Entries Tagged as 'Business Management/Law'

Open-source Software Doesn’t Necessarily Mean it’s “Free”

At the end of July, a federal court in New York issued a decision that put a high price on “open-source” or “free” software. Companies are looking more and more closely at ways to cut expenses, and using open-source software is one way to take advantage of software licensing without purchasing software. Open-source software, however, does not fall outside the bounds of copyright law. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not in the public domain.

CostThe software involved in the New York case is titled BusyBox. It is described as a series of small utility-type programs that are tailored for and embedded in various products, such as wireless routers, firewalls, modems, internet radios, PDAs, media players, and HDTVs. Various manufacturers use the BusyBox software and its source code to make their products work. Although BusyBox and its source code are available without charge, the use of BusyBox is subject to the GNU General Public License (or “GPL”). GPL is an open-source copyright license. Although the software is free, the license places requirements on further distribution of the licensed software. For example, if a product is embedded with BusyBox software, the product’s manufacturer/distributor must provide the source code and any upgrades or modifications available on the same terms, i.e. without charge. The GPL also prohibits licensees from distributing the software under a license that is more restrictive than the GPL. Gartner, Inc., a leading international IT firm, estimates that 85% of companies use open-source software in some fashion (Source: www.groklaw.net).

Westinghouse and BusyBox Open-Source Software suitBusyBox claimed that Westinghouse, in addition to 13 other distributors, infringed the copyright license in the software. Westinghouse distributed HDTVs that were embedded with the BusyBox software while, at the same time, imposing more restrictive licensing terms than those in the GPL. The more restrictive licensing terms included a limitation for “personal, non-commercial purposes only.”

The federal judge deciding the case

  1. found that Westinghouse’s infringement was “willful” and awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000,
  2. granted a permanent injunction against the distribution of HDTVs embedded with the BusyBox software,
  3. ordered all infringing HDTVs returned to the plaintiff, and
  4. awarded attorneys’ costs and fees of $47,865.

The significance of the case is particularly evident considering the software at issue is available at no cost. Businesses should be familiar with the licensing terms of open-source software and abide by those terms. Open-source software remains subject to copyright law and the parameters of the license agreement.

If you are distributing products that rely on the use of open-source software, be aware of potentially infringing activity if you do not make the source code and any modifications available at no-cost, and if you impose more restrictive licensing terms than the GPL, or whatever license the open-source software is subject. The GPL is not that difficult to comply with, see http://www.busybox.net/license.html. If you are contacted by an organization representing any software company or developer, do not ignore their demands. Consult with Wright Penning & Beamer immediately.

Dan A. Penning

Preparing for the Effects of Health Care Reform

The costs and penalties of Health Care ReformStill wondering how the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (”PPACA”) will affect you or your business? Not sure what changes you may need to implement to avoid penalties? You’re not alone. While the nation attempts to navigate the overhaul of the health care system, here are a few key points to help you understand some aspects of this complex law:

Dependent Coverage
For all employer-sponsored health care plans that provide coverage to dependent children of covered employees, PPACA will now require that the dependents’ coverage continue until the dependents turn 26 years old. This requirement is effective for all plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Penalties for Individuals
Starting January 1, 2014, individuals will incur a penalty for each month that they do not have health insurance coverage. In 2014, that penalty cannot exceed $95 for the year. In 2015 and 2016, the maximum penalty increases to $325 and $695, respectively, for each year.

Penalties for Large Employers
PPACA defines a “large” employer as one that employs 50 or more full-time employees working 30 or more hours per week. Large employers must offer “acceptable” health care insurance to employees starting January 1, 2014, or face penalties. “Acceptable” coverage means coverage that is affordable to the employee.

The Effect of Health Care Reform for BusinessesIf a large employer does not provide any coverage, and for that reason an employee qualifies for a subsidy (or “premium credit”), the employer faces a monthly penalty, calculated as follows:
No. of full-time employees – 30 x $166.66 = Monthly Penalty
The $166.66 represents 1/12 of $2,000.

If a large employer does not provide “affordable” health insurance coverage, the monthly penalty assessed for each full-time employee that qualifies for a subsidy because of the lack of affordable coverage is 1/12 of $3,000. This penalty is not based on the number of full-time employees; only the number of employees that qualify for a subsidy.

It is still unclear whether the penalties imposed by PPACA might still be less than the cost of providing acceptable health care insurance, as some critics of the law have suggested.

Dan A. Penning

20 Percent of All Nonprofits May Have Lost Tax-exempt Status

Revocation and Restoration of Tax-Exempt Status

Nonprofits subject to IRS annual reporting requirements
IRS LogoUntil recently, most U.S. nonprofit organizations were not required to file an annual information return with the IRS. Beginning January 2007, all that changed when even the smallest of nonprofits became subject to IRS annual reporting requirements. The only exceptions were state organizations, churches and their affiliated organizations, and certain religious groups. Nearly all others were required to file some version of Form 990, and the failure to do so for three consecutive years would mean automatic loss of the organization’s tax-exempt status.

New nonprofit filing requirements

It has now been three years since the implementation of the new filing requirements, and the IRS estimates that perhaps 20% of all nonprofits may have lost their tax-exempt status on May 17, 2010 (the annual filing deadline for nonprofits with a December 31 fiscal year end), for failure to file an information return for three consecutive years.
Non Profit Church Steeple
When nonprofit tax-exempt status is revoked
Revocation of tax-exempt status is a serious matter for a nonprofit. It means that its income is now subject to tax, and that an income tax return must now be filed. It means that the organization can no longer accept tax-deductible contributions, which could potentially mean a loss of its entire base of support.

IRS list of nonprofits whose tax-exempt status has been revoked mailing
So what does this mean for individual donors and grantmakers? The IRS is apparently waiting until 2011 to send out letters of revocation and to publish a list of nonprofits whose tax-exempt status has been revoked. Until that time, individuals can still deduct charitable contributions and grantmakers can still make qualifying distributions to those charities. Beginning in 2011, however, foundations will need to amend their pre-grant due diligence process to include confirmation that a charity has not lost its tax-exempt status.

IRS LogoWelcome relief for small nonprofits only
In the meantime, a press release issued by the IRS on July 26, 2010 offers welcome relief for small nonprofits only. Small exempt organizations have a one-time opportunity to either (1) file their missing returns by October 15, 2010, or (2) engage in a voluntary compliance program. The first option is for very small organizations that are eligible to file Form 990-N (known as the “e-Postcard”). The second option is for somewhat larger organizations that are eligible to file Form 990-EZ.

Organizations that file Form 990-N can simply go online and complete their filings electronically. Organizations that file Form 990-EZ must both bring their delinquent returns up to date and pay a compliance fee.

Regaining nonprofit tax-exempt status
Questions about organization and grantmakers and charitiesFor charities that receive an IRS revocation letter next year, all is not lost. A nonprofit can regain its tax-exempt status by filing a lengthy application (Form 1023 or Form 1024) with the IRS and paying the applicable user fee. (Unfortunately, this application process applies even to organizations that did not have to apply in order to gain their initial tax-exempt status.) Reinstatement will usually be effective as of the date the application is filed. However, if a nonprofit can demonstrate that it had reasonable cause for failing to file returns for three years, reinstatement will be effective as of the date of revocation.

Donor and Grantmaker Questions
Whether you are a donor with questions about an organization, a grantmaker that needs assistance in revamping its due diligence processes or a charity that fears it may have lost its tax-exempt status, the attorneys at Wright Penning & Beamer stand ready to assist you.

Dan A. Penning

Social Networking Unforeseen Risks for Your Company

Talking Business on Social Networking Sites

The Dos and Don'ts of Social Networking and Your CompanyWhether you personally post or tweet, chances are good your company’s employees participate actively on any number of social networking websites. According to the Pew Research Center, adult use of such sites accounted for almost fifty percent of the internet activity in America in 2009. Aside from its personal and entertainment value, social networking can be a valuable tool for fostering successful business relationships. The blurry line between personal and business use, however, can create unforeseen risks for your company, including the risk that posted comments by your employees will be treated as official statements from the company.

Consider the case of an overzealous sales representative who proudly brags about the company’s products online (so far, so good) but in the process decides to talk trash about a competitor. Does the competitor now have a libel or slander case against your company? Or how about a company supervisor who offers the following recommendation on LinkedIn for a subordinate who is also pursuing an approved sideline business: “I have worked with Sally for five years and have always found her to be hard working and high performing.” The Dos and Don'ts of Social Networking and Your CompanyIf the company later lets Sally go for poor performance, can the supervisor’s post be used as evidence that Sally’s performance was fine and that she is being discriminated against because of gender? In both instances, the answer is probably “yes.”

Employers must be careful in monitoring or regulating employees’ personal, online activity too closely. If you track employee use regularly, you are bound to learn information that you would have preferred not to know and that may actually limit your ability to supervise and discipline the employee. Nonetheless, when it comes to employee comments about workplace activities or relationships, serious thought should be given to updating the company’s handbook or policy manual to provide some basic “dos and don’ts” governing this category of online statements.

Questions? Give me a call … or just post them here on our blog.

Dan A. Penning

Proposed Tax Would Actually Hit Family Businesses Hard

Proposed “Carried Interest” Tax Purports to Soak Wall Street But Hits Family Businesses

Proposed Carried Interest Tax Hits Beyond Wall StreetFor the time being, the Senate has again abandoned efforts to impose a “carried interest tax” on venture capitalists, investors, and managers of family businesses. The tax would have increased the 15% capital gains tax rate on certain investors’ profits to the top income tax rate, which is scheduled to hit 39.6% on January 1st (H.R. 4213). The share of investors’ profits is called “carried interest.” It might appear at first glance that it’s perfectly fine for investment managers to be taxed at higher rates on their “carried interest.” But venture capitalists and investors don’t reside exclusively on Wall Street. The law was written so broadly that it could have hit approximately 6.5 million people invested in real estate partnerships that own anything from a single dwelling to sizable commercial properties.

The proposed legislation attempts to sway middle America by couching the carried interest tax as imposing a higher rate on “investment management services” and “investment managers” who work for Wall Street houses. Proposed Carried Interest Tax Hits Beyond Wall Street In reality, the proposed legislation could have imposed a higher tax rate on any partnerships invested in particular assets. The higher rates would apply to investment gains and also to gains from the sale of the partnership, and therefore, a sale of the family business would not qualify as a capital gains transaction. Family operations are commonly formed as partnerships and managed by a family member. Under the proposed legislation, the managing family member could be subject to the “carried interest tax.” For a family partnership to gain liability protection and also not be subject to the higher taxes, an outsider – not a family member — would have to manage the partnership. The House version of the legislation exempted family farms and ranches held in partnerships. Other family partnerships would have had to wait for the Treasury Department to exempt them through regulations.

Although the proposed legislation is dead for now, it is likely to reemerge as efforts to plug the federal deficit mount. The increased carried interest tax may be reintroduced in some other form. If so, watch carefully to see how the “carried interest” tax will hit families that are well beyond the alleged targets of the legislation, and communicate any concerns to your representatives in Congress.

Dan A. Penning

Penning Named FIVE STAR Wealth Manager by HOUR Detroit Magazine

Wright Penning & Beamer is pleased to announce that Dan A. Penning has been named a FIVE STAR Wealth Manager by HOUR Detroit magazine in its June, 2010 issue.

As detailed below, more than 11,000 wealth managers practice accounting, business planning, estate planning, financial planning, insurance and investments in the metropolitan Detroit area. Out of the 11,000 wealth managers, only 686 of the top-scoring wealth managers were named a FIVE STAR Wealth Manager for 2010. Out of the 686 wealth managers, only 50 attorneys were included in the list and Penning was named as 1 of the 50 attorneys.

The following is an excerpt from the article accompanying the naming of the FIVE STAR Wealth Managers in HOUR Detroit magazine and reprinted with permission:

” . . . Well over half of the consumer responses in the Detroit area indicated it is difficult to find a wealth manager they trust and rely on. HOUR Detroit Magazine 2010 Five Star Wealth Managers AwardWealth managers, broadly defined, are those individuals who help you manage your financial world and/or implement aspects of your financial strategies. Common examples of wealth managers are financial advisers, life insurance agents, accountants, tax advisors, attorneys, etc. With more than 11,000 wealth managers in the Detroit area, how do you find someone who listens to you, represents your interests and operates with an emphasis on integrity and service? HOUR Detroit magazine can help. The magazine formed a partnership with Crescendo Business Services to find out which wealth managers scored highest in overall satisfaction.

The Selection Process

Crescendo administered a survey, by mail and phone, to approximately 1 in 5 high-net-worth households within the Detroit area. An additional 4,200 surveys were sent to financial services industry professionals.

On the surveys, recipients were asked to evaluate only wealth managers whom they knew through personal experience, and to evaluate them based upon nine criteria: customer service, integrity, knowledge/ expertise, communication, value for fee charged, meeting of financial objectives, post-sale service, quality of recommendations and overall satisfaction.

Both positive and negative evaluations were included in the scoring. Only wealth managers with five years of experience in the financial services industry were considered. . .

Then, before finalizing the list, wealth managers were reviewed by a blue ribbon panel. The blue ribbon panel was comprised of individuals from within the financial services industry. Although panelist comments were incorporated into the final score, safeguards were built into the review process to reduce the ability of panel members to influence the composition of the final list on the basis of company affiliation.

An Elite Award

HOUR Detroit Magazine 2010 Five Star Wealth Managers AwardThe resulting list of 2010 FIVE STAR Wealth Managers is an elite group, representing less than 7 percent of the wealth managers in the Detroit area. Only 686 of the top-scoring wealth managers made this year’s list. . . . ”

Penning offers his experience and expertise in estate, business and cottage law planning to Wright Penning & Beamer’s northern Michigan clients through our offices located in the historic “Train Depot” in Suttons Bay, Michigan.

Oil and Gas Leases: What Northern Michigan Landowners Should Know

Oil and Gas Leases: What Northern Michigan Landowners Should Know

Oil and Gas Leases: What Northern Michigan Landowners Should KnowRecently, many of my firm’s clients who own multiple acres of land in northern Michigan have been contacted by petroleum company representatives and offered oil and gas rights leases for their land. While many of these companies are reputable and offer fairly standard terms in their leases, they are generally trying to secure leases that are most favorable to them. The landowner should be aware of provisions that can be included to protect their investment and maximize the owner’s financial return.

Know What Your Oil and Gas Rights are Worth

Most oil and gas leases propose two financial benefits. The first is the oil and gas lease price per acre. Recently, one major oil and gas company paid up to $5,000.00 per acre for what they had determined to be land located strategically close to what the company believed would be a very fertile and productive natural gas field. While not all landowners will be fortunate enough to garner that type of lease price, it is not unusual for companies to make initial offers at a fraction of the amount they are willing to pay to lease a landowners oil and gas rights. Rarely is the first offer the best offer they are willing to make.

The second financial benefit is the “royalty” to be paid by the oil and gas company in the event their exploration results in the installation of an active well to extract oil or gas. Recently, oil and gas companies negotiated oil and gas leases for thousands of acres of state lands and agreed to pay the state royalties at a rate of 1/6th of the gross revenue resulting from an active well. As a result, landowners should not agree to anything less than the State of Michigan was able to negotiate for its royalty rate. I recently reviewed an oil and gas lease for a client that proposed a 1/10th royalty rate which we easily negotiated to the more favorable 1/6th rate being paid to the State.

Avoid Deduction of “Post Production Costs” From Royalties

Many proposed oil and gas leases will include provisions allowing an oil and gas company to deduct a portion of the company’s “post production costs” (PPCs) which essentially is simply a practice of the companies lowering their overhead and increasing their profits by passing overhead costs on to the landowner to be deducted from royalties. Landowners should be careful to make sure their royalties are to be paid off the gross revenue from a well with nothing other than a proportionate share of applicable government taxes being deducted from the royalty payment.

Require the Inclusion of a “Pugh Clause” in the Lease

Locations of Michigan Oil and Gas Wells: What Northern Michigan Landowners Should Know about oil and gas leasesA “Pugh Clause” protects the landowner by requiring the oil and gas company to release certain land subject to the lease after termination of the lease term that has not been pooled into the land subject to the royalty payment in the event an active well results from the lease and exploration. For example, an oil and gas company may only pool an apportion of the leased land for royalty purposes and without a Pugh Clause, the companies in some instances can tie up the entire parcel subject to the lease even though they are only paying royalties on a portion of the land.

There are other concerns that also should be addressed and included in the lease to protect the landowner including where the placement of well will be allowed, where facilities can be constructed on the landowners property and provisions specifying that the companies must restore the land to its original condition after completing various activities on the land.

Be Prepared

There has been a significant increase in the oil and gas activity in northern Michigan in the last six months. Oftentimes the oil and gas leases are presented in a fast and furious fashion. Don’t be afraid to take your time and carefully consider any proposed lease and determine whether there are other companies also interested in the oil and gas rights to your land. A little competition never hurts the process. Also, seeking the advice and input of a qualified attorney to protect your rights as the landowner is also recommended.

Dan A. Penning

What the New Michigan No Smoking Law Means to Business

The New Michigan Statewide Smoking Ban: How it Affects Us

On May 1, 2010, the “Dr. Ron Davis Smoke-Free Air Law” went into effect in Michigan. Smoking is now banned in most public buildings in Michigan and in outdoor areas where food or beverages are served, such as restaurant patios and porches.

There are a few exemptions to the new law. Individuals still may smoke in cigar bars, tobacco specialty retail stores, and on the gaming floors of Detroit’s casinos. The exemption for the casinos is automatic. Cigar bars and tobacco specialty retail stores, on the other hand, must meet certain requirements and file an affidavit with the Michigan Department of Community Health by June 1, 2010, in order to be exempted. Tribal casinos are not covered by the new law, so their operators are free to permit smoking wherever they like.

Most any other indoor space used by the general public is subject to the ban, even bingo halls, private clubs, and the indoor common areas of multi-unit apartment buildings and condominium buildings. Some examples of the places in which smoking is now prohibited are hotel/motel guest rooms, malls, restaurants, arenas, concert halls, and places of employment that are not otherwise exempted.

Owners and operators of spaces covered by the smoking ban are required to take several steps in order to comply with the new law. Briefly, those steps are:

  1. Post “no smoking” signs or the international “no smoking” symbol at each entrance and in each area where smoking is prohibited.
  2. Remove ashtrays and smoking paraphernalia from areas where smoking is prohibited.
  3. Ask people who are smoking in smoke-free areas to stop smoking.
  4. Refuse service to those who are smoking in violation of the law, and ask them to leave if they refuse to comply.

More information, including “no smoking” signs and affidavits for exemption, can be found at www.michigan.gov/smokefreelaw.

Dan A. Penning

Stealing the Help and Kissing Your Sister

Paying your competitor’s attorney fees in Non-Compete Cases

Non compete agreementsAfter seventeen years practicing law, I find that most business clients appreciate the services I have to offer and are willing to pay a fair fee for them. But I have yet to meet a client who feels at all inclined to pay the legal bill of a competitor who has just sued. That’s like being thirteen and kissing your sister. Yet when corporations sue each other over the alleged theft of a valuable employee, the dispute can quickly become a fight over attorney fees.

Any time you hire a competitor’s current or former employee (or independent contractor), you face the risk of a lawsuit from the competitor alleging improper interference with a contract, or some other form of unfair competition. If the employee had a written agreement not to compete with the former employer, the risk of such a suit is all the greater. Risk assessment needs to be part of the hiring decision so you can decide whether the potential employee’s attributes justify the risk. In performing that assessment, you have to consider the possibility of paying not only damages but also the cost of your own – and even your competitor’s – legal fees.

Judge's injunction to stop alleged unfair competitionIf the competitor goes to the trouble of suing you, it will probably bring every plausible claim available against you. In non-compete cases, this usually involves a claim that the employee and you have conspired to steal the competitor’s trade secrets and proprietary information. In most lawsuits between business competitors, each side pays its own legal expenses – win, lose or draw. But under Michigan’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a prevailing plaintiff can recover attorney fees if it shows that the defendant willfully and maliciously stole a trade secret.

Just as I have never met a client anxious to pay a competitor’s lawyer, I have also never met a client (whether a corporation or an individual business person) who believes he acted maliciously in his business dealings. Unfortunately, there is scant case law in Michigan clearly defining willful and malicious conduct under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. As a result, in virtually every non-compete case brought naming you as a defendant, you will face the argument – and the risk – that you did act maliciously.

Most non-compete cases start with a request for an immediate injunction to stop the alleged unfair competition. This requires the judge to conduct a hearing that resembles a mini-trial at the outset of the lawsuit. The judge’s decision whether or not to grant the injunction will be widely viewed as a barometer of the ultimate merits of the case. Consequently, many cases settle once the judge grants or denies the injunction requested, if not before. In the mean time, the parties – and the suing party in particular – will have incurred substantial legal bills in a short amount of time. (In one case I defended, the opponent racked up about sixty thousand dollars in fees in the one month between filing and settling the case.) With the judge’s decision on the injunction having effectively resolved the merits of the claim, the parties are left to fight over who should foot the bill for having brought the matter to court.

Minimize risk of paying competitor's attorney feesObviously, the judge’s decision on the injunction will either strengthen or weaken the suing party’s claim that you acted maliciously. Either way, both sides will need to consider carefully how much more legal expense they are willing to incur solely to fight over who should pay the fees to date. If the case appears ready for settlement even before the judge rules on the request for an injunction, you still may face a fight over attorney fees. I have seen plaintiffs with no real damages become all the more insistent that they recover attorney fees as a matter of principle to ensure that the perceived misconduct does not go unpunished. If you are defending, do you buckle and pay some portion of the other side’s fees, or do you hold ground as a matter of principle? If you hold fast, you may end up paying far more money in the long run, albeit to your own attorney rather than to your competitor’s. As a colleague once told me, “It is perfectly appropriate to stand on principle, once you have acknowledged that principle is expensive.”

How do you avoid the distasteful dilemma of paying some portion of a competitor’s attorney fees? While no answer is full proof, there are steps you can take to minimize the risk:

  1. Fully assess the risk going in. When interviewing potential employees, have them confirm in writing as part of the interview process whether they have obligations under an existing non-compete agreement. If they answer “no,” it will be harder for a competitor to show you acted willfully and maliciously in the hiring process. If the answer is “yes,” then you know you face a greater threat of a lawsuit and, consequently, may not want to hire the individual. (One caveat: if you do hire the individual notwithstanding his written admission of an existing non-compete, you may strengthen the argument that you have acted with malicious motives.)
  2. Avoid trade secrets. If you do hire a competitor’s current or former employee, be extremely vigilant in instructing the new employee and all who work with him that you will not condone any using or sharing of the competitor’s proprietary information and trade secrets. Monitor the situation for compliance. This will make it harder for your competitor to seek fees under the Uniform Fair Trade Practices Act.
  3. Assess your risks again. If you do find yourself in a lawsuit, make sure your initial assessment of your potential liability includes a proper allowance for attorney fees. It rarely makes sense to hold fast to an unreasonably low settlement position, only to spend far more in defense than what you could have resolved the case for early on.

By their nature, non-compete cases force the parties to spend considerable legal fees early in the process, often before either side has a solid understanding of the damages suffered. Many times, the actual damages a suing competitor is able to prove will be far smaller than the fees incurred. Given the attorney fee award provisions under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, you could find yourself fighting to avoid a fee award against you, even in a case where you have caused no measurable harm to your competitor. Try your best to understand your risks before making the hire. That doesn’t mean you won’t make the hire if the employee is worth the risk. After all, most thirteen year olds would kiss their sister — for the right price.

Dirk A. Beamer

“Reinvented” Benefits

Reinvented Benefit Help for a Slow EconomyOver the last several years, Michigan has experienced extraordinary job loss. One fruit of those job losses has been an unusual number of business start-ups. All over the state, laid off workers have “reinvented” themselves, sometimes going back to school to pursue a different or more advanced degree, and sometimes going into business for themselves doing either the kind of work they have always done or something entirely new.

Online Resources
The federal government continues to develop online resources for the benefit of business owners. Among the recent resources posted by the Internal Revenue Service is a virtual small-business tax workshop that you can access at http://www.tax.gov/virtualworkshop. The virtual workshop consists of a series of nine videos covering a number of topics of interest to small business owners, particularly those who are just getting started. Lessons cover topics such as how to set up and run your business, how to file and pay your taxes using your computer, how to set up a home office or a retirement plan and how to manage payroll.

Taking Advantage of SBA Loan Programs
The U.S. Small Business Administration also has a number of online resources for small business owners. Several videos and podcasts can be accessed at http://www.sba.gov/training. Among the topics covered by the SBA are how to develop a business plan, how to survive in a down economy, and how to take advantage of SBA loan programs and federal government contracting opportunities.

The Need for Tax or Legal Counsel
These online tools don’t replace the need for tax or legal counsel, but they can help you make better and more efficient use of both your time and our office, which in turn can save you money. If you are considering a new business venture or you need our assistance with a legal matter affecting your ongoing business, please contact any of the attorneys at Wright Penning & Beamer. We would be pleased to help you!

Dan A. Penning