<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</title>
<link>http://www.stinson.com</link>
<description></description>

<lastBuildDate>9/3/2008</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Frank Sebree Selected to KC Chamber’s Centurions Leadership Program]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=826
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=826</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP attorney <STRONG>Frank P. Sebree, III</STRONG> was selected to participate in the 2010 Class of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce’s Centurions Leadership Program. <BR><BR>Through participation in educational programs and interaction with community leaders, the Centurions Program prepares a cross-section of the community’s emerging leaders for their roles in shaping the future of Kansas City. Criteria for acceptance include proven career success and community involvement.<BR><BR>Sebree, a partner in the firm’s General Business Division, represents both local and national clients in a variety of business and transactional matters. These including corporate governance and formation matters, business agreements, and the acquisition, sale, lease and financing of business assets. He earned a master’s of law degree from Universite D’ Aix-Marseille, in 2002, his juris doctorate from George Washington University in 1998, and a bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College in 1993.<BR><BR><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG><BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in nine offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Washington, D.C.
<P></P>
<P><BR>&nbsp;</P>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 2 Sep 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Gerald Zafft Reappointed to Midwest Special Needs Trust Board]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=823
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=823</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP attorney <STRONG>Gerald (Jerry) Zafft</STRONG> was 
recently reappointed by Missouri Governor Matt Blunt to the Board of Trustees 
for the Midwest Special Needs Trust. His reappointment is subject to Senate 
confirmation for a term ending Oct. 25, 2010. <BR><BR>In addition to sitting on the 
board, Zafft helped to create and write the Midwest Special Needs Trust 
(formerly Missouri Family Trust). This trust is nationally recognized for its 
innovative approach permitting a family to provide for their loved one’s 
benefit, without jeopardizing his or her eligibility for government entitlement 
funding. It provides services to hundreds of families in Missouri and other 
Midwestern states. <BR><BR>In addition to Zafft’s considerable experience in estate 
planning, he concentrates his practice on corporate and tax matters as well as 
mergers and acquisitions. Other boards he serves on include Rainbow Village, 
Woodhaven, and Project, Inc. He has also served on the Missouri State Health 
Commission.<bR><BR><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG><BR>Stinson 
Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 
attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, 
transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in nine offices throughout 
five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. 
Office locations include Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; 
Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Washington, 
D.C.<BR>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stinson Morrison Hecker Represents Senator Koster in Recount of Missouri Attorney General Primary Election]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=818
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=818</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Senator Chris Koster, Democratic nominee for Missouri Attorney General, has retained <STRONG>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG> to represent him and his campaign in an election recount requested by State Representative Margaret Donnelly. In the Democratic primary for attorney general, official results certified by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan show that Koster defeated Donnelly by 780 votes out of roughly 346,000 votes cast. <BR><BR>“A recount is unlikely to change the outcome of this primary. The Secretary of State and the local election authorities in Missouri did a wonderful job running this election. We are confident that Koster’s victory will remain intact. However, we respect Margaret Donnelly’s right to request a recount,” said Chuck Hatfield, the Stinson attorney who is representing Koster. <BR><BR>Stinson has a government solutions group with significant experience in legislative actions, administrative proceedings, government contracting, investigations and rule marking. Stinson has been very active in election law issues, including representing a candidate for state representative who successfully challenged the repeal of Missouri’s campaign finance laws, and also representation of the coalition that succeeded in a ballot initiative to protect stem cell research in Missouri. During the 2008 election cycle, Stinson also is representing the Yes for Schools First Coalition in its efforts to generate additional revenue for schools through an initiative petition to increase casino taxes and raise Missouri’s casino loss limits. <BR><BR>Stinson team members have a long and proud tradition of government service. Several Stinson attorneys have served in high ranking government positions, including former chiefs of staff to the governor and attorney general of Missouri. <BR><BR>“By utilizing our firm, it allows Koster to focus on his campaign and the November election,” Hatfield said. <BR><BR><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG><BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country's largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Washington D.C.<BR>&nbsp;<BR>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Mon, 25 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[<EM>St. Louis Business Journal</EM> Selects Stinson Attorney Jamie Boyer to 30 Under 30 List]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=791
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=791</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<STRONG>Jamie L. Boyer</STRONG>, an associate with Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, has been recognized as one of the <EM>St. Louis Business Journal’s</EM> 30 under 30.&nbsp;The list honors young professionals who are the next generation of business leaders in the St. Louis area.&nbsp; <BR><BR>As a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Division, Boyer represents clients in a variety of complex and commercial claims in both Missouri and Illinois. Additionally, she is actively involved in a case challenging the adequacy of public education in South Dakota and New Hampshire.<BR><BR>Outside of Boyer’s legal practice, she is active in a number of community organizations including AmeriCorps St. Louis, Women Lawyers Association of Greater St. Louis and CASA St. Louis County.&nbsp;She also volunteers as an attorney coach with the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis High School Mock Trial Program. Boyer received her juris doctorate from the University of Illinois in 2003 and graduated from DePauw University in 2000. <BR><BR><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP<BR></STRONG>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than&nbsp;360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Phoenix, Ariz.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington, D.C. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tracey M. Ohm Joins Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=787
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=787</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Stinson Morrison Hecker announces the addition of <STRONG>Tracey M. Ohm</STRONG> as an associate in the Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights Division.&nbsp;Ohm earned her juris doctorate from Washington University in 2007. She received her master’s degree in business administration from Grand Valley State University in 2000 and a bachelor’s degree in Spanish from the university in 1999. During law school,&nbsp;Ohm interned for the Honorable Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 
<P></P>
<P><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP<BR></STRONG>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington, D.C. </P>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Wed, 9 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Penny Slicer Named to IP Law and Businesses "Top 50 Under 45"]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=768
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=768</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><STRONG>Penny R. Slicer</STRONG>, a partner at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP was named to <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">IP Law and Businesses</I> “Top 50 Under 45”.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>The list was published in their May issue and honors the top IP attorneys under the age of&nbsp;45.</P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt">Penny Slicer is a registered patent attorney with Stinson and serves as<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>general IP counsel to a wide range of companies in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Midwest</st1:place> advising on all aspects of intellectual property issues.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Her practice encompasses a broad range of chemical, biochemical, mechanical and software inventions including pharmaceuticals and veterinary products, water treatments, industrial processes, coatings, surfactants, office products, sporting goods and web based business methods. </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt">Slicer received her juris doctorate from the <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of Missouri- Kansas City and her Bachelors degree from School of the Ozarks <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">cum laude</I>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP<BR></STRONG>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>With attorneys in nine offices throughout five states, the firm had experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Office locations include <st1:City w:st="on">Kansas City</st1:City>, <st1:City w:st="on">St. Louis</st1:City> and <st1:City w:st="on">Jefferson City</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">Mo.</st1:State>; <st1:City w:st="on">Overland Park</st1:City> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Wichita</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">Kan.</st1:State></st1:place>; Omaha, Neb.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit them online at stinson.com.</P>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Michael J. Gilley Joins Stinson]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=760
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=760</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<P><STRONG>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG> announces the addition of <STRONG>Michael J. Gilley</STRONG> as an associate&nbsp; to its Kansas City office.&nbsp; Gilley joins the Employee Benefits Group.&nbsp; Prior to joining Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Michael was an associate in a southwest Missouri firm for three years where he gained experience in estate planning, litigation, business law and real estate.<BR></P>
<P>Gilley earned a juris doctorate degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City in 2004 and a bachelors degree magna cum laude from Arizona State University in 2000. In 2008 Gilley received LL.M. in Taxation from Northwestern University School of Law.<BR></P>
<P><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG><BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Phoenix, Ariz.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit them online at <A href="http://www.stinson.com">www.stinson.com</A>.<BR></P>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Thu, 12 Jun 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stinson Announces Seven New Partners]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=759
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=759</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP announces the election of seven new partners in their Kansas City and Phoenix offices. <BR><BR><B>Christian C.M. Beams</B> concentrates his practice on complex business disputes and has litigated large, multi-party cases in both state and federal court. He has represented clients in a large variety of commercial areas, including shareholder disputes, breach of contract, common law and securities fraud, tax appeals, wrongful termination and other employment issues, products liability, collections, and judgment enforcement actions. Beams has also represented debtors and creditors in numerous bankruptcy proceedings. He received his juris doctorate from Indiana University and his bachelor’s degree <I>magna cum laude</I> from Arizona State University. <BR><BR><B>Michael E. Callahan</B> joined Stinson in 2008 and concentrates his practice in the areas of construction law, construction and business litigation, and arbitration. He received his juris doctorate <I>magna cum laude</I> from Washburn University and his bachelor’s degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point.<BR><BR><B>Scott D. Claassen</B> concentrates his practice in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, public and exempt offerings of securities and securities law compliance. He has drafted and negotiated agreements for stock and asset acquisitions and mergers. Claassen also has represented public and private companies in mergers and acquisitions, general corporate law and securities law compliance. He received his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School and his M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He received his bachelor's degree from Kansas State University <I>magna cum laude</I>.<BR><BR><B>Russell J. Keller</B> is a member of the Class Action &amp; Complex Litigation Group and focuses on securities, antitrust, and other commercial litigation. Keller previously served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable John F. Grady on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Honorable Mary Beck Briscoe on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He received his juris doctorate <I>cum laude</I> from the Northwestern University School of Law. Keller received a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree <I>with distinction</I> from Northwestern University.<BR><BR><B>T.J. Lynn</B> recently joined the Corporate Finance Division of the firm and focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, securities and general business law. He has represented privately- and publicly-held companies in corporate acquisitions, dispositions and mergers, as well as public and private placements of securities. Lynn earned a juris doctorate <I>with honors</I> from the University of Chicago Law School and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Kansas.<BR><BR><B>Susan McGreevy</B> leads the firm’s Construction Law Group. Her practice consists primarily of advising construction companies, sureties, design professionals, and owners in their day-to-day business. She is listed in the 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007 and 2008 editions of <I>The Best Lawyers in America</I> in the area of Construction Law. In 2007, McGreevy was named among the “Best of the Bar” by the <I>Kansas City Business Journal</I> for the fifth time. She earned a juris doctorate from George Washington University Law School <I>with honors</I> and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan <I>with honors</I>.<BR><BR><B>Leslie O’Hara</B> is a former registered nurse and focuses her legal practice primarily on all aspects of personal injury litigation, from case intake to appellate proceedings. She has recently been involved with civil rights litigation and has also handled cases in the areas of medical negligence, product liability, insurance coverage, and professional liability. O’Hara received her juris doctorate from Arizona State University along with her B.S.N. <I>magna cum laude</I>.<BR><BR><B>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP.</B> Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Phoenix, Ariz.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington, D.C. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Fri, 6 Jun 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stinson Announces the Addition of Five New Attorneys]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=753
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=753</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<P>Five new attorneys recently joined Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP in the Kansas City and Wichita offices.</P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Kansas City</EM></STRONG><BR>&nbsp; <BR><STRONG>Todor Ozegovic</STRONG> joins the firm as an associate in the Intellectual Property &amp; Technology Division.&nbsp; A registered patent attorney, he has experience drafting and filing patent applications, advising clients on patent prosecution strategies and conducting prior art searches and analyzing the patentability aspects of inventions.&nbsp; Ozegovic received his juris doctorate and intellectual property certificate from Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology in 2007.&nbsp; He received his bachelors in computer science from Northeastern Illinois University in 2004.&nbsp; </P>
<P><STRONG>Thomas A. Simpson</STRONG> joins the firm as an associate in the Financial Services Division.&nbsp; His practice focuses on bank mergers and acquisitions, regulation, compliance, commercial lending and payment systems.&nbsp; Prior to joining the firm, Thomas was a law clerk to the Honorable Ed Carnes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.&nbsp; Simpson received his juris doctorate from the University of Alabama in 2006 and his bachelor’s degree in political science from Brigham Young University in 2003. <BR><BR><STRONG>Misty Cooper Watt</STRONG> joins the firm as an associate in the Business Litigation Division.&nbsp; She received her juris doctorate from the University of Tulsa in 2007.&nbsp; Watt earned her masters degree in rhetoric/speech communication in 2004 and a bachelor’s degree in rhetoric communication in 2002 from Kansas State University.<BR><BR><STRONG>Megan Welch</STRONG> joins the firm as an associate in the Business Litigation Division.&nbsp; She received her juris doctorate in 2007 and her bachelor’s degree in English teaching in 2005 from Brigham Young University.&nbsp; During law school, Welch externed for the Honorable Lloyd D. George of the United States District Court for the District of Las Vegas, as well as for the Honorable Kay A Lindsay of Utah’s Fourth District Juvenile Court.</P>
<P><STRONG><EM>Wichita</EM></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Megan E. Garrett</STRONG> joins the Wichita office as an Associate in the Business Litigation Division.&nbsp; During law school, Megan externed for Associate Chief Justice Wilkins of the Supreme Court of Utah.&nbsp; Garrett earned a juris doctorate magna cum laude from Brigham Young University in 2007 and a bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from the University of Utah in 2004</P>
<P><STRONG>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP</STRONG><BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in eight offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Phoenix, Ariz.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit them online at <A href="http://www.stinson.com">www.stinson.com</A>.<BR></P>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 13 May 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[St. Louis Offices Combine into One Location]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=752
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=752</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Effective May 12, 2008, the St. Louis offices of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP (SMH) have combined into one location at 168 North Meramec Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63105.&nbsp; The St. Louis office has 60 attorneys, 10 paralegals, and 53 administrative staff.&nbsp;<BR> <BR>The consolidation into one space was the final step towards integration after the combination of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP and Blumenfeld, Kaplan &amp; Sandweiss, PC in July of 2007.&nbsp; The 49,000 square feet at 168 North Meramec meet the current space requirements of the St. Louis office of SMH and allow the firm to realize the synergies of the combination.&nbsp; The firm continues to search for an office location with 60,000+ square feet to meet the firm’s long term needs and allow for future growth in the St. Louis area.<BR>&nbsp; <BR>About Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 360 attorneys representing clients nationwide in a full range of corporate, transaction and litigation matters. With attorneys in nine offices throughout five states, the firm has experience in more than 45 industry-focused areas. Office locations include Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Overland Park and Wichita, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Washington, D.C.<BR>]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[What's New]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Mon, 12 May 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Estate Planning 201]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=827
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=827</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Please join us for lunch on Friday, September 19, 2008 as Richard English, chair of Stinson Morrison Hecker's Tax, Trusts &amp; Estates practice, will review several estate planning topics, including: <BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Basic Lifetime Giving Techniques<BR>
<LI>Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts<BR>
<LI>Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts<BR>
<LI>Sale of Assets to a "Defective" Grantor Trust<BR>
<LI>Limited Partnerships and LLCs</LI></UL><BR>This program qualifies for 1.2 CLE hours in Missouri and 1.0 CLE hours in Kansas (pending). <BR><BR>
<H5>Date &amp; Time</H5>Friday, September 19, 2008<BR>12:00 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.<BR><BR>
<H5>Where</H5>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP<BR>1201 Walnut, Suite 2900<BR>Kansas City, Missouri 64106<BR><BR>
<H5>RSVP</H5>Please RSVP to Stacey Duncan at <B><A href="mailto:sduncan@stinson.com">sduncan@stinson.com</A></B> / 816.691.3450 by September 16, 2008. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Seminars/Events]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Wed, 3 Sep 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Foreclosure Strategies: Proactive Approaches for Local Governments]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=825
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=825</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Jeffrey Unger, an attorney in Stinson Morrison Hecker's Real Estate and Pubic Law Division, will present on muncipal legal authority involving foreclosures at the upcoming "Foreclosure Strategies: Proactive Approaches for Local Governments" forum. The forum, hosted in Kansas City and sponsored by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), the Federal Reserve Bank, FDIC, LINC, and NeighborWorks, is a full day meeting to provide local governments practical tools to address foreclosures. The forum&nbsp;will also include current information on the Federal Foreclosure Recovery Act of 2008.<BR><BR>
<H5>Forum Details</H5><BR>
<H3>Date &amp; Time</H3>September 15, 2008<BR>8:00 a.m. Registraion and Continental Breakfast<BR>9:00 a.m. Program<BR><BR>
<H3>Location</H3>Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City 1 Memorial Drive Kansas City, MO 64198 <BR><BR>For additional information, including registration, please visit the <B><A href="https://www.kansascityfed.org/events/08foreclosure/" target=_blank>Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City</A></B>. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Seminars/Events]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 2 Sep 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The ABC's of D&amp;O, E&amp;O and CGL Insurance]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=815
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=815</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Whether as a result of tornado, flood or other natural disaster, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown or other financial crisis of the day, a defective product, or technical violation of complex law or regulation, substantial losses routinely threaten the financial viability of the enterprise and the personal assets of directors, officers and employees. Insurance is a primary tool for managing the risk of loss. It is vital that corporate managers, beyond the risk manager, have an understanding of insurance in order to maximize its effect when the worst happens. <BR><BR>Please join Stinson Morrison Hecker on September 11, 2008 as we kick off our Litigation Seminar Series. Scott Hecht, Chair of the firm's Insurance Practice, will address the basic issues concerning the types of coverage provided under standard liability insurance products, recurring coverage issues and tips for clients about maintaining productive relationships with their insurers. <BR><BR>This program qualifies for 1.8 CLE hours in Missouri and 1.5 CLE hours in Kansas (pending). <BR><BR>
<H5>Seminar Details</H5><BR><B>Location</B><BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP<BR>1201 Walnut, Suite 2900<BR>Kansas City, MO 64106<BR><BR><B>Time</B><BR>7:30 am Registration<BR>8:00 am - 9:30 am Program<BR><BR><B>RSVP</B> Please RSVP to <B><A href="mailto:RSVP4@stinson.com">RSVP4@stinson.com</A></B> or 816.691.3479 by September 8th. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Seminars/Events]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[
Legal Symposium 2008 - For the Construction Industry]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=814
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=814</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Michael Callahan and Susan&nbsp;McGreevy, Stinson Morrison Hecker Partners in the firm's Construction Practice, will be presenting on "Retainage &amp; Prompt Pay Law" at the Builders' Association's 2nd Annual Construction Legal Symposium in Jefferson City, Springfield and Kansas City. <BR><BR>
<H5>Symposium Details</H5><BR>
<H3>Jefferson City</H3>September 17, 2008<BR>The Builders' Association<BR>3632 West Truman Boulevard<BR>Jefferson City, Missouri<BR><BR>
<H3>Springfield</H3>September 24, 2008<BR>The Builders' Association<BR>521 South Ingram Mill Road<BR>Springfield, Missouri<BR><BR>
<H3>Kansas City</H3>September 30, 2008<BR>The Builders' Association<BR>105 W. 12th Avenue<BR>North Kansas City, MO<BR><BR>For additional information on these programs, including registration details, please visit the <A href="http://www.buildersassociation.org/Services/Education/education.html"><B>Builders' Association web site</B></A>. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Seminars/Events]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Thu, 14 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Builders' Rules in a Down Market (Part One)]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=824
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=824</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Although we are currently operating in a depressed real estate market, there are several steps commercial builders can take to survive the challenges ahead. Through asset sales in bankruptcy, down markets can give rise to buying opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. In the first of a three-part series, we present tips to help your business operate while the market turns back around - including buying assets at bankruptcy sales, which may help you bring value into your company without the usual expense.<BR><BR>
<OL>
<LI>
<H5>Conserve Cash - Cut Costs.</H5>This may seem obvious, but doing it right can be difficult. Reducing expenditures requires rethinking every aspect of your business. In a down market, the goal is for the business to survive long enough to weather the down cycle, and prepare to seize opportunities as soon as conditions improve. The rule of thumb is that you need to be able to operate twice as long on half the cash. Reduce overhead operating expense every place you can. Common expenses that can be cut include:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>
<H3>Staff:</H3>Most businesses can operate just as effectively, and perhaps more so, with far fewer people. Experts can usually reduce payrolls by about half within sixty days without harming the core business. Work toward an efficient skeleton team. Take care to comply with WARN Act requirements and other state and federal employment laws, but eliminate dead weight.<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Office Space:</H3>Are you using all the space you have, or could you operate out of smaller facilities? Renegotiating your lease, subleasing unneeded space, or selling the building can allow you to cut costs or bring in more cash.<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Outsourcing/Insourcing:</H3>Analyze whether the services your business needs can be done most efficiently in-house or by third parties. For example, would it be less expensive to hire an accounting firm than to maintain a staff of accountants?<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Non-critical Expenses:</H3>That lawsuit that you once thought was very important is probably not critical to everyday operations. Neither is marketing or advertising in a down market. Reducing or eliminating these expenses can free up cash to sustain core activities. </LI></UL><BR>
<LI>
<H5>Protect Against Personal Liability – Keep Personal Assets Separate.</H5>Desperation often leads principals to decide to increase their own personal exposure rather than permit the business to fail. This is a terrible mistake that often takes the individual down with the company. Particular errors to avoid: <BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>
<H3>Pay the payroll taxes.</H3>This is a must. You are better off missing the payroll than not paying the taxes. The payroll tax liability is often viewed by employers as the “bank of last resort.” The problem is that you can never, ever, escape the resulting personal tax liability.<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Do not guarantee trade debt.</H3>If your business cannot pay its vendors, and they threaten suit, let them sue the business. Do not agree to sign personally. Collection lawsuits take time. Use the time to solve the business’ problems. If the business still cannot pay by the time the vendors obtain judgment, then the business was likely doomed anyway. Do not expose your personal assets to business liabilities. <BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Reconsider existing debt. </H3>Carefully consider any changes to your existing liability to the bank or lender. If a lender is asking you to increase your personal exposure, ask yourself what you are getting in return. Keep in mind that the current downturn is expected to last another two years. If the business cannot survive that long then a temporary extension won’t help.<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Do not use your retirement assets to pay company debt.</H3>Many of your retirement assets have legal protection from creditors already. If you have to consider a personal bankruptcy filing, these assets are generally exempt and you would often be able to keep them despite the bankruptcy. Do not use protected money to pay company debt.<BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Do not cross collateralize.</H3>If you have more than one business or entity with assets, your lender may ask you to “cross collateralize” or pledge assets from one entity to protect a loan to another entity. Remember, the assets were set up in separate entities for a reason—to protect them if one of the entities failed. Cross collateralizing destroys this protection.</LI></UL><BR>
<LI>
<H5>Communicate with Lienholders – If You Don’t Ask, You Won’t Receive.</H5>Lienholders will sometimes work with you. Today’s market is an interesting place. Most lenders are willing to work jointly with borrowers to resolve loan problems. Lenders really do not want to own your project or property. In general, they would rather try to jointly market the assets than foreclose on them. <BR><BR>Operating businesses present a unique problem. Almost always, the whole business is worth more than the sum of its parts, so foreclosing on an asset that shuts the business down deprives everyone of the value of the business. The issue is trust. Does your lender have confidence in you? If so, they will almost always work with you. If not, they may still be willing to work with the business, but they will likely ask you to turn over operations to an operator they do trust. <BR><BR>
<LI>
<H5>Asset Sales in Bankruptcy - Watch for Bargains.</H5>In Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, an appointed trustee, who is not related to the bankrupt company, arranges to sell all assets that have any apparent equity and distribute the net proceeds to the company’s creditors. Even if the case is a Chapter 11 reorganization, the debtor frequently has to sell assets as it tries to reorganize. Most bankruptcy cases are simply a forum to sell assets. Watch the papers and trade publications in your area. Most sales of any size are advertised. The word “bankruptcy” is almost always prominent. Some particular pointers:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>
<H3>Private Sales.</H3>Usually, bankruptcy sales are conducted as auctions (often with the bankruptcy judge acting as auctioneer), but not always. If there is a particular asset or piece of equipment that you are interested in purchasing do not hesitate to make an offer. Even if the Trustee does not accept your first offer, negotiations have begun. Haggling is normal. Remember that, even if there is no auction, the Trustee will need a Court order authorizing him to sell assets. <BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Bankruptcy Trustees.</H3>You can get a list of the local trustees and ask to be put on their mailing lists for any future sales. Trustees are interested in the best combination of price and terms. If you are aware of a bankruptcy case that has assets, and you are interested in buying, call the trustee directly. Always keep in mind that it is all about the money. If you are calling the Trustee about a significant asset that you have spent some money investigating, consider building into your offer a “break up fee” or cost reimbursement provision to cover your expenses in case you are not the winning bidder. (The trustee might refuse, but there is no harm in asking.) Some, but not all, trustees are lawyers. However, you do not need a lawyer to do a simple asset purchase in most bankruptcy cases. <BR><BR>
<LI>
<H3>Show Up and Bring Your Money.</H3>Whether a sale is advertised as an auction or is a Court hearing to approve a deal you’ve reached with the Trustee, if you want to be the successful bidder, you should show up. Many times the sales are not well attended; sometimes they are attended by surprise bidders. Even when a sale is conducted in the court the judge will almost always ask if there are any other interested parties in the courtroom who want to bid, since the judge’s primary interest is to increase the cash in the bankruptcy estate. As a buyer, so long as you have authority to act for your company or enterprise, and the court is satisfied, you can bid without a lawyer. There may be time limits on closing the purchase or other conditions, but the court or trustee will explain these and ask if you or your company agree to the deadlines. </LI></UL></LI></OL><BR>
<H5>Conclusion</H5>Although the market has fallen, the preceding tips can help your business make it through to better times. Reducing expenses on non-critical elements can not only help your business survive, it may put you in a position to add value by purchasing a less fortunate business’ assets from a bankruptcy asset sale. <BR><BR>
<HR>
<BR>Stinson Morrison Hecker's Bankruptcy &amp; Creditors' Rights e-Alert is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute a legal opinion or legal advice. Please consult an attorney about specific concerns in this area. For further information regarding this e-alert, contact Marc Albert (202) 728-3020, Alisa Lacey (602) 212-8628, Katherine Sutcliffe Becker (202) 728-3009, Chris Graver (602) 212-8519 or Tracey Ohm (202) 728-3008. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 2 Sep 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[<P>Real Estate e-Alert: Do You Need a Survey?</P>]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=822
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=822</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[When our clients consider buying real estate for commercial or bulk acquisition, the question of the need for a survey frequently arises. Clients are usually concerned with the cost and time necessary to complete a survey. Costs typically vary from $2,000 to $10,000, or higher for more complicated transactions. When land has already been subdivided or is already improved, a client may wonder: Is a survey a value-added investment, or an unnecessary expense? <BR><BR>The need for a survey should first be analyzed in the context of title insurance. It is standard in most states for title coverage to exclude matters that could have been discovered from a current survey. A survey would show encroachments on the property or on a neighboring landowner, such as fences, driveways, signs, or even buildings. Another common problem is the existence of utilities that may not be within an easement, or the location of easements that would make it difficult to make improvements. While such matters are usually resolvable, it can be a costly and time-consuming process.<BR><BR>Sometimes, title companies will accept prior surveys, or provide survey coverage without a new survey. This practice is based upon underwriting and risk assessment, and may also reflect more aggressive underwriting practices resulting from today’s competitive environment. Title companies are more likely to delete the survey exceptions in a lender’s title policy, since the underwriting risk is relatively low.<BR><BR>When contemplating the need for a survey, the first order of business is to determine if a survey is necessary in order to obtain appropriate title insurance coverage. Even if the title company will provide the insurance without a survey, a survey may still be appropriate. No one wants to make a claim for coverage and wait for the title insurer to pay a claim. It is also important to remember that title insurance may not adequately compensate a property owner for lost time or opportunity. Finally, as a practical matter, the title company may require a survey in order to provide the title insurance.<BR><BR>A survey should be prepared in accordance with certain minimum requirements. For this reason, the American Land Title Association (ALTA), together with the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM), and the National Society of Professional Surveyors, Inc. (NSPS), have promulgated the standards (last updated in 2005) set forth in the <B><I>2005 Minimum Standards for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys</B></I>. These standards, together with the optional standards set forth on Table A, can reveal a host of information that is unavailable in a title report or with casual observation. The standard ALTA survey uses criteria that surveyors uniformly follow. In addition, the options on Table A can provide information such as flood plain designations, area calculations, the disclosure of set-back requirements, land contours, and the location of utilities. Such items are not available in a conventional title report.<BR><BR>On improved property, a survey can be a very valuable tool, in that it will reveal the improvements located within the dimensions of a surveyed legal description, show all improvements in relationship to property lines, and reveal physical features that cannot be observed by normal means. Similarly, a survey may also prove useful when planning for unimproved property, as it gives the owner and its professional team the information needed to plan and plot proposed improvements within the character of the land.<BR><BR><B>What This Means To You</B><BR>The need for a survey should be analyzed in the context of the above guidelines, and with the assistance of your legal, engineering and architectural team. The cost and time to obtain a survey may be well worthwhile.<BR><BR>
<HR>
For more information about this e-Alert, contact <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2443">Allen Blair</A></STRONG>, 816.691.2744. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Financial Institutions e-Alert:&nbsp;FDIC Deposit Insurance]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=820
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=820</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[Recent bank failures across the country have fueled a lot of discussion regarding the safety and security of deposits at financial institutions. Ensuring bank customers that their deposits are safe is key to the health of our banking system. To that end, the FDIC, in their Summer, 2008, issue of <EM><A href="http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnsum08/index.html"><STRONG>FDIC Consumer News</STRONG></A></EM> (now available online), has published some helpful tips and information regarding FDIC deposit insurance. In addition, this fall, the agency will host free telephone seminars regarding its deposit insurance rules. Listed below are a few key points regarding FDIC deposit insurance coverage:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Deposits within the FDIC's insurance limits are safe regardless of the bank's financial condition. <BR><BR>
<LI>The FDIC's guarantee is ironclad. It has fully paid all insured deposits since its creation in 1933. <BR><BR>
<LI>Deposit accounts protected by the FDIC include checking accounts, savings accounts, money market deposit accounts, and certificates of deposit (CD’s). <BR><BR>
<LI>Non-deposit products, such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, are not protected by FDIC insurance. <BR><BR>
<LI>The FDIC’s basic insurance coverage is $100,000 per depositor, per institution. However, individuals may qualify for more than $100,000 of coverage at one insured bank if they own deposit accounts in different "ownership categories," such as single accounts, joint accounts, certain retirement accounts, and trust accounts. Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are insured for $250,000. By holding accounts in different ownership categories, the maximum FDIC insurance coverage that a married couple could qualify for at one institution is $900,000.<BR><BR>
<LI>Consumers wishing to estimate their deposit insurance coverage can access the FDIC's Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator by <A href="http://www.fdic.gov/edie/"><STRONG>clicking here</STRONG></A>. A version for bankers is available <A href="http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ediebanker/"><STRONG>here</STRONG></A>.<BR><BR>
<LI>When a bank fails, the FDIC provides quick access to insured funds, usually on the first business day after the failure. It is also possible to recover money over the FDIC's insurance limits, depending upon how much the FDIC recovers by selling the bank's assets.<BR><BR></LI></UL><B>What This Means To You</B><BR>Financial Institutions should take an active role in maintaining customer confidence in the security of their deposits. Customer service personnel should be familiar with FDIC deposit insurance rules, and should be prepared to speak with concerned customers about the safety of their deposits. The FDIC materials referenced above will help financial institutions prepare their employees to handle this task.<BR><BR>For more information about FDIC insurance coverage, call the FDIC toll-free at 1-877-ASK-FDIC, or visit their website at www.fdic.gov. Issues of <EM>FDIC Consumer News</EM> are available <A href="http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/index.html"><STRONG>here</STRONG></A>. More information regarding the FDIC's telephone seminars can be viewed by <A href="http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2008/fil08085.html"><STRONG>clicking here</STRONG></A>.<BR><BR>
<HR>
For more information on this e-Alert, contact <A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2905"><STRONG>Selena Nelson</STRONG></A>, 816.691.2630. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nonprofit Tax-Exempt e-Alert: Charitable Organizations:&nbsp;Are Your Charitable Activities "Commensurate in Scope" With Your Financial Resources?]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=817
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=817</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[During the Second Quarter of 2008, IRS officials speaking before practitioner groups have suggested that the Agency will be utilizing the "commensurate in scope" test when examining Section 501(c)(3) organizations. This test, which appears to have originated in Revenue Ruling 1964-182, 1964-1 CB 186, which ruling concerned a corporation organized as a charity that derived its income principally from renting office space and conducting its charitable activities by aiding other charitable organizations with grants and contributions. The IRS ruled that the organization was entitled to Section 501(c)(3) status, because the grants and contributions made by the organization indicated that it was "…a charitable program commensurate in scope with its financial resources." <BR><BR>This ruling has been cited numerous times in Tax Court cases, IRS Private Letter Rulings and IRS General Counsel Memoranda, since it was issued over 40 years ago. The Ruling itself was a narrow one, as it did not discuss Section 502 of the Code, which deals with feeder organizations, nor did it discuss the unrelated business income tax provisions, since neither of those apply to entities engaged in rental activities. Furthermore, the history of the issuance of this ruling suggests that the "commensurate in scope" test may have focused on whether an organization's primary purpose was charitable, as required by Treas. Reg. §1.501(c)(3)-1(c), by determining if the non-charitable activity performed by the organization provided funds for the charitable activity. For more information on how this 1964 ruling was issued in the narrow context of whether noncharitable activities subsidize charitable activities, see Columbo, <U>Regulating Commercial Activity by Exempt Charities: Resurrecting the Commensurate-in-Scope Doctrine</U>, <I>39 Exempt Org. Tax Rev. 341, 346-47,</I> (March 2003).<BR><BR>Despite its limited application in the past, this year, IRS officials discussing the "commensurate in scope" test have been advocating its application to colleges and universities, since such entities have little or no non-charitable activities. Officials at the IRS appear to be focused on the issue of the use of funds within a charitable organization to further their charitable activities, rather than the accumulation of such funds. Members of the United States Senate Finance Committee, particularly Committee Chair Max Baucus and ranking member Charles Grassley, are likewise looking at colleges and universities, focusing on the way in which their endowments are being spent to further charitable purposes, and are urging use of the "commensurate in scope" test in this context.<BR><BR>It will be interesting to see if the "commensurate in scope" test is applied beyond its narrow beginnings in the future.<BR><BR>
<HR>
If you would like additional information about this e-Alert, contact <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2523">Charley Jensen</A></STRONG>, 816.691.2760, <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2426">John Davis</A></STRONG>, 816.691.3252, <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2573">Paul McLaughlin</A></STRONG>, 816.691.3256 or <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2708">Wayne Henry</A></STRONG>, 402.930.1742. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Fri, 22 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Self Assessment Guide for Tax-Exempt Hospitals]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=810
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=810</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[<IMG height=180 hspace=8 src="http://www.stinson.com/files/pages/images/TaxExemptHospitalcover_web.jpg" width=140 align=left border=0> Tax-exempt hospitals increasingly find themselves front and center in a national debate questioning the propriety of the tax-exempt status they are granted. In order to assist tax-exempt hospitals in evaluating compliance with the obligations that come with their tax-exempt status, our Tax-Exempt and Health Care Practice Groups have teamed up to prepare a “Self Assessment Guide for Tax-Exempt Hospitals: Federal Tax Compliance.” Chiefly compiled by an attorney formerly with the IRS and a former Chief Financial Officer of a regional hospital, the Guide melds together current tax-exempt issues from the perspectives of an IRS audit and the financial issues and concerns of hospital administration.<BR><BR>The Guide is designed to allow tax-exempt hospitals to conduct a self assessment of their federal tax-compliance in five areas: community benefit, excess benefit transactions, executive compensation, corporate governance, and joint ventures. We strongly recommend that each tax-exempt hospital conduct a self-assessment of at least some, if not all, of these areas. <BR><BR>The Guide is available for purchase in print or CD format. To order, please fill out the information below and mail with your check for $20.00 payable to Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Attention: Carol Phillips, 1201 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106.<BR><BR>Name:____________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Company:_________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Address:___________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Phone:____________________ (Will only be used should questions related to your order arise).<BR><BR>Please indicate: Print______ or CD_____ ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Wed, 6 Aug 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Health Care e-Alert: OIG Issues Policy on Routine Waivers of Cost-Sharing Amounts]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=800
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=800</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[On July 15, 2008, Congress enacted the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPAA). Enactment of the MIPAA results in increases in Medicare payment rates, which&nbsp;are retroactive to July 1, 2008. Of course, implementation will take time. As a result of the retroactivity of the MIPAA, and the implementation time frame, providers, practitioners and suppliers (collectively "Providers") may encounter situations in which Medicare beneficiaries have paid their cost-sharing obligations using the old rates. If this happens, Providers must decide whether to pursue payment of the difference owed or write it off. This presents potential legal concerns.<BR><BR>Routine waivers of Medicare cost-sharing amounts ordinarily implicate the Federal anti-kickback statute, the civil monetary penalty and exclusion laws related to kickbacks, and the civil monetary penalty law prohibiting inducements to beneficiaries. However, on July 23, 2008, OIG published a policy (the Policy) setting out the conditions Providers must meet to avoid being subject to legal sanctions for waiving the MIPAA retroactive increase in cost-sharing amounts. All of the following conditions must be met:<BR><BR>
<OL>
<LI>Only waivers for liability for services rendered between July 1, 2008, and the date of implementation of the increased payment rate by the relevant carrier or intermediary, will be protected.<BR><BR>
<LI>Only waivers that apply to the incremental portion of the cost-share amount that results solely from the retroactive increase are protected (the MIPAA Difference). Waivers of any other cost-sharing amounts are not covered by the Policy.<BR><BR>
<LI>Any such waiver cannot be conditioned, in any manner, upon future services or supplies.<BR><BR></LI></OL><B>What This Means To You</B> A Provider is not required to pursue payment of a Medicare beneficiary's increased cost-sharing amount for services affected by the MIPAA, as long as the services were rendered between July 1, 2008, and the implementation date of the increased payment rate. In addition, a cost-sharing waiver is limited to the MIPAA Difference, and must be unconditional. The Policy does not protect any other type of waiver. If a Provider chooses not to bill for cost-sharing until the new rates are implemented, and then calculates the cost-sharing amount, routine waivers will not be protected by the Policy.<BR>&nbsp;<BR>To view the Policy, <STRONG><A href="http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/alertsandbulletins/2008/MIPPA_Policy_Statement.PDF">click here</A></STRONG>.<BR><BR>
<HR>
If you have any questions, about this e-Alert, contact <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2413">Carl Bowman</A></STRONG>, 402.930.1730 ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Health Care e-Alert: HIPAA Resolution Agreement Premieres]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=796
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=796</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[On July 15, 2008, Providence Health &amp; Services (Providence), consisting of two hospital systems and a hospice and home care system, signed a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to settle complaints concerning the unauthorized release of information protected under HIPAA. This is the first such HIPAA enforcement agreement.<BR><BR>The Protected Health Information (PHI)&nbsp;of over 380,000 patients was compromised in "covered incidents" described in the Resolution Agreement. It was uncontested that employees left electronic Protected Health Information (e-PHI) unattended, which was subsequently stolen. The e-PHI was contained on back-up tapes, two optical discs and stolen laptop computers. <BR><BR>The OCR investigated following the filing of several complaints by patients who were notified by Providence, pursuant to Washington state law, of the theft. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was also notified of the theft.<BR><BR>While there was no admission of liability, Providence paid HHS $100,000 and entered into a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP requires among other things: <BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Providence to revise its policies and procedures regarding technical and physical security (for example, encryption) and offsite transport and storage of e PHI;<BR><BR>
<LI>Training workplace members on information safeguards;<BR><BR>
<LI>Conducting self-monitoring audits and site visits of facilities;<BR><BR>
<LI>Submitting compliance reports to HHS for a period of three years; and<BR><BR>
<LI>Attestation signed by the Providence Chief Information Security Officer as part of the implementation report and annual reports.<BR><BR></LI></UL>Should Providence violate the agreement and the breach remain uncured for more than 30 days, HHS&nbsp;can impose a civil money penalty for violation of HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules for the covered incidents set out in the Resolution Agreement.<BR><BR><B>What This Means to You:</B> Carelessness in the maintenance of policies and procedures protecting PHI and in employee training and enforcement of&nbsp;these policies and procedures can have regulatory consequences.&nbsp;If the impact on patient privacy is grave enough, such neglect will result in government fines, enforcement actions and the resulting embarrassment and damage to the provider's reputation.<BR><BR>
<HR>
If you would like additional information on this e-Alert, contact <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2694">Patricia Zieg</A></STRONG>, 402.930.1714. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Climate Change e-Alert: EPA Issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Climate Change and Solicits Comments]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=790
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=790</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[EPA issued today its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on climate change. The link for the 588-page Notice is <A href="http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pdf/anpr20080711.pdf" target=_blank><B>http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pdf/anpr20080711.pdf</B></A>.<BR><BR>The Notice requests public comment on how to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in <I>Massachusetts v. EPA</I>. In April, 2007, the Supreme Court held that the EPA must decide whether or not greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or to explain why scientific uncertainty is so profound that it prevents making a reasoned judgment on such an endangerment determination. If the EPA ultimately finds that motor vehicle GHG emissions meet the "endangerment" test, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set motor vehicle GHG emissions standards.<BR><BR>Through the Notice, the EPA is considering whether that endangerment test has been met and, if so, what vehicle standards would be appropriate. The Notice is also designed to address and solicit public comment and information on a range of mobile and stationary source issues that could arise from a decision to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA recognizes that Clean Air Act regulation of GHG emissions may not stop at vehicle standards. The EPA's review has made it clear that regulation of mobile sources (such as cars, airplanes and ships) of GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act could potentially affect stationary sources going well beyond the typical power plant or factory to include large commercial facilities, schools, hospitals and residential apartment buildings. A finding of endangerment under one provision of the Act could thus trigger findings of endangerment under other provisions of the Act. Pending and future petitions, lawsuits and deadlines are also affected by the potential implications of the Court's decision.<BR><BR>Through the Notice, the EPA decided to inform and consult with the public. The EPA discusses its work to date in response to the Supreme Court's decision. This includes issues and questions related to endangerment and standards, and its examination of the potential effects of using various provisions of the Clean Air Act. The Notice provides the public with an opportunity to shape the overall policy of the United States with respect to climate change.<BR><BR><B>What This Means to You:</B> Greenhouse gas regulation may affect your business. The Notice's publication in the Federal Register begins a 120-day public comment period. The attorneys in the Stinson Climate Change Practice Group have participated, commented and litigated EPA rulemakings on behalf of businesses and trade groups and are available to assist. <BR><BR>
<HR>
<BR>For additional information on this alert, contact Mark Johnson, Practice Leader of the Climate Change Practice Group, at 816.691.2724 or mjohnson@stinson.com. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Business Litigation e-Alert: First Circuit Rules That Non-Signing Party Can Enforce Arbitration Clause in Written Agreement]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=784
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=784</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[A federal appeals court recently ruled that a party to a written agreement may be subject to its arbitration clause, even when that clause is enforced by a party that did not sign the agreement. The court’s May 22, 2008, opinion in <I>Sourcing Unlimited v. Asimco International </I>involved both an oral and a written agreement between two companies: Jumpsource and ATL. The written agreement required that any legal disputes be brought in front of an arbitration body in China. The oral contract was negotiated by John Perkowski, who served as both CEO for ATL and as chairman of its subsidiary company, Asimco International. <BR><BR>The relationship between the companies eventually soured and Jumpsource filed suit, naming Asimco International as the defendant (but not ATL itself). Jumpsource claimed that the oral contract with Perkowski adopted some terms of the written agreement, including a non-compete clause that Asimco International allegedly violated. However, Jumpsource tried to argue that the oral contract should not adopt the written agreement’s arbitration clause. In response, Asimco claimed that Jumpsource should not be allowed to selectively enforce the terms of the written agreement by suing a non-signing subsidiary.<BR><BR>The appeals court sided with Asimco International, holding that ATL could not enjoy the rights and benefits of a contract while at the same time avoiding its burdens and obligations. The dispute about the oral agreement was “sufficiently intertwined” with the written agreement for the court to enforce the written agreement’s provisions. Even though Asimco International did not actually sign the written agreement, Jumpsource sued the company based upon its terms. In accordance with those terms, the court decided to enforce the arbitration clause. This result is similar to one that our lawyers obtained in a Kansas federal court decision, <I>In re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation</I>. In that case, our lawyers successfully argued for a telecommunications client that customers of other carriers whose contracts contained arbitration clauses must arbitrate their claims against other carriers.<BR><BR><B>What this means to you:</B> If your organization has entered into a written agreement that requires disputes to be arbitrated, a subsidiary company of the other party to the contract may be able to enforce the agreement’s terms against you, even if that subsidiary never signed the agreement. Similarly, a subsidiary company of your organization may be able to enforce an agreement’s arbitration clause against the party filing the suit even though the subsidiary never signed the agreement. The court’s decision largely will depend on whether the suing party’s claim is based on (or is “sufficiently intertwined” with) the underlying written agreement. <BR><BR>
<HR>
<BR>For further information on this alert, please contact Mark Hinderks at 913.344.6706&nbsp;(<A href="mailto:mhinderks@stinson.com">mhinderks@stinson.com</A>) or any other member of Stinson Morrison Hecker's Business Litigation Division. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Thu, 10 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Health Care Law e-Alert: Senate Select Committee on MoHealth Net Provider Rate Equalization]]></title>
<guid>
http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=786
</guid>
<link>http://www.stinson.com/legalpublications/smhlupage.asp?key=786</link>
<description>
<![CDATA[The Senate Select Committee on MoHealth Net Provider Rate Utilization was established by Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons on May 29, 2008. The committee is charged with determining whether or not any objective standard can be applied to all MoHealth Net provider reimbursement rates, and, if so, how that standard should be applied. The MoHealth Net Division (MHD) is within the Department of Social Services and was formerly known as the Division of Medical Services. The name of the Division was changed by the passage of SB 577 in 2007. This same legislation also created the MoHealth Net Oversight Commission which consists of 18 members who are charged with oversight of the program and issuing reports to the Missouri General Assembly. To review the detailed statutory charge of the oversight committee, please <STRONG><A href="http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2080000955.HTM">click here</A></STRONG>.<BR><BR>MHD is responsible for administering the Medicaid program in the State of Missouri, which includes purchasing and monitoring health care services for elderly and disabled individuals, low-income families, pregnant women and children. MHD delivers services to eligible individuals through either a Fee For Service delivery system or a Managed Care Delivery system depending on where the individual lives. MHD providers must be approved and enrolled with MHD. As a condition of participation, providers agree to accept payment from MoHealth Net as reimbursement in full for services, with very few exceptions.<BR><BR>While the Missouri General Assembly did not act on any health care legislation this session (which adjourned on May 16, 2008), it is a perennial topic of discussion as health care costs increase and health care access becomes problematic in certain areas of the state. These topics are especially of concern in the Medicaid program where it can be challenging to recruit and retain providers.<BR><BR>Members of the Senate Select Committee on MoHealth Net include the following:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Sen. Gary Nodler, Republican from Joplin, Chairman: Sen. Nodler is also the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee which oversees the budget for all state programs including MHD<BR><BR>
<LI>Sen. Rob Mayer, Republican from Dexter: Sen. Mayer is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee<BR><BR>
<LI>Sen. Jason Crowell, Republican from Cape Girardeau<BR><BR>
<LI>Sen. Joan Bray, Democrat from St. Louis County: Sen. Bray is also a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee<BR><BR>
<LI>Sen. Wes Shoemyer, Democrat from Clarence<BR><BR></LI></UL>The Senate Select Committee will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, July 16th, at 12:00 p.m. at the Missouri State Capitol. The purpose of the meeting is to determine the scope of the committee's study. Further meetings will be held between now and December 2008. We anticipate that public testimony from provider groups and other interested parties will be scheduled by the committee as well. Pursuant to its charge, the committee is required to issue its report with its finding and recommendations to the Missouri Senate by January 1, 2009.<BR><BR>
<HR>
If you are interested in learning more about this committee or in providing testimony before the committee, if and when such an opportunity presents itself, please contact <STRONG><A href="http://www.stinson.com/ourattorneys/attypage.asp?key=2912">Tricia Workman</A></STRONG>, (314) 259-4579. ]]>
</description>
<category>
<![CDATA[Publications/Alerts]]>
</category>
<pubDate>
Tue, 8 Jul 2008 6:00:00 GMT
</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
