In San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax – Frequently Asked Questions from the Real Estate Industry, 
Pillsbury attorney Rachel Horsch discusses frequently asked questions posed by commercial real estate investors and operators regarding how the San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) may apply to typical commercial real estate investments and transactions.
Photo: GotCredit, Taxes, Taken on April 14, 2015 – Creative Commons
In Supreme Court to Hear False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Appeal, we provide a primer for the oral argument that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 19, 2016 in Universal Health Services 
v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7. The Court is expected to resolve the current split among federal appellate courts on the so-called “implied certification” theory of liability under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA imposes significant financial penalties for “knowingly present[ing], or caus[ing] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” and prohibits contractors from making false statements “material to a false or fraudulent claim.” As many government contractors are well aware, the FCA has long been the Government’s favorite enforcement tool against federal contractors. Stay tuned for updates!
Additional Source: Schumer Alleges False “Made in America” Representations on GSA Website: False Claims Act Inquiry to Follow?
Photo: David, US Supreme Court, Taken Sept. 19, 2014 – Creative Commons
In REIT Citizenship and the Impact of Americold Realty Trust on Jurisdictional Challenges, we discuss the Supreme Court’s unanimously ruling in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. that unincorporated entities organized as “real estate investment trusts” (REITs) under Maryland law are citizens of every state in which at least one of their shareholders is a citizen. We predict that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s holding, which appears broad enough to apply to any manner of statutory trusts or similar entities organized under various states’ laws, likely will steer more litigation where REITs and other unincorporated entities are parties into state courts—not federal courts.
EPA has spent almost 40 years wrestling with the definition of “solid waste” for purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (RCRA). The statutory definition of the term contemplates that it includes “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities…” 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27). Whether something is discarded and thrown away is pretty clear. However, this statutory definition appears to give EPA the flexibility—and subject to EPA’s regulatory authority—to define solid waste to include materials that are sometimes discarded. Adding to the interpretive issues, a solid waste can be liquid or gaseous, depending on the statutory definition. EPA has also been wary of countenancing a recycling exception, which has created a morass of regulatory interpretation. With more frequency, courts are being called upon to consider this definition. Below we discuss two such recent court decisions of interest.
In Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reaffirmed that ambiguities in an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer.
The Fabozzis were renovating their home when they learned that its interior walls were so rotted that the entire house was actually in the process of collapsing. Faced with the complete loss of their home, the Fabozzis understandably turned to their homeowners’ insurer, Lexington Insurance. The homeowners’ policy provided coverage for collapse caused by certain named perils, including hidden decay. But the policy also required that the collapse be “caused only by one or more of” the named perils. That simple, 7-word phrase led to Lexington’s denial of coverage and a decade of litigation.
In our post Contractor Advertising in the Age of Social Media, we promised you a by-no-means exhaustive resource for the various laws, regulations and guidance on social media “advertising” for contractors throughout the United States. The following list is a state-by-state resource to help one get started navigating the never-uniform and always changing contractor licensing-related laws, regulations, rules and licensing agency guidance for contractor advertising. This list does not include opinions issued by any courts and, obviously, these would relevant to your analysis as well and, like laws, regulations and regulatory agency guidance, new court decisions are issued changing the legal landscape over time. This blog also will not be regularly updated.
Most states and, in some cases, cities that require a person to obtain a license, or register, to perform work as a contractor or specialty contractor (e.g., electrical, HVAC, plumbing, other specialized trade work) 
regulate what disclosures are required when the contractor advertises its services. Most commonly these laws or rules require the contractor to include its name and license number. What may surprise many is that “advertising” is often broadly defined or understood to include a business card, contract proposal and final contract, sign, billboard, lettering or decal on a vehicle, brochure, newspaper, magazine, airwave (e.g., TV, radio, etc.) or any electronic transmission (e.g., a company website, social media, including but not limited to. Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.). This includes any form of directory under any listing denoting “contractor” or any word having a similar meaning (though certain trade directories with limited circulation are sometimes exempt). This certainly may even include t-shirts, sweatshirts, softball team uniforms, etc. that employees wear bearing the contractor’s logo and company information. Given how social media has radically expanded and otherwise transformed the traditional mediums and outlets for offering and promoting services, it is more important than ever that contractors carefully consider whether they are “advertising” their services in compliance with any applicable state’s or, in some cases, city’s laws or rules when using these communication channels.
On January 29, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court, in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corporation, unanimously reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District (Corpus Christi) which had sustained the liability of the Texas Railroad 
Commission for the erroneous plugging of an abandoned offshore well, and remanded the matter for a new trial. Under Chapter 89 of the Texas Natural Resources Code, one of the Commission’s responsibilities is to protect Texas’ land and water from pollution by providing additional means to plug abandoned wells. Chapter 89 also provides a “liability defense” to those engaged in plugging operations in good faith.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Commission was entitled to have the jury assess its good faith defense. Interestingly, the Texas Supreme Court also held that the “good faith” defense will also apply to Gulf Energy Exploration Corporation’s breach of contract claim against the Commission, and that the defense is not limited to tort actions.
Pillsbury would like to congratulate the winners of the “Built by Women” contest in DC, which highlights women’s contributions to the city of Washington D.C in the areas of architecture, engineering, 
construction, and real estate. Categories include Civic, Commercial, Cultural, Institutional, Landscape, Mixed-Use, Residential, Transportation, Urban Design. The Built By Women initiative was started by the Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation to celebrate the contributions of women to the built environment and to support women pursing building professions.
You can view the full list of winners on the BWAF website here. Additionally, the National Building Museum will honor the winning sites in the historic Great Hall the weekend of March 19 and 20. Congratulations to all of the winning women on your accomplishments and contributions to D.C.’s built environment.
Photo: University Salford Press Office, Women in Construction – Creative Commons
On February 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in the case of Palmer Ranch Holdings, LTD, et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued a long and complex ruling 
that largely affirms the Tax Court’s decision regarding a contested evaluation of a conservation easement that resulted in significant claimed deductions. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the Tax Court sided with Palmer Ranch on its valuation of the conservation easement and the Eleventh Circuit went onto voice concern that the valuation was lowered from $25 million to $21 million by the Tax Court.
Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog