Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

Notice of FAA final rule for re-registration/renewal of aircraft

Whether you own, manage, insure or finance aircraft you may have an interest in this overhaul of the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued its final rule regarding the Re-registration and Renewal of U.S. registered aircraft.  Due to the strict timeline, we wish to share this notice with you in a timely manner.  The rule applies to currently registered aircraft.

You may locate a full copy of the FAA final rule online at:  http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf

The FAA has enacted the final rule regarding the Civil Aircraft Registry which has been under consideration for several years.  For reasons including record keeping and investigation for law enforcement and government agencies, the registration of aircraft, previously without expiration, will now be required every 3 years.  To bring currently registered aircraft into compliance, a schedule for re-registration has been provided by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Important notes:

We urge you to keep your address record current with the FAA due to the issuance of important notices regarding registered aircraft.

Aircraft registered after October 1, 2010 will expire 3 years from the last day of the month which the Certificate of Registration was issued.

Notice by mail

The FAA will issue notices of expiration via US mail 180 days prior to the expiration.  The 180 day notice will allow a 90 window to comply allowing the FAA what is expected to be timely processing of the renewal of registration prior to the expiration date.

Owners must be aware, those who have not re-registered or renewed aircraft during the 90 day filing window will receive a 2nd notice at the end of the 90 day filing window.  The FAA will continue accepting the renewal documents after the 90 day window as passed, but there is a greater chance the re-registration or renewal will not be completed prior to the expiration of same.

The FAA will issue a 3rd notice to aircraft not re-registered within the compliance period.  The notice will state that the aircraft has been grounded.

Staying informed

The FAA will post lists reporting the aircraft as they move through the various stages of re-registration and renewal.

A schedule for renewal as determined by month in which the Certificate was issued is available in the printing of the final rule.  Please see page 15 of 16 at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-17572.pdf to review the compliance schedule.

Return of Certificates

Aircraft owners who sell their aircraft will no longer be required to return Certificates of Registration to the FAA.  Invalid Certificates of Registration should be destroyed.

Online Renewal

Re-registration and renewal will be available online and by mail.  The FAA will post necessary forms at http://registry.faa.gov/renewregistration.  Please note the FAA will include a unique code on the mailed notice which the owner will need to renew the aircraft registration online.  Online renewal  is possible when no changes to registration are required.

Risk of Loss of N-Number

30 days following the expiration of the registration of an aircraft, the FAA will send a notice to the owner directing re-registration of the aircraft within 60 days.  If an owner fails to comply with re-registration deadlines the FAA will cancel the N-number for the aircraft.  The N-number will remain unavailable for assignment for 5 years.

Fee schedule

The fee schedule for re-registration and renewal is as yet to be determined. The suggested fee is $45.00 (USD)

Comments

Despite the grumbling and aggravation of countless aircraft owners, the rule will accomplish the reduction in error rate of the Civil Aircraft Registry from 36.5% to 5.7%.  This reduction in error is of great benefit to those in law enforcement and in the civil sector including insurers, financiers, attorneys, brokers and buyers etc.

Please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this final rule.

Securities Law Update: Formal Challenges to FINRA BrokerCheck

By: Vincent Lynch, Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins, P.A., and Oliver Janney, Of Counsel.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently approved amendments to FINRA Rule 8312 governing the release of information through BrokerCheck.  This update summarizes the amendments, which should simplify strategies for broker-dealers and associated persons/financial professionals (financial advisors, registered representatives, account executives) to formally challenge inaccurate or misleading information on their FINRA BrokerCheck Reports.

Financial Professionals Now Have Formal Process to Challenge BrokerCheck Reports

FINRA previously provided a somewhat informal and cumbersome procedure for broker- dealers and their financial professionals to challenge the accuracy of or update their BrokerCheck Reports.   However, effective August 23, 2010, a formal process will now be available. This will become particularly important in light of the expansion of information that will be reported on the BrokerCheck Reports later this year.

The amendments to FINRA Rule 8312 codify FINRA’s current process for disputing the accuracy of or updating information disclosed through BrokerCheck.   This is good news for broker-dealers and financial professionals that have incorrect or misleading information on their BrokerCheck Report.  However, the amendments now allow for more extensive reporting of “Historic Complaints.”  Effective August 23, 2010, FINRA will eliminate the conditions for displaying Historic Complaints in BrokerCheck.  Eliminating these conditions will result in the disclosure via BrokerCheck of all Historic Complaints that became non-reportable after implementation of the WEB CRD on August 16, 1999.

BrokerCheck: Purposes, Solutions and Problems

BrokerCheck was intended to help investors make informed choices about the individuals and firms with which they may wish to do business.  However, many broker- dealers and financial professionals have complained that the BrokerCheck does not provide a full and fair presentation of the matters reported and that investors make hasty and uninformed decisions in selecting their investment professional based upon any perceived negative information contained on the BrokerCheck Report.

Effective November 6, 2010, the disclosure period for BrokerCheck Reports will be increased to show information 10 years (rather than the current two year) after a financial professional ceases to be associated with a broker-dealer.   FINRA also will permanently make publicly available in BrokerCheck Reports information about certain cases involving  formerly registered persons who were registered on or after August 16, 1999, if there has been a final adjudication in the following types of cases: (1) the person was convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a crime; (2) the person was the subject of a civil injunction in connection with investment-related activity or a civil court finding of involvement in a violation of any investment-related statute or regulation; or (3) the person was named as a respondent or defendant in an investment-related, consumer initiated arbitration or civil litigation which alleged that the person was involved in a sales practice violation and which resulted in an arbitration award or civil judgment against the person.

The BrokerCheck Dispute Process

Significantly, the new formal FINRA dispute process will be available for both (1) complaints alleging the information was: incorrect when filed and (2) complaints asserting that the information has become incorrect due to events subsequent to filing.

The BrokerCheck dispute process is available to any “eligible party” for whom a BrokerCheck report is available.   The dispute process is initiated by completing a notice in a format to be made available on FINRA’s website at www.finra.org.  The party seeking correction must identify the information that the party alleges is inaccurate and provide an explanation as to the reason the information is believed to be inaccurate. Additionally, the eligible party must submit with the notice all available supporting documentation that exists.  FINRA will then determine whether the matter is eligible for investigation.  A list of some of the matters ineligible for investigation are included in the revised Rule 8312.  If FINRA determines that the matter is eligible for investigation, it will add a notation to the BrokerCheck Report that the matter is disputed and later will make an appropriate notation after resolution of the dispute.

For more information about this and the Securities Law Practice of Lynch & Robbins, please visit us at www.floridalawyer.com.

Our Experience

Lynch & Robbins represents member firms and investment professionals in FINRA arbitrations and related matters.   We are committed to providing our clients the most current methods for solving their legal needs. For more information visit us at finraarbitrationlawyers.com.

Vincent Lynch is the Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins.  In addition to representing Brokers and Broker Dealers in FINRA matters, his practice includes complex federal and state court litigation, and administrative law.  Mr. Lynch has over 18 years of legal experience, and served as a state and Federal Court law clerk. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1992.

A Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Update

Defending FLSA “Collective Actions”

By: Vincent Lynch, Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins, P.A.

Employers are facing a flood of lawsuits under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, claiming a failure to pay overtime, minimum wage, improper FLSA exemption status or related claims.  Lynch & Robbins knows this a constantly changing and prolific area of employment law that exposes businesses to expensive lawsuits and settlements.  This update summarizes some of the common issues raised in FLSA lawsuits, identifies strategies to prevent or effectively defend such lawsuits, and presents positive solutions on how to respond to the ever prevalent FLSA Collective Action.  For more information, visit us at www.FLSADefense.com.

FLSA Lawsuits Remain on the Rise

Thousands of FLSA lawsuits are filed annually in the United States in Federal and State Court.  Over 100 FLSA cases were filed against Florida companies in Federal Court in June of 2010 alone.  Over 20% of all FLSA lawsuits are filed in Florida.

Most FLSA lawsuits are filed as a Collective Action—where one employee or former employee sues a company seeking damages for himself and anyone else that is similarly situated to the Plaintiff that filed the action.  Attorney’s fees can be awarded to the employee and their lawyer if they prevail.

Florida Federal Judges Order Special Procedures

In response to the volume of FLSA filings over the last few years, many Federal Judges across Florida including in Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Jacksonville issue special scheduling orders to manage these cases and to encourage settlement.  One of the requirements imposed early in FLSA cases is for the employee(s) to file a verified summary or affidavit of the hours worked and amount of pay they claim they were denied.  Employers must file responses to the employee’s claims and counsel must meet in person for a settlement conference.  Some Judges require a settlement conference in the presence of the Judge early in a case.

Conditional Certification and Notice to Potential Class Members

Employees and their lawyers often ask the Court to conditionally certify the case as a Collective Action and order notice to all of the company’s former and current employees who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff.  Courts routinely allow this because the legal standard for authorizing conditional certification and class notice is very lenient.

However, employers can defend themselves from this process. Fortunately, the Court has absolute discretionary power to deny the sending of notice to potential class members in an FLSA collective action. Rappaport v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., No. 6:07-cv-468-Orl-19DAB, 2007 WL 4482581, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007).  The employer can argue that the lack of evidentiary support for a motion seeking to conditionally certify a collective action can lead to significant inefficiency and waste of litigant and judicial resources dealing with conditionally certified collective actions that have virtually no chance for final certification.

Effectively and Efficiently Defending an FLSA Lawsuit

In many instances, the key to efficiently defending an FLSA case is to immediately determine if any actual FLSA violations exist and remedy those claims voluntarily.  Lynch & Robbins evaluates each FLSA case for our clients independently and creatively based upon the particular circumstances present.  We have sometimes immediately asked the Court to stay (cease activity in the lawsuit) pending our client’s efforts to investigate the alleged claims and fix any problems.  This can greatly reduce the fees and costs incurred by both sides.  We are also able to aggressively defend and seek dismissal of any claims that lack merit and take strong action that may prevent the case from being treated by the Court as a Collective Action.

FLSA Lawsuit Prevention

Florida businesses can and should conduct periodic audits of their pay practices to catch any wage and hour issues before getting sued.  The United States and Florida Departments of Labor have useful information and tools on their websites at www.dol.com and www.stateofflorida.com.

Our Experience

Lynch & Robbins represents many companies hit with FLSA individual and Collective Actions.   We are committed to providing our clients the most current methods for preventing and defending claims under the FLSA and other employment laws.  For more information visit www.FLSAdefense.com.

Vincent Lynch is the Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins.  In addition to representing businesses on FLSA matters, his practice includes complex federal and state court litigation, arbitration and administrative law.  Mr. Lynch has over 18 years of legal experience, and served as a state and Federal Court law clerk. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1992.

Current Florida Litigation Trends (July 2010)

By: Vincent Lynch, Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins, P.A.

At Lynch & Robbins, our Florida lawyers continually monitor trends in recent lawsuit filings in Federal and state courts and administrative tribunals across Florida. We focus our research and advice to clients on the most prolific areas of the moment such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), securities, partnerships, and intellectual property law. We also track favorable developments in our other core practice areas including Commercial Litigation, Product Liability, Franchise, and administrative law cases. Lynch & Robbins has offices in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando and Miami.

Florida Court Dockets Remain Flooded

The tidal wave of foreclosure and eviction cases coupled with the reduction in the Florida State Court budget have greatly impacted the number of cases on the dockets of the state court judges in Florida. However, many Florida judges and their staff are working hard to manage their dockets and we have seen surprising progress on state court cases we handle for clients throughout the Circuit Courts of Florida.

The Federal Courts in Florida

FLSA, ADA, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and intellectual property law cases are among the most filed lawsuits in the Federal Courts in Florida–that encompasses the Southern, Middle and Northern District Courts. Approximately 150 FLSA cases were filed against Florida companies in Federal Court in June of 2010 alone and over 20% of all FLSA lawsuits filed in Federal Court are filed in Florida. Over 50 intellectual property law cases were filed in Federal Court in Florida in June of 2010 including Patent Litigation, Trademark Infringement, and alleged Copyright violations.

In response to the extremely high volume of filings in certain areas including the FLSA and ADA, many Federal Judges across Florida including in Tampa, Orlando, Miami and Jacksonville issue special scheduling orders to manage and progress these cases quickly. Some Judges, particularly in the Southern District Courts in Miami and Fort Lauderdale enter orders allowing for shortened discovery periods and setting cases for a trial date a relatively short period of time from the date the case was filled—otherwise known as a “Rocket Docket.” These Judges know that nothing disposes of cases more efficiently than a firm and early trial date.

Over 750 lawsuits are filed monthly under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other Consumer Protection Laws in Federal Courts in the United States. At least 30 FDCPA cases were filed in Federal Court in Florida in June, 2010.

Employment Litigation

Employment litigation consistently remains one of the most prolific areas of litigation in Florida and across the U.S. Over 220 employment related lawsuits were filed against employers in federal court in Florida in June, 2010 including 150 FLSA and 75 employment discrimination cases.

Our Experience

Whether you need an employment lawyer (to defend and FLSA or discrimination case under Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act or the ADA), an intellectual property attorney or are involved in commercial litigation, the lawyers of Lynch & Robbins can help you. We are committed to providing our clients the most current methods for preventing and defending litigation efficiently and effectively. For more information, please visit us at www.floridalawyer.com.

Vincent Lynch is the Managing Partner of Lynch & Robbins. Mr. Lynch represents businesses, employers and individuals in complex federal and state court litigation, arbitration and administrative matters. Mr. Lynch has over 18 years of legal experience, and served as a state and Federal Court law clerk for 4 years before entering private practice. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1992.