New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Biogen IDEC MA Inc. v. Cahill, Treasurer and Receiver General of Massachusetts

6/7/2007

 
Urging Rejection of “Emergency” Regulations of the Massachusetts Treasurer Effectively Negating the Business-To-Business Exemption under the Massachusetts Abandoned Property Statute

NELF attempted without success to file a memorandum of law on behalf of itself and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts supporting Biogen’s position in this appeal of an administrative decision. Judge van Gestel, sitting in the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session, declined to accept amici’s memorandum, citing the limited nature of judicial review of administrative decisions and the rarity of amicus participation at the trial-court level. The court, in a February 27 Memorandum and Order, nonetheless allowed Biogen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  

At issue was the so-called “business-to-business” exemption under the Massachusetts Abandoned Property Act, G.L. c.200A, § 5, excluding from the Act’s purview “any outstanding credit balances” between businesses arising in the ordinary course of business, including outstanding accounts payable remaining on old books.  The exemption was enacted as an amendment to the Act in 2000 in the wake of attempts by a number of state treasurers to treat such credit balances as abandoned property that must be transferred to the state.  AIM and others had argued successfully for the statutory exemption on the dual grounds that these outstanding accounts payable remaining on old books are often in error and, to the extent they are accurate, businesses have the means and incentive to recover any monies owed  without state intervention.  In 2001 then State Treasurer O’Brien promulgated regulations appropriately applying the exemption to “credits either current or past that are or were owing to a vendor or commercial customer . . . .”  In 2004, however, Treasurer Cahill, during an ongoing audit of Biogen, issued “emergency” regulations redefining the exemption as applying only to “[o]utstanding balances that are recorded as current accounts receivable or accounts payable . . . .”  

NELF and AIM argued in their amicus memorandum, inter alia, that Treasurer Cahill’s new regulatory definition rendered the statutory exemption meaningless. Since property is not deemed abandoned under the Act until the passage of three years, “current” accounts payable are by definition not abandoned property and require no exemption.  While Judge van Gestel did not address this point, he declined to apply Treasurer Cahill’s regulation retroactively to Biogen.  He also noted that Treasurer O’Brien’s 2001 regulations “best comport” with the apparent intent and purpose of the statutory exemption and rejected Treasurer Cahill’s contrary interpretation on the ground that it would “hobble the statute’s effectiveness.”  Should the Treasurer appeal Judge van Gestel’s decision, NELF and AIM will have an opportunity to present their arguments in an amicus brief.


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001