Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2016/03/14/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:34:10+00:00

Document:
On January 19, 2016, Sen. Chris Holbert and Rep. Dan Pabon introduced SB 16-040 – Concerning Changes to the Requirements For Owners of A Licensed Marijuana Business. It was introduced into the Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee and has since passed out of that committee and been referred to the Appropriations Committee.
This bill includes the definition of “owner”, in the medical and retail marijuana codes, a recipient of a commercially reasonable royalty associated with the use by a licensee of intellectual property and a licensed employee who receives a share of the profits from an employee benefit plan.
Under current law, an owner of a medical or retail marijuana business must have resided in Colorado for at least 2 years prior to applying for a license. The proposed bill would allow an owner to be either a 2-year resident of Colorado or a United States citizen on the date of the application for applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017. Additionally the bill would prohibit an owner from being a publically traded company and would require a controlling interest of the licensees to be Colorado residents and maintain that residency while holding a license.
Second, the bill proposes to add Subsection XXI, which states “the parameters for a commercially reasonable royalty,” to C.R.S. § 12-43.3-202(2)(a) – Powers and Duties of State Licensing Authority. The bill proposes to add the same language to C.R.S. § 12-43.4-202(3)(a)(XVII).
Third, the bill proposes to remove subsection (m) of C.R.S. § 12-43.3-307(1) – Persons Prohibited as Licensees – and add subsection (n) “A publically traded company.” The bill proposes to add the same language to C.R.S. § 12-43.4-306(1)(l).
Additionally, the bill proposes the addition of the residency requirements discussed above under C.R.S. § 12-43.3-307.5 and the addition of the controlling interest language under C.R.S. § 12-43.3-310. The same language has been proposed to be added to C.R.S. § 12-43.4-306.5 and C.R.S. § 12-43.4-309.
On January 13, 2016, Sen. Chris Holbert and Rep. Angela Williams introduced Senate Bill 16-014 – Concerning the Alignment of State Mortgage Originator Disclosures With Recent Changes in Federal Law. The bill has passed through both houses with amendments and has been sent to the governor.
First, the bill proposes to repeal Section (1)(a) of C.R.S. § 12-61-914 Written Disclosure of Fees and Costs – Contents – Limits on Fees – Lock-in Agreement Terms – Rules , which would eliminate requirements under Colorado law, and add language directing mortgage loan originator’s requirements to federal law. Specifically, the proposal creates a cross-reference to the federal Truth and Lending Act, the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, the federal Equal Opportunity Act, Title V, the federal Home Mortgage Disclosures Act of 1975, the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, and various federal statutes.
Second, the bill proposes to repeal Section (1) of C.R.S. 38-40-102 Disclosure of Costs – Statement of Terms of Indebtedness.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Tennille v. Western Union Co. on Tuesday, November 17, 2015.
A class of plaintiffs challenged Western Union’s business practice of retaining funds from failed wire transfers and collecting interest on the failed transfer moneys without informing the parties to the transfer of its failure. After years of litigation, the class reached a settlement wherein Western Union would deposit the unredeemed customer money into a class settlement fund (CSF), less administrative fees, from which class members could receive a refund. Counsel for the plaintiff class then sought attorney fees, requesting 30% of the $135 million in the CSF. Western Union objected, and the district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge determined that Western Union had no right to object to the attorney fee award but addressed many of the issues raised by Western Union in considering the reasonableness of the attorney fee award. The magistrate judge agreed with Western Union’s central contention that the money in the CSF did not represent the benefit counsel obtained for the class because that money belonged to class members. The magistrate judge calculated the actual benefit to the class as $65 million and recommended that the attorney be awarded 35% of that common fund. Both parties objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The district court also expressed doubts about Western Union’s standing to challenge the attorney fee award, but it allowed Western Union to participate in the objection hearing. The district court ultimately determined that the CSF was the value to the plaintiffs and awarded 30% of the CSF to class counsel as attorney fees. Western Union appealed.
The Tenth Circuit first addressed class counsel’s argument that Western Union lacked standing to bring the appeal. The Tenth Circuit noted that generally, settling defendants in class actions lack standing to challenge fee awards when those fees are to be paid from the class recovery. Western Union argued it would be injured in this case because of its “reversionary interest” in the CSF. The terms of the settlement provided that if there were moneys left in the CSF after all class members who came forward had been paid, they would escheat to the states in a cy pres fund, and then if any states challenged their share of the moneys, that state’s pro rata share would be deposited in a third fund from which Western Union would be entitled to claim actual costs and fees associated with defending the states’ claims. Western Union claimed that, because of the potential for it to receive reimbursement through the third fund, it had an interest in the attorney fee award from the CSF. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. The Tenth Circuit noted that Western Union has never argued that the moneys in the CSF belonged to anyone but the class members, and thus it has no interest that would be invaded by diminution in the CSF. The Tenth Circuit found that Western Union’s interest in the third reversionary was too attenuated to confer a legally protectable interest.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s attorney fee award.
On Friday, March 11, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

References: § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 v.