important way to do this is by getting in contact with the Federal Trade Commission early on in the process and maintaining good communications along the way so that the agency is able to evaluate data as efficiently as possible.

One of the hurdles business must deal with in moving forward with a merger agreement is the merger review process. We have previously spoken about this process and some of the difficulties businesses can face in complying with the requests of the investigating agency. One of the issues we have not discussed is the burden of complying with data requests in general.

The term "portability" is used in many contexts, but in the estate planning context portability describes the way a surviving spouse can use the remainder of a deceased spouse's unused exclusion amount to further shield her or his estate from tax liability. Portability first came about in 2010 as a temporary concept in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. It was set to expire on December 31, 2012, but Congress, in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, made portability a permanent part of the estate and gift tax exclusion. The current unified exemption for estate and gift taxes is $5.43 million (for the year 2015), so portability allows for a potentially very large tax break for a surviving spouse's estate.

In our last post, we began discussing the importance of careful planning when selecting the legal form one’s business will take. As we noted, this decision can impact a number of aspects of the business and its owners. The first factor we mentioned which needs to be considered is liability protection.

Building a successful business is not an easy matter, and a lot of planning and learning from mistakes go into it. Success is not always quick, either. Sometimes it can take years before a company is able to carve out a market and a brand for itself. To really make a business successful, a lot of things have to fall into place, and a lot of advice could be given about how to do this.

Much ink has been spilled over the various alleged evils attributed to the legal profession. One such evil is the adequacy of the methods by which lawyers do business. There seems to be continual debate over every single facet of the law practice, from client billing methods to the working conditions of attorneys in firms. This focus on only the methods by which we do business is a bottom-up approach, centered on technique and form over substance. Such an approach ignores and therefore fails focus on the values the firm has chosen to embody.

Last time, we began speaking about recent recommendations made by an international organization regarding tax avoidance which will reportedly make it harder for businesses to take advantage of tax law. As we noted, the recommendations raise the important question of the distinction between tax avoidance and tax planning.

In our last post, we began speaking about the merger review process and the potential challenges that can come up for companies. One particularly aspect of the review process that can be a sticking point is the period after the preliminary review of a premerger filing, when the reviewing agency (either the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice, as the case may be) could either terminate the waiting period early, allow it to expire on its own, or make a Request For Additional Information.

There may come a time when one finds it necessary to contest a will, and there can be legitimate reasons for doing so. This course of action is likely to cause emotions to run high, and it could be likely that a beneficiary under the will at issue may, upon receipt of estate assets, choose to sell, gift, convert or otherwise dispose of those assets, even during the pendency of the will contest. It becomes paramount for the contesting party, then, to preserve those assets for the duration of the litigation, if only to ensure that the estate remains intact by the end of the action. The mechanism for preserving the estate is not unique to estate administration and probate, but rather a simple and effective equitable remedy, injunctive relief. Injunctive relief effectively freezes the status quo and prevents depletion of the estate assets until all claims are settled.