Minimum Competence Andrew and Gina Leahey

This Day in Legal History: Gandhi’s First Act of Civil Disobedience
On June 7, 1893, Mohandas Gandhi committed his first act of civil disobedience in South Africa, an event that would shape his future activism and the global struggle for civil rights. Gandhi, holding a first-class ticket, was ordered to move to the third-class section of a train because he was Indian. Refusing to comply, he was forcibly removed from the train at Pietermaritzburg. This incident ignited Gandhi's resolve to combat racial discrimination and injustice.
In response to this humiliation, Gandhi began organizing the Indian community in South Africa, leading to the founding of the Natal Indian Congress in 1894. This organization aimed to unite Indians and fight against discriminatory laws. Gandhi's efforts in South Africa laid the groundwork for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, known as Satyagraha.
After gaining experience and recognition in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915. There, he became a pivotal leader in the struggle for independence from British colonial rule. Through nonviolent protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience, Gandhi mobilized millions of Indians and brought international attention to their cause.
Gandhi's first act of defiance on that South African train was more than just a personal stand; it was the beginning of a movement that would inspire civil rights leaders worldwide, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. This day marks a significant moment in legal history, highlighting the power of peaceful protest and the enduring fight for equality and justice.
The US Supreme Court's recent decision has significant implications for estate planning, particularly for family businesses. The ruling mandated that the value of Crown C Supply Co., a family-owned business, must include the life insurance payout received after co-owner Michael Connelly's death. This decision was a setback for Thomas Connelly, the estate executor, who argued against including the payout in the company's valuation.
The unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasizes that businesses using life insurance proceeds for shareholder buyouts must account for these proceeds in their valuations or explore alternative strategies. These alternatives include cross-purchase agreements, where individual shareholders, rather than the company, hold the life insurance policies, or placing the policies in a trust.
This ruling could particularly affect small business owners who might not afford extensive legal advice, potentially pushing their estates above the exemption threshold and incurring higher taxes. Estate planners now need to reassess buy-sell agreements and consider more tax-efficient arrangements. Despite the clarified tax risks, not all businesses will shift from the contested buy-sell agreements, as factors beyond tax implications often influence business decisions. The case, Connelly v. United States, highlights the need for thorough estate planning to navigate tax liabilities effectively.
High Court Estate Tax Ruling Forces Succession Planning Revamps
Netflix shareholders voted down a proposal to increase transparency on the company's use of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting. The proposal, presented by the AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds, requested a report detailing Netflix's AI policies and ethical guidelines. Concerns highlighted included potential hiring discrimination, mass layoffs, and facility closures, arguing that ethical AI guidelines could prevent labor issues and lawsuits. 
This follows last summer’s Hollywood strikes, partly driven by fears that AI could undermine writers and actors. Similar AI-related proposals have been presented to other tech companies like Meta and Microsoft but have not passed. In February, a proposal at Apple received notable support, with 37.5% of investors in favor.
Netflix, in its proxy statement, described AI as a tool to enhance creativity and efficiency,

This Day in Legal History: SEC Established
On this day in legal history, June 6, 1934, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established, marking a pivotal moment in the regulation of financial markets. The SEC was created in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, aiming to restore investor confidence and safeguard their interests. Tasked with enforcing securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the SEC's mission was to ensure transparency, prevent fraud, and protect investors from unfair practices. 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy, a businessman and former stock market speculator, as the first Chairman of the SEC. Kennedy's experience and insider knowledge of Wall Street made him a controversial but effective choice for the role. Under his leadership, the SEC began implementing key reforms, including the requirement for companies to provide accurate and comprehensive financial statements, the regulation of stock exchanges, and the enforcement of laws against insider trading. These measures were crucial in stabilizing the financial markets and rebuilding public trust. The establishment of the SEC represented a significant shift towards greater federal oversight and accountability in the financial sector.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have agreed to divide responsibility over the artificial intelligence (AI) industry, allowing the FTC to investigate Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI. The DOJ will probe Nvidia for potential antitrust violations and oversee Alphabet Inc.'s Google. This arrangement follows over six months of negotiations between the agencies.
The FTC has already initiated a probe into Microsoft's $650 million deal with Inflection AI, scrutinizing whether the company properly notified antitrust authorities. Both the DOJ and FTC declined to comment, and representatives from Microsoft, Inflection, OpenAI, Google, and Nvidia did not respond to requests for comments.
The DOJ and FTC jointly enforce U.S. antitrust laws and decide internally which agency will handle specific investigations. This process, known as clearance, has previously led to disputes, especially in high-profile cases like those involving Google. 
The process of "clearance" between the DOJ and FTC, which involves determining which agency will investigate specific mergers and anticompetitive conduct, is crucial in managing jurisdictional overlaps and ensuring efficient enforcement of antitrust laws.
In related developments, the European Union reviewed Microsoft's investment in OpenAI but opted not to pursue a formal investigation. Meanwhile, the UK's competition watchdog is examining the partnership but determined that Microsoft's deal with French AI company Mistral AI does not warrant an investigation.
Microsoft, Nvidia to Face US Antitrust Probes Over Moves in AI
US regulators to open antitrust inquiries of Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia | Reuters
Dan Jacobs, chef-owner of two Milwaukee restaurants, adopted a service charge model during the pandemic to increase employee pay, which led to a $70,000 tax bill. This situation highlights a broader issue where the U.S. tax code favors traditional tipping systems with tax credits, disadvantaging restaurants that use service charges. Service fees, which can range from a few percent to over 20% of the bill, are intended to raise wages for back-of-house workers and reduce tipping disparities.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer has introduced legislation to equalize the tax treatment of service charges and tips, arguing that the tax code should not penalize restaurants adapting to industry changes. The proposed bill would allow restaurants using service charges to claim a tax credit similar to the tip tax credit, provided the service charge goes directly to employees. Critics argue that service charges reduce workers' take-home pay and believe tips give employees more con

This Day in Legal History: Denmark Becomes a Constitutional Monarchy
On June 5, 1849, Denmark transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the signing of its first constitution. This pivotal moment marked the end of absolute royal rule and the beginning of a new era of governance based on democratic principles. The Danish constitution of 1849 safeguarded civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It also curtailed the king's powers, ensuring that he could no longer rule by decree. 
A significant feature of the new constitution was the establishment of a bicameral legislature known as the Rigstag, composed of the Folketing and the Landsting. The Folketing served as the lower house, representing a broader spectrum of the populace, while the Landsting functioned as the upper house. This legislative framework aimed to balance representation and ensure a more equitable system of governance.
The constitution laid the groundwork for Denmark's modern democratic system, promoting the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. Each year on June 5, Denmark commemorates this historic event with Constitution Day, a national holiday celebrating the values and freedoms enshrined in the 1849 constitution. This day serves as a reminder of Denmark's commitment to democracy and civil rights, reflecting the enduring legacy of the country's constitutional foundations.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta Platforms Inc. of withholding critical information during its initial reviews of the company's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. These transactions were originally approved after varying levels of scrutiny by the FTC, but the agency now claims that Meta did not disclose key pre-acquisition documents. The FTC, which is currently seeking to break up Meta on antitrust grounds, alleges that this undisclosed information would have impacted its original decisions.
Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is attempting to dismiss the case, arguing that its substantial investments in the acquired apps have benefited consumers. A Meta spokesperson countered the FTC’s claims by stating that Meta faces significant competition and that the company’s investments have enhanced Instagram and WhatsApp.
This isn't the first time Meta has faced allegations of non-disclosure; in 2017, European regulators fined the company for providing misleading information about the WhatsApp deal. Additionally, the FTC's recent filing accuses Meta of degrading user experience on its platforms by increasing ad loads and under-resourcing Instagram. The case, overseen by US District Judge James Boasberg, has yet to see a trial date set.
Meta Withheld Information on Instagram, WhatsApp Deals: FTC (1)
Former President Donald Trump has requested the judge in his hush money case to lift a gag order following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stem from a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep her silent about an alleged encounter. Trump denies the affair and plans to appeal the conviction.
Before the trial began, Justice Juan Merchan restricted Trump's public statements about the case to prevent potential threats to the proceedings. Trump's defense argues that with the trial concluded, these restrictions on his First Amendment rights are no longer justified. During the trial, Trump was fined $1,000 for each of 10 violations of the gag order, which included calling Cohen a "serial liar" and criticizing the jury selection.
Trump, a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, claims the gag order is unconstitutional. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, highlighted that President Joe Biden and others have publicly commented on the case, while Cohen and Daniels have also continued to publicly criticize Trump. The judge has previously noted that public critics

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com

This Day in Legal History: Wiretapping Constitutional
On June 4, 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Olmstead v. United States, ruling that wiretapping private telephone conversations without judicial approval was constitutional. The case involved Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger during the Prohibition era, whose phone conversations had been wiretapped by federal agents without a warrant. The evidence obtained was crucial in convicting him. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not extend to wiretapping because the Amendment only protected tangible property and physical intrusion.
Justice Louis Brandeis penned a notable dissent, emphasizing the right to privacy and warning of the potential for abuse and overreach in government surveillance. He argued that the Constitution should adapt to modern technological advancements, including the methods of communication. The decision highlighted a significant tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights, a debate that has continued to evolve with advancements in technology.
This ruling stood until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned it in Katz v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, thus extending privacy rights to include electronic communications. The Olmstead decision remains a pivotal moment in legal history, reflecting the complexities of interpreting constitutional protections in the face of new technological realities.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com

Administrative Update: We have an important update for Minimum Competence. Moving forward, our newsletter will be available exclusively to paid members, while the podcast will remain free for everyone.
This change will allow us to dedicate more time and resources to enhancing the quality and content of Minimum Competence. We believe this is the best route forward to ensure we continue providing valuable insights and updates. We sincerely thank everyone for their understanding and continued support.
This Day in Legal History: First Federal Child Labor Law Deemed Unconstitutional
On June 3, 1918, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hammer v. Dagenhart that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was unconstitutional. This landmark decision marked a significant moment in the legal battle over child labor laws in the United States. The Keating-Owen Act, passed in 1916, aimed to regulate child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods produced by children under certain ages and conditions. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the Act exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

This Day in Legal History: South Africa Established
On May 31, 1910, the Union of South Africa was established, marking a significant moment in the nation's history as it unified the previously separate colonies of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal, and the Orange Free State under British dominion. This union created a self-governing dominion within the British Empire, granting it considerable autonomy while still recognizing the British monarch. The formation of the Union set the stage for a centralized government, which would later play a crucial role in the institutionalization of apartheid.
Exactly fifty-one years later, on May 31, 1961, the Republic of South Africa was proclaimed. This pivotal event signified South Africa's transition from a dominion of the British Commonwealth to an independent republic. This move was largely driven by rising nationalist sentiments and the desire to break free from British influence. The establishment of the Republic came after a referendum in 1960, where a narrow majority of white voters supported the change.
The creation of the Republic also marked South Africa's exit from the British Commonwealth, reflecting its increasingly isolated position on the global stage due to its apartheid policies. These policies would continue to draw international condemnation and sanctions, leading to significant internal and external pressure for reform. The legal and political landscape of South Africa underwent dramatic changes during this period, shaping the country's future and its eventual path towards democracy and the end of apartheid in the early 1990s.
Yesterday, on Thursday May 30, 2024, Donald Trump made history as the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. A New York jury found him guilty of falsifying business documents to conceal a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. The jury deliberated for two days before delivering a unanimous verdict on all 34 felony counts. Trump remained stoic as the verdict was read and later declared the trial a sham, asserting his innocence and vowing to appeal.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, just before the Republican Party's nomination process for the November election. The crime carries a maximum sentence of four years, but Trump will not be jailed before sentencing. This conviction adds complexity to the upcoming election, with Trump aiming to reclaim the White House from President Joe Biden. Despite the verdict, Trump’s legal troubles do not disqualify him from running for office.
The case revolved around Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony about a $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels, which was disguised as legal expenses. Cohen's credibility was a major focus during the trial, but the jury believed the evidence supported his claims. The swift verdict indicated strong juror consensus on Trump's guilt.
The Biden campaign emphasized that the verdict demonstrates no one is above the law, urging voters to reject Trump in the election. Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign labeled him a political prisoner and hinted at selecting a female vice-presidential candidate. This landmark case, though deemed the least consequential of Trump's legal challenges, significantly impacts his political future and the nation's political landscape.
Donald Trump becomes first US president convicted of a crime | Reuters
A lawsuit filed by a Twitter investor claims that Elon Musk ignored repeated warnings about U.S. securities disclosure obligations while secretly amassing shares in Twitter in 2022. According to the lawsuit, a Morgan Stanley executive who assisted Musk in this process repeatedly informed Musk and his aide, Jared Birchall, about the need to disclose when their stake exceeded 5%. Despite discussing these requirements, Musk and Birchall allegedly delayed disclosure to buy shares at lower prices, saving Musk over $200 million.
The Oklahoma firefighters pension fund accuses Musk of defrauding investors by concealing his grow