Articles Posted by Insights

The eye care sector has become one of the most active areas in healthcare M&A, driven by an aging demographic, the rise of the medical optometry, and significant private equity interest. For practice owners and buyers alike, this presents substantial opportunity, along with complex legal pitfalls that can derail a transaction.

Buying or selling an optometry or ophthalmology practice is fundamentally different from purchasing a typical small business. These transactions sit at the intersection of corporate law, healthcare regulation, and professional licensure rules. A deal that looks clean on the financials can collapse during diligence when regulatory or structural issues surface.

The Corporate Practice Doctrine

One of the most common misconceptions in family law is the belief that a parent may deny visitation or parenting time when child support has not been paid. The reverse misconception is also common: some parents believe they may stop paying child support if they are denied parenting time. Under New Jersey law, both assumptions are incorrect.

Child support and parenting time are treated as separate legal obligations. A parent’s failure to comply with one obligation does not automatically excuse the other parent from complying with the other. While this principle can feel frustrating to parents involved in these disputes, New Jersey courts intentionally separate these issues because both are considered important to the child’s well-being.

This is a Common Misunderstanding

Published on:
Updated:

Private equity has become the dominant force reshaping healthcare ownership in the United States. Investors are actively pursuing physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, behavioral health organizations, home health and hospice agencies, dental and dermatology groups, physical therapy providers, infusion companies, and med spas. Capital is abundant. Attractive targets are not.

The healthcare organizations that command premium valuations share a common trait: they prepared long before entering the market. Purchase price and valuation multiples dominate the conversation, but sophisticated buyers evaluate management depth, financial integrity, compliance infrastructure, and growth trajectory. These factors, more than trailing earnings, determine what a practice’s worth.

What Private Equity Buyers Are Really Buying

One of the most persistent myths in divorce and custody litigation is the belief that courts automatically favor mothers when determining custody arrangements. Many fathers enter the process assuming they are at a disadvantage before the case even begins, while some mothers believe the law presumptively supports their position as the primary custodial parent. This is an outdated assumption.

Today, custody determinations are intended to be gender neutral. Courts are required to focus on one central issue which is serving the best interests of the child.

Understanding how custody decisions are actually made can help improve co-parenting discussions, and allow parents to focus on the factors the court is truly likely to consider.

Published on:
Updated:

One of the most common misconceptions about divorce in New Jersey is the belief that spouses must become “legally separated” before they can file for divorce. Many people assume there is a formal court process that changes their marital status while they remain married but live apart.

Unlike some other states, New Jersey does not recognize legal separation as a formal legal status. While spouses may choose to live separately before or during divorce proceedings, they remain legally married until a final judgment of divorce is entered by the court.

Why People Assume Legal Separation Exists

Published on:
Updated:

On May 26, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that the state’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (“CREAMMA”) provides New Jersey employees with a private right of action to enforce its anti-discrimination provisions. As a result, New Jersey employees may now seek redress from the courts arising from adverse employment decisions based on them testing positive for cannabis products.

Background

In Sanders v. Levari Group, LLC, a New Jersey employer refused to hire a job applicant after a pre-employment drug test indicated the applicant’s use of cannabis items within the past month. There, the applicant accepted a conditional offer of employment and underwent an initial drug test. After testing positive for cannabis, the employer requested that the applicant submit to a repeat test at her own expense. When the applicant refused, the employer rescinded its offer of employment. Arguing that she did not use cannabis during the interview or drug testing process, the applicant filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, finding no private right of action existed under CREAMMA and that the Cannabis Regulatory Commission was the proper enforcement body in the matter.

One of the most persistent misconceptions about divorce in New Jersey is the belief that “permanent alimony” means that alimony lasts forever. People hear the phrase and assume that once support is ordered, it can never be modified or terminated regardless of changes in circumstances. That is not how New Jersey law works today.

Following significant statutory reforms in 2014, New Jersey’s approach to long-term alimony has evolved. What was once commonly referred to as “permanent alimony” is now known as open durational alimony. While this type of support does not have a fixed end date at the time it is awarded, it is not automatically lifelong and may be modified or terminated when circumstances exist.

The Term “Permanent Alimony” Causes Confusion

The simple answer to this questions is yes. Why? The answer lies in the fact that pursuing mediation in an effort to divorce amicably, or in a more cost-effective manner, having the help of someone with experience is key. An experienced divorce and custody mediator must not only have the skills and attributes that can guide the parties toward an agreeable arrangement, but a mediator who also has litigation experience can also share the “long view” with the mediating parties and warn them of the consequences of abandoning mediation and turning to litigation to resolve their issues.

I have mediated several cases in which one or both parties threatened to walk away from the table and end the mediation. I recall that in those particular cases, the threat to abandon mediation stemmed from frustration, resentment toward the other party, or simply a reluctance to compromise in order to reach a global agreement.

In those cases, I was able to explain and prepare each party as to what would happen next if they pursued litigation, including the amount of unnecessary legal fees they would incur, and the difficulty of having important life issues decided by a judge who knows very little of their personal goals and desires. Those are two key reasons in addition to their lives being put on hold for at least a year while their case winds its way through the divorce process in court, continued time away from work or their home. and living in a constant state of stress. Any experienced litigator has seen countless clients, who chose litigation over mediation, live with these consequences.

When Congress passed, and President Trump signed, the budget reconciliation bill H.R. 1 (commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), they established a new investment vehicle: Trump Accounts. Though frequently thought about only in connection with their most widely-publicized component – a $1,000 pilot contribution by the federal government – Trump Accounts are many-legged beasts. To take advantage of the “free money” pilot contribution from the government and the jump start it can provide to a child’s savings, it is crucial to become familiar with Trump Accounts’ many legs and pitfalls.

First Leg: Establishing the Account

Section 530A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) allows an authorized individual – a parent, legal guardian, adult sibling, or grandparent – to file IRS Form 4547. The Form serves as an election to establish a Trump Account for a qualified individual. In order to qualify, the individual must not have attained age 18 by the end of the calendar year in which the election is made and must have a Social Security number issued before the date of the election.

Published on:
Updated:

Clients often wonder how frequently their estate planning documents should be reviewed. Is there a set period of time we recommend to review and perhaps update wills and other estate planning documents? As we have advised in the past, the answer depends more upon needs and life stages rather than the passage of time.

The first consideration should be whether there is a need to change a document. For example, after a move to a new state, the estate planning documents should be reviewed by an attorney licensed to practice in that state. Further, if the executor named in a will has died, moved out of state, or is no longer the appropriate person to serve, the will should be updated to substitute another executor for the one who will no longer serve. Similarly, if a guardian for a minor child is no longer appropriate because he or she has relocated to another state, or because the guardian’s personal circumstances have changed, it may be necessary to revise the will to name a new guardian. A change in the tax laws may also suggest a need for revision of a will or trust, as would a significant change in financial circumstances.

New life stages may also provide reasons to update estate planning documents.  For example, when children are minors, it is often appropriate to establish a trust to hold a child’s inheritance until a child reaches a specific age in order to safeguard the funds and minimize potential waste. As a child grows up, the need for a trust may be eliminated, or the terms of a trust might warrant a change to give a child different benefits or more control. Similarly, when a child becomes an adult, it may be appropriate to name the child to a position of responsibility, as perhaps appointing the child as an executor.

Contact Information