MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

Articles by Our Attorneys

What Does Equitable Distribution Mean in Plain English? 

by Leave a Comment

One of the biggest misconceptions I encounter as a Family Law Attorney is that all property will automatically be divided 50/50. In Pennsylvania, that’s not necessarily the case. 

Pennsylvania follows a legal principle called equitable distribution, which means that marital assets and debts are divided in a manner the court determines is fair — not necessarily equal. 

What Is Equitable Distribution? 

Equitable distribution is the process by which marital assets and liabilities are divided between spouses during a divorce. 

Generally speaking, the Court has the authority to distribute the marital estate, which includes assets and debts accumulated between the date of marriage and the date of separation, in a way it deems equitable under the circumstances. 

Importantly, Pennsylvania law directs trial courts to make these decisions without regard to marital misconduct, meaning the court is focused on the financial realities of the marriage rather than assigning blame for the breakdown of the relationship. 

How Does the Court Decide What’s Fair? 

Pennsylvania law provides a number of factors for trial courts to consider when determining how to divide marital property, which include: 

  • The length of the marriage 
  • Whether it is a first or subsequent marriage for either spouse 
  • Each party’s age, health, income, and earning capacity 
  • The employability and vocational skills of each spouse 
  • Whether one spouse contributed to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other 
  • Each party’s opportunity to acquire future assets and income 
  • The standard of living established during the marriage 
  • The economic circumstances of each party at the time of distribution 
  • The tax consequences associated with the division of assets 
  • If there are children born of the marriage, are any of them still minors, and if so, the parties’ custodial arrangements 

What Is Dissipation of Assets? 

Another factor courts may consider is whether either spouse has dissipated marital assets. 

“Dissipation” generally refers to the wasting or improper use of marital property. 

Examples may include: 

  • Spending significant marital funds on gambling 
  • Using marital assets to support an extramarital affair 
  • Recklessly spending money for personal benefit after separation 
  • Allowing valuable property to fall into disrepair 
     

For instance, if a spouse remains in the marital residence and knowingly ignores a serious roof leak that ultimately causes substantial damage to the home, a court could view that as a dissipation of a marital asset. 

It’s More Than Just Dividing Property 

Equitable distribution involves much more than simply assigning values to bank accounts and retirement plans. 

Courts must also consider the practical and financial consequences of dividing assets. For example: 

  • Costs associated with selling a marital residence 
  • Outstanding mortgages or liens 
  • Real estate transfer taxes 
  • Potential capital gains tax consequences 
  • Other transaction costs that may impact the true value of an asset 
     

The goal is to evaluate the complete financial picture and arrive at a distribution that is fair under the specific circumstances of the case. 

The Bottom Line 

Equitable distribution is not a mathematical formula, nor is it automatically a 50/50 split. Instead, Pennsylvania courts carefully evaluate a variety of economic factors to determine what constitutes a fair division of marital assets and liabilities. 

Every family has a unique financial story, which is why the outcome of one divorce may look very different from another. 

If you have questions about how equitable distribution may affect your rights, Michael Rovito and the Family Law team at MacElree Harvey are available to help you understand your options and navigate the process with confidence. 

Want to Sell Your Business? Start Now. 

by Leave a Comment

Author: Andrew R. Silverman, Business Attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Imagine staring into your computer as a grid of unfamiliar faces—lawyers, accountants, and private equity professionals—fires questions at you about every corner of your business: financials, taxes, contracts, leases, customers, suppliers, employees, ownership, intellectual property, equipment, inventory, A/R, A/P, and more. The questions keep coming, rapid and relentless, and for hours you are expected to have clear, consistent answers. Would you? 

The reality is that the more prepared you are when that moment arrives, the easier and more successful the process will be. Buyers–whether private equity firms or SBA-backed individuals– are looking for businesses they can understand, trust, and step into with confidence. These buyers are willing to pay more for that certainty. The best outcomes do not come from scrambling after a letter of intent is signed. They are the result of years of consistent financial reporting, clean corporate hygiene, documented relationships, and disciplined planning. 

What You Can Do Right Now 

Regardless of timing, owners can immediately improve exit readiness by reducing legal, financial, and operational ambiguity. 

  • Document all related party arrangements, including leases and loans to owners 
  • Get financials clean, consistent, and explainable 
  • Confirm ownership and equity structure is clear and documented 
  • Ensure all material contracts are signed and accessible 
  • Eliminate “handshake” arrangements—reduce all agreements to writing 
  • Centralize key documents (basic data room: organizational documents, tax filings, financials, employment agreements, IP, and contracts) 
  • Reduce reliance on any single person, customer, or vendor 

Ask yourself: if you had to explain your business to a buyer tomorrow, what would be unclear—or undocumented? 

Startup Phase: Build for Transferability 

At formation, most owners are focused on getting a product or service into the market. While exit may not be top of mind, the decisions made at this stage will shape both how the business operates—and how easy it is to sell later. 

  • Establish a clean legal structure—be deliberate about entity type, tax treatment, and cash flow 
  • Ensure all intellectual property is clearly owned by the company, including through written assignments from employees and contractors 
  • Avoid commingling and informal practices from the outset 
  • Document all key relationships (employees, customers, vendors) 
  • Require baseline protections (confidentiality and IP assignment agreements) 
  • Establish financial discipline early 
  • Build a trusted advisory team (accountant, banker, and legal counsel) 

You are not just building a business—you are building an asset someone else must be able to step into. 

Five Years from Sale: Institutionalize the Business 

At this stage, the business is established and performing. The focus shifts from growth to making the business legible—and credible—to a third party. Buyers are evaluating not just what the business can do, but how reliably it can continue to do it without you. 

  • Develop management depth beyond the founder 
  • Improve financial credibility—establish reviewed or audited financial statements and document any deviations or non-standard practices 
  • Identify, resolve, and document any issues in the financials that require explanation (e.g., unusual accounting treatments, slow A/P, inconsistent margins) 
  • Clean up legacy contracts and unresolved issues 
  • Address customer concentration risk where possible 
  • Evaluate tax and entity structure with a view toward an eventual exit and clarity to the buyer 

Buyers rarely expect perfection—but they quickly lose confidence where things are unclear. 

One Year from Sale: De-Risk the Transaction 

At this stage, the goal is to eliminate surprises. Buyers often lose confidence not because of performance, but because of what they find once diligence begins. If you identify and resolve those issues in advance, you control the narrative—and reduce the risk of late-stage disruption. 

  • Conduct a mock diligence review—what will a buyer find when it reviews your business and its documents? Find those issues now—before the buyer does 
  • Organize contracts, financials, and corporate records into a clear, accessible structure 
  • Clean up working capital and unusual balance sheet items (common sources of price adjustments) 
  • Resolve disputes, contingent liabilities, and informal arrangements before they surface in diligence 

At this stage, you are not increasing value—you are protecting it. 

Six Months from Sale: Optimize for Execution 

As a sale process begins, the focus becomes execution: speed, clarity, and credibility. At this point, preparation is visible—and it directly impacts how smoothly the process runs and how confident buyers feel. 

  • Prepare a fully organized, diligence-ready data room 
  • Ensure financial performance and the business narrative are consistent and explainable 
  • Identify and resolve third-party consents and approvals in advance 
  • Anticipate and prepare for key negotiation points (price adjustments, indemnification, etc.) 
  • Maintain steady performance—buyers closely monitor any changes during the process 

Deals rarely fail late because of price—they fail because of uncertainty or loss of confidence. 

Closing Thought 

The best exits are not engineered at the end—they are revealed over time. The sale process effectively begins long before you decide to sell—often before the business is even formed. The earlier you approach your business with that reality in mind, the more control you will have over the outcome when the time comes. 

Andrew R. Silverman is a business attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., where he represents clients in a wide range of corporate and commercial matters. His practice includes business formation, governance, contracts, mergers and acquisitions, succession planning, and general counsel services for businesses of all sizes. Andrew works closely with business owners and executives to provide practical, strategic legal guidance tailored to their goals.

Graduation Season: Why Young Adults Need More Than a Diploma

by Leave a Comment

Once a child graduates from high school, the focus shifts to the next major event. That
event could be work, college, or vocational school. While these are indeed momentous,
an even bigger event is occurring simultaneously. That is, the child is turning 18 years
old. In the eyes of the law, this means that the child is now considered an adult.

Although the child still looks the same physically, coming of age signals less control for
the parent. The child is now capable of signing legal paperwork on his or her own
behalf. The child no longer needs a formal guardian. Rather, the child is an adult in the
eyes of the law, and with that qualification, parents no longer have the same ability to
speak on behalf of the child as they did when they were the child’s guardian.

For example, once a child turns 18, a parent can no longer receive HIPPA protected
medical documents on the child’s behalf. A parent has no right to speak on the child’s
behalf to authorize a medical procedure. A parent likewise cannot handle financial
matters for the child. Simply put, a parent’s rights are significantly reduced from what
they were when the child was a minor, and the parent was the child’s legal guardian.
Once a child turns 18 years old, a parent must be given permission by the child to
speak on his or her behalf both financially and medically. This is done through a power
of attorney. In a power of attorney document, the principal, which in this case is the
child, gives an agent the ability to speak on their behalf in the event that the child cannot
do so. One is a durable general power of attorney for financial matters, and one is a
healthcare power of attorney for medical matters. In both, the child names the parent,
or parents, as his or her agent. In that way, the parents can continue to have the ability
to speak and receive protected information on behalf of their child.

Where this plays out most is when the child moves away from home to attend school or
work. The child sustains a medical emergency while away from home, and the parent
tries to gather information. Medical providers are not allowed by law to provide any
information without a valid healthcare power of attorney document once the child is over
18 years old. Likewise, the parent is not authorized to make medical decisions on
behalf of the child without having been named their power of attorney. Finally, if a
banking issue comes up while the child is away from home, such as a lost debit card,
the parent is unable to handle the matter if not legally named the child’s durable power
of attorney.

We want what’s best for our children. We want them to succeed in life. Besides
teaching them the necessities of life, such as how to do laundry, make sure your child is
protected with power of attorney documents. A diploma moves them to the next stage
of life. Powers of attorney allow parents to speak on behalf of their now adult children
when needed.

Author Sally A. Farrell is an attorney who concentrates her practice in estate planning and administration, advising clients on strategies designed to preserve wealth, minimize tax exposure, maximize asset growth, and pass family wealth to future generations. Learn more: www.macelree.com/attorney/sally-a-ferrell.

Employment Law Update May 2026 – Workplace Investigations

by Leave a Comment

The May 2026 employment law update provides guidance on best practices for Employer workplace investigations based upon recent trends in employment litigation:

Internal workplace investigations have long served as a critical risk-management tool for employers facing allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and employee misconduct. When conducted effectively, they allow organizations to identify issues early, respond appropriately to complaints and build a defensible record supporting employment decisions. Increasingly, however, the investigation itself has become a focal point in employment litigation.

Employees and their counsel frequently scrutinize whether an investigation was truly impartial or merely a process designed to justify a predetermined outcome. Courts examining these claims have made clear that not every flaw or omission in an investigation will establish liability. Still, where the investigative process appears superficial, biased, incomplete or closely tied to disciplinary decision-makers, those deficiencies can undermine an employer’s credibility and support claims of pretext or retaliation.

Recent employment disputes illustrate how these challenges arise in practice. In some cases, employees allege that investigators lacked independence because human resources personnel or in-house counsel were simultaneously involved in both fact-finding and disciplinary decisions. In others, plaintiffs point to limited witness interviews, selective evidence review, poor documentation or failures to adequately address employee complaints as evidence that the process was outcome-driven rather than a genuine effort to determine the facts.

These concerns often center on three interrelated concepts: independence, credibility, and trust. Independence is essential because investigations lose persuasive value when employees perceive investigators as aligned with management or invested in a particular result. Courts may view overlapping investigative and disciplinary roles as evidence that the process lacked neutrality, particularly when employment decisions appear to have been made before the investigation concluded.

Credibility is equally important. An investigation may satisfy procedural requirements on paper yet still appear unreliable when examined during litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys routinely challenge what investigators failed to do – including witnesses they did not interview, records they did not review, and allegations they did not fully explore. Employers must therefore be prepared not only to show that an investigation occurred, but also to explain why its scope, timing and methodology were reasonable under the circumstances.

Trust also plays a significant role in the effectiveness of workplace investigations. Employees are far more likely to participate candidly when they believe the process is fair, confidential, and free from retaliation. Conversely, employees who perceive investigations as management-driven or predetermined may withhold information, avoid participation or later challenge the integrity of the process itself. Building trust requires clear communication, meaningful anti-retaliation protections, and investigators capable of navigating sensitive workplace dynamics with professionalism and impartiality.

For employers, the broader lesson is clear: workplace investigations should not be treated as mere compliance exercises. They are often central pieces of evidence that may later be dissected by opposing counsel, judges, and juries. Timing, documentation, internal communications and decision-making processes can all become subject to scrutiny in discovery.

Organizations can reduce risk by separating investigative and disciplinary functions where possible, carefully managing communications during the process, and ensuring investigators possess not only technical knowledge, but also sound judgment and strong interpersonal skills. In matters involving senior leadership, significant employee complaints or heightened legal exposure, employers may also benefit from engaging independent outside investigators to reinforce the integrity of the process.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an internal investigation depends not simply on whether it was completed or any particular outcome, but on whether it will withstand scrutiny after litigation begins. Employers that prioritize independence, credibility and employee trust place themselves in a far stronger position to defend both their decisions and the investigative process that supported them.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

When the Offer Isn’t Fair: Why Your Lawyer Matters

by Leave a Comment

Author: Tim Rayne, Personal Injury Attorney at MacElree Harvey

Denise was a graduate student at Penn State when her life was suddenly transformed by a preventable accident. She slipped and fell on snow and ice at her apartment complex and sustained a serious wrist injury.  

The condition never should have existed.  The apartment owner and the snow removal contractor both failed to properly shovel and salt the parking lot after a snow storm and bitter cold created treacherous conditions which cased the fall.

Instead of taking responsibility, the Defense did what they often do: they blamed Denise.

At Mediation, the Defense made what they called a “best and final” offer. It was close, but not enough to fairly compensate Denise. 

Then came the pressure. The defense attorneys stood firm. Even the Mediator, a retired judge, tried to strong arm Deniz to take the deal, claiming that she was risking getting significantly less from a Jury at Trial.

This is where many cases end.

The reality is, a lot of lawyers will tell their clients to take that “best and final” offer and move on. It’s easier. It avoids the risk, time, and effort of litigation.

But Denise made a different choice.

She stood her ground.

And as her lawyer, I stood with her.

We insisted that our valuation of the case was fair and walked out of Mediation without a settlement and made it clear: we were prepared to take the case all the way to trial. We moved forward aggressivel by scheduling additional Depositions to build the case, showing the defense we were serious and willing to take our chances in Court.

That’s when everything changed.

The same Defense lawyers that refused to compromise at Mediation came back and offered the number Denise had asked for all along.

In the end, Denise didn’t just settle—she closed the case on her terms.

The takeaway is simple: it matters who you hire. You need a personal injury lawyer who is willing to litigate and try your case, not one who simply accepts the “best and final” offer. Sometimes, the difference between settling cheap and getting fair compensation is having a lawyer willing to fight.

Sometimes, the best move is refusing to take the deal.

Author Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, and has offices in West Chester and Kennett Square. For over 30 years, Tim has been helping accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from Insurance Companies. Tim has extensive experience negotiating settlements but also trying cases in Court. Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Employment Law Update April 2026

by Leave a Comment

The April 2026 employment law update highlights a sharp turn in federal enforcement priorities, as agencies tighten scrutiny on joint employment liability, DEI practices, and federal contractor compliance – reshaping the legal risk landscape for employers across industries. Get the latest below.

DOL Unveils Revised Joint Employer Rule to Clarify Shared Liability for Wage and Hour Violations

The U.S. Department of Labor announced this month a newly proposed rule on joint employer liability that more detailed guidance on how businesses would be evaluated when determining responsibility for wage and hour violations under federal labor laws. The rule applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), and is intended to clarify when multiple employers may be held jointly liable for unpaid wages, overtime violations, or leave-related obligations.

The proposal distinguishes between two forms of joint employment: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal joint employment occurs when a worker has separate employment relationships with two or more related employers that are sufficiently associated with one another. For example, if two restaurants share ownership, management, or scheduling authority, an employee working for both may be considered jointly employed. In such cases, the Department would examine whether the employers coordinate operations, share supervisors, or have overlapping control over employment decisions.

Vertical joint employment applies when a worker is formally employed by one company, such as a staffing agency or subcontractor, but another business exercises significant control over the employee’s work. To determine this, the rule outlines four main factors: the ability to hire or fire the worker, supervision and control over work schedules or conditions, authority over pay and compensation methods, and maintenance of employment records.

Unlike the 2020 Trump-era rule, the new proposal allows courts and investigators to consider indirect or even potential control, not just direct actions taken by the employer. It also removes strict limits on considering economic dependence, meaning broader workplace realities may influence decisions. This approach aims to improve legal defensibility while still giving employers clearer compliance standards.

Latest EEOC Report Signals Shift Toward DEI Scrutiny, Pre-Litigation Settlements, and AI Adoption

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2025 performance report issued this month reveals a major shift in enforcement priorities under President Donald Trump’s administration, signaling a stronger focus on workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)

programs, religious discrimination, and what the agency calls discrimination against American workers.

The report highlights the agency’s efforts to challenge DEI initiatives it considers unlawful, mentioning DEI 14 times and emphasizing “anti-American bias” in hiring practices. One example was a $1.4 million consent decree involving LeoPalace in Guam, where the EEOC alleged foreign-preference discrimination.

The agency also reported recovering $660 million for nearly 17,700 workers facing workplace discrimination, with $528 million secured before litigation through mediation, conciliation, and settlements—the highest pre-litigation recovery in its history. This signals stronger pressure on employers during investigations before lawsuits are filed.

Additionally, the EEOC is expanding its use of technology, including texting platforms and artificial intelligence tools like Microsoft 365 Copilot, to improve communication, legal research, and case preparation.

The report reflects a broader philosophical realignment at the EEOC, with less emphasis on traditional civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ employees and a greater focus on scrutinizing workplace policies involving immigration and hiring preferences.

DOJ Secures $17M IBM Settlement in First False Claims Act Case Targeting DEI Policies

IBM has agreed to pay $17 million to settle allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that it violated the False Claims Act through diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives tied to its federal contracting work. The Justice Department, under the Trump administration, said the settlement is the first under a new enforcement initiative targeting DEI-related practices in companies receiving federal funds.

Officials alleged that IBM engaged in discriminatory policies by linking bonus compensation to workforce demographic targets, adjusting interview eligibility based on race or gender, and setting diversity goals for business units. The government also claimed the company offered training, mentoring, and leadership opportunities on the basis of protected characteristics rather than merit.

IBM did not admit liability and denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle and pay the penalty while also modifying or eliminating the contested policies. A company spokesperson said IBM’s hiring and promotion strategy is based on ensuring employees have the skills required by clients.

The Justice Department framed the case as part of a broader effort to ensure federal contractors do not use taxpayer-funded work to support what it described as unlawful DEI practices. The initiative follows a 2025 directive allowing False Claims Act enforcement against contractors alleged to engage in discriminatory diversity programs.

The settlement also reflects a wider political and legal campaign by the administration to restrict DEI programs in both government and private-sector contracting, alongside increased scrutiny of firms and institutions with diversity-focused policies.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

LEGAL SERVICES

ABOUT US

NEWS & INSIGHTS

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More