There are certain smells and sounds that will instantly take you back to a place in time. For example, every time I smell roast turkey, I am instantly transported to my ten-year-old self, waking up on Thanksgiving morning to the aroma of the bird my mother had placed in the oven well before daybreak.

It’s comforting to have such tangible nostalgic memories, which can conjure thoughts of people we loved who have passed and places we adored that have closed. I experienced a sudden time warp of this type recently when I read an article on Philly.com about a new “Old Original Levis” hot dog and sandwich shop that had recently opened on Old York Road in Abbington, PA.

One moment I was sitting at my desk on the 37th floor of a high-rise in center city, the next moment I was enjoying (in my mind) a Levis signature Champ Cherry soda on South and 6th with my grandfather and father beside me at the table, munching on Levis’ special: the famous hot dog with mustard and flaky fishcake served on one roll. The smell of fat frying and the sounds of people laughing over delicious food are burned in my memory like the grill marks on a well done frankfurter. The décor never seemed to change, and the eats were always top quality.

The comfort of knowing exactly what you were going to get when you walked into Levis’ was an art form the Levis family had mastered. I was heart-broken on that day back in 1981 when I found out that Levis’ had been sold, and the place was being redecorated. The profitable timelessness of Levis’ Hot Dogs and Sandwiches had been altered, and the new shop just wasn’t up to par.

Then, in 1990, Levis was purchased by Elliott Hirsh; not to recreate the restaurant’s golden years – not yet anyway – but to to obtain the rights and formula for the Levis signature soda I frequently enjoyed as a young boy: Champ Cherry. (Hirsh was a beverage manufacturer known regionally for his Elliott’s Amazing line.) My favorite little lunch spot, which wasn’t the same since it was sold in the early 80’s, closed two years later … I thought for good!

As the article on Philly.com says, “Nostalgia is a powerful thing, especially in the food business, where childhood memories are welded.” After producing Levis hot dogs wholesale to some level of success locally for several years, Hirsch became inspired to try his hand at selling Levis as a franchise operation, with the first shop being run by himself on Old York Road in Abington. I have yet to make it to the new “Old Original Levis,” but I am dying to get there and have a sip of that sweet Champ Cherry.

As an attorney that focuses in part on business law, this story piqued my interest in another way. When Hirsch bought Levis in 1990, his driving factor were the company’s assets – not so much the sandwich shop itself. He wanted the rights and formula for Champ Cherry.

When JM LAW GROUP represents clients that are buying and selling their business, we carefully and thoroughly discuss exactly what assets of the business are being bought or sold. For Elliott Hirsh, it was important to get the Levis name, recipes and formula for Champ Cherry. In other businesses, important assets could include customer lists, computer systems, intellectual property (trademarks, slogans, and logos), software, equipment, certain licenses (such as a liquor license), trade names, real estate, long-term contracts and more.

It is crucial to clearly specify what assets are being bought and/or sold when a business changes hands. If you are looking to buy or sell a business, please make sure to remember the significance in plainly defining the assets in question. Legal guidance is essential to ensure you are properly covering all your bases. Please feel free to give me a call – we can meet at Levis’ and talk about it over a hot dog and some Champ Cherry!

If you’re a regular reader of mine, you’ll remember a few blogs ago I said you had to be living under a rock not to have heard about Tim Tebow’s miraculous game-winning efforts, with – apparently – a little help from above. (Sorry, Steelers fans!)

Well this week, you’d have to be living with your head in the sand if you haven’t heard all the buzz about the 2012 Philadelphia Home Show. From what I’ve caught, it’s going to be the biggest building, design and landscaping show this area has seen, and it opens Saturday, January 14th.

With exciting attractions like Todd Davis from HGTV’s Room Crashers, Kimberly Lacy from HGTV’s Curb Appeal: The Block, a visit from VH1’s Mob Wives, family fun on MLK Day, featured local food and beverage theme nights, thousands of new products and over 500 industry experts, I’m certainly not going to miss this one! In fact, I happen to know you can get $4.00 off your online ticket purchase with the code COMCASTNET at www.phillyhomeshow.com. Maybe I’ll see you there!

Which brings me to the real point of this blog, and that’s the state of the Philadelphia condominium market. Even though the residential market remains soft, Philly’s ultra-posh condos are selling like hotcakes (or should I say crepes) to local celebs, sports figures, major CEO’s and big business owners. 1706 Rittenhouse, the 31-story 31-condo grand tower has become home to the likes of Cliff Lee and his wife Kristen for “just” $4.85 million. In total, it is reported the building has sold $114 mil in luxury condo living thus far.

This condo-craze is relatively recent, since everything real-estate pretty much tanked in 2008 with the market crash and subsequent recession. In 2010, condominium development and sales slowly started to pick back up, spurred by newer projects such as Naval Square (a massive luxury housing development owned by Toll Brothers) as well as an auction at Murano (the 43-story glass tower at 21st and Market Streets) that allowed excited buyers to nab luxury condos at deep discounts. These types of projects encouraged the interest of first time homebuyers to consider the Center City condo market.

From there, demand has steadily increased, and the completion of some luxury condos – like the aforementioned 1706 Rittenhouse and 10 Rittenhouse – have made high-rise city dwelling a hot concept.

It’s not just the extravagant buildings that are grabbing buyers’ attention. It’s reported by the Philadelphia recorder of deeds that in the first quarter of 2011, just over 60% of condos sold were priced at less than $400,000.

Analysts believe the buyers were mostly first timers or people relocating from other cities, and feel that without the extended winter weather we experienced last year, even more units would have been sold. (Which begs the question, with the balmy winter we’re experiencing, just how much better sales will be in Q1 2012 compared to last year?)

We at JM LAW GROUP have handled many successful condominium transactions in Philadelphia, including a few at the gorgeous 10 Rittenhouse.

Our residential transaction support is comprehensive, including review of the Agreement of Sale, the condo documents, the buyer’s loan documents, all title documents and of course, attendance at settlement.

So head to the Home Show, get inspired, and when you decide to jump into Philadelphia’s growing condo market, give us a call. We’ve got a pretty decent eye for decorating, too.

Happy New Year! I hope you had a wonderful holiday season. Now it’s back to the daily grind, but there’s some comfort in a normal schedule … in the office before 8am, catching up on emails and online news, client meetings, business lunches and regular evening work-outs. (Let’s just say we at JM Law Group ate enough food to nourish the state of Rhode Island.)

But I digress.

You may remember a blog I wrote in early December about “Twibel” – that is, twitter libel – and the many other legal issues on the increase pertaining to Social Media. As we begin 2012, we are likely to see a trend in lawsuits dealing with various social media outlets.

Recently, a young man who blogged for PhoneDog, an interactive mobile news and reviews resource, was sued by the company (his employer) over the thousands of Twitter followers he amassed while working there. Noah Kravitz tweeted for PhoneDog as @Phonedog_Noah, but later changed his username when he left the company – taking 17,000 followers with him. Kravitz claims PhoneDog said he could keep the followers as long as he tweeted on their behalf from time to time; however, now PhoneDog is seeking $2.50 per follower per month – a whopping $370,000!

The company claims that the account’s followers were actually a “customer list,” that it had invested “substantial” resources into building it, and therefore the followers are the property of the company. In a written statement, PhoneDog said: “The costs and resources invested by Phonedog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of Phonedog Media … We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

Whether you agree with Mr. Kravitz or PhoneDog, this is just a modern-day twist on a long-standing legal subject: what actually belongs to an employee when he or she leaves a company?

In general, most companies have various protections in place in the form of specific agreements, company policies and procedures that ensure when an employee leaves the job, he or she doesn’t take anything of value from the company. For example, confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements are commonly-known methods employers use to safeguard their property, staff and customers. Confidentiality agreements prohibit the employee from sharing with third parties (or themselves using) any items deemed “confidential” by the employer, including but not limited to customer lists, customer data, company financials, source code, computer systems, product design information, intellectual property (such as patents or trademarks) and sales leads. Non-solicitation agreements generally prohibit employees from soliciting company customers and other employees upon leaving the company.

In the twitter case involving PhoneDog, one question that will be debated is whether or not Mr. Kravitz’ followers are equivalent to leads that should belong to the employer – even if the twitter account belongs to and was registered by Kravitz himself. If the Twitter account was company-controlled, this would be a non-issue, but the fact that these followers could be considered a “customer list” makes this a heated dialogue.

This case will, in essence, set precedent in the context of whether an employer owns the fruits of its employees’ social media accounts. (In addition, the amount the company is claiming per follower will be another curious discussion, as many say a majority of followers for any give twitter account are inactive, or at the most, unengaged).

This is definitely a case to be watched. I believe it will prompt companies to even further define their social media policies and will cause many employers to outline – in their employment agreements, policies and procedures – what is and is not (or does/does not become) company property in the social media realm.

If your company doesn’t have a social media policy, employment agreements, or rock-solid legal policies and procedures in place, we should talk.

Please give me a call at 215-832-3600, or email me at josh@lawmr.com. We can get you set up so that twibel, or other more commonly-known employment issues, won’t ever be a problem.

If you haven’t heard the buzz about Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, you’re either living under a rock or you’re too busy with holiday festivities.

The former Florida Gator quarterback who was also the first college sophomore to win the Heisman trophy, the first college player to both rush and pass for 20 or more touchdowns in a single season, and who earned the title of offensive MVP at the 2008 national championship game, is now taking the NFL by storm with his last-minute miracle wins and nontraditional scrappy style of play.

And yet people love to hate him. OK, so maybe hate is a strong word. Let’s just say some people seem to find his overt Christian beliefs and demonstrations both on and off the field to be distasteful.

You see, whenever Tebow makes a great play or needs to make one, he – in his own words – “talks to the man upstairs.” He drops to one knee, bows his head, and says a prayer thanking God or asking him for what he needs at the time, which recently included a 51-yard overtime field goal by his kicker to win the game against the Chicago Bears. I must point out that, at the time, it was the THIRD Tebow-led overtime win for the Broncos, bringing their record to 6-1 with him as quarterback. He has engineered five fourth-quarter comebacks.

When the chips are down the guy seems unstoppable, and he gives the “Big Coach” in heaven all the credit.

So what’s the big deal? Why do people find Tebow’s prayers and mentions of God, his beliefs and his staunch overt religious overtones so bothersome? Why did two Detriot Lions players find it OK to mock “Tebowing”(as the kneeling-prayer-stance has come to be known) on the field after a big play? Many sports columnists are spouting off their opinions on this confounding issue.

Some think it’s the whole puzzling package – his nontraditional awkward style on the field, the fact that he played for the often-disliked cocky Florida Gators, and the religion thing on top of all that. They are just WAITING for the guy to get tripped up, to fail, to finally fall on his face. Others get deeper and think it’s because Tebow makes us all feel uncomfortable by holding a mirror up to our own religious insecurities as he unapologetically and confidently speaks to and about God in every game and interview.

Whatever it is, he’s certainly captured the interest of football fans and non-fans alike, as he continues to succeed in a big way on a weekly basis.

As a sports agent, I am fascinated watching the story play out; however, as an attorney, I can’t help but think how this could perhaps turn into a legal issue for the Denver Broncos franchise. What if the Broncos organization got sick and tired of Tebow always talking about God, religion and his Christian beliefs? What if they felt it was bad for business and was a turn-off to the fans? Seems unlikely as long as Tebow keeps over-performing – everyone loves a winner (or if they don’t love him, they tolerate him because he’s winning!) But let’s just say his footwork goes from bad to worse, his shaky running game becomes downright wobbly, and his long load-up time before throws turns into sack-central.

Perhaps the “Tebowing” starts getting boos from the crowds, and the chats with and about God in interviews aren’t quite so acceptable. What then?

Now we’re talking about religion in the workplace, a very touchy and heavily regulated topic. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, workplace discrimination based on religion is absolutely prohibited. The EEOC clearly states that religious discrimination involves treating an employee unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs.

The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

The EEOC goes on to say that unless it would be an “undue hardship on the employer’s operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”

In the case of Tim Tebow, it is very highly unlikely that the Broncos organization would be able to prove undue hardship. I mean, the guy briefly and humbly kneels to pray for mere seconds. Much less offensive, I’m sure you would agree, than Randy’s Moss’ famous touchdown dance where he pretended to lean over and “moon” Green Bay Packers fans in a 2004 playoff game. What about T.O.’s antics, or those of Ochocinco? Perhaps more amusing, but certainly also belligerent and disruptive.

No, even if the Broncos don’t like it, there is probably nothing they can do about it, so long as Tebow’s beliefs and practices don’t interfere with the job. My modest advice to Tebow: just keep winning! People might find your overt religiousness annoying, but more and more people are finding it charming … and perhaps having God on your side out there on that dangerous field isn’t such a bad idea, anyway.

While you’re at it – put in a good word for me, would ya, buddy?

I’ve been happily posting away on my Faceboook and Twitter pages for some time. I try to keep it relevant, timely, interesting – and yes – even humorous. I haven’t given too much thought to any negative consequences, as my content is relatively benign, if slightly controversial at times. All in good fun and in hopes of engaging my audience.

And then I heard about “Twibel.”

You guessed it: Twitter Libel. Cases where defamation has taken place on the social media channel Twitter. One such case involves a tweet by an AP writer at a Timberwolves game in January 2011. The Tweet read as follows: “Ref Bill Spooner told Rambis he’d ‘get it back’ after a bad call. Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks.” Of course Spooner claims he never said this to Timberwolves Coach Rambis and that the ensuing disciplinary investigation by his employer denigrated his professional reputation as a NBA referee.

Even worse (well, worse to you Taco Bell fans out there) was the live internet broadcasting of the rat infestation of the Greenwich Village Yum Brands franchise back in February 2007. As rats scurried around the restaurant, on tables and food prep areas, people watched in absolute horror online. Both Taco Bell and KFC, two of Yum Brands’ chains, were slapped with heavy health code violations and were forced to clean up their act in short order or risk being completely shut down. Between the rats and the 2006 e-Coli outbreak, stocks are still recovering. Personally, I haven’t touched a gordita since, and probably never will again!

Then there’s the poor airline industry, under attack at every turn it seems, and most times, rightfully so. In July 2009, United’s baggage claim workers mishandled a band’s expensive instruments – and the musicians witnessed the ill-treatment and destruction of a guitar. After getting no satisfactory redress for the poor conduct, the performers did what they do best: wrote a song about the egregious acts of the airline workers and posted it on You Tube. Nine million hilarious views later, the airline was in crisis management mode. (The band eventually got $3000 and donated it to a charity, but the damage was done to United’s reputation).

In a much less well-known case, Rojas vs. Schneider, Schneider dedicated an entire blog to Rojas, a level two sexual offender who had molested her daughter years ago. While to some that may seem understandable, Schneider crossed the line by also blogging negatively about Rojas’ entire family. Whether or not her words concerning the family were true, Rojas blames Schneider for his inability to get any sort of job. As Anna at BlogHer.com says in her online column, “Each of these cases has a very different set of facts, but all involve social media and alleged defamatory statements. Whether you have a blog, Twitter account, Facebook account or any other social media networking site account this is something to think about before hitting the publish or share button.”

As a result of increased litigation in the social media context, many businesses are developing social media policies for employees and consulting with attorneys in order to protect the business from lawsuits. Lindsay Lebresco, Social Media Manager at Lilly Pulitzer, recently spoke about this issue at the Social Media Plus conference in Philadelphia. She advocates choosing your social media team very wisely: who is an expert in your brand and able to communicate effectively? Who understands Social Media? Who is trustworthy and interested in engaging your audience positively, while not being afraid to address complaints in an honest thoughtful fashion? Lebresco also advocates creating a solid policy for your social media team – and employees in general – to follow.

Here are some great social media policy resources:

• Social Media Business Council (http://www.socialmedia.org/disclosure/)

• Social Media Governance (http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php)

Finally, Lebresco emphasizes training and developing your team through formal education, competitor and trade tracking, trade media reading and circulation and continuing education (conferences, seminars and the like). A couple of great online resources include Mashable, Social Media Today, MediaPost and Smart Brief.

If you have concerns about the legal consequences of utilizing social media in your business, I would be happy to talk with you….. Just message me on facebook at www.facebook.com/jmlawgroup or tweet me @lawmr.