How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Business News
- Details
- Written by: Editor
Chamber Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton said scams arriving at the Lake County Chamber office on a fairly regular basis, and the latest came to their attention Oct. 6.
Upon opening the mail, there was a very official looking invoice from the Business Filings Division, Statement of Information, Officers List. Price tag is $235, and the recipient is said to remit immediately to avoid penalties, fines and suspension.
The document quotes California Corporations Code section 1502 and Agricultural Code section 54040, as well as other codes. What most people do not pay attention to is the business description, at the bottom of the page where it states that “this product or service has not been approved or endorsed by any government agency, and this offer is not being made by an agency of the government.”
The mailing address in Sacramento might lead you to believe that this is a state request for payment, etc., if you had not read the business description in the final section. The form that comes to each corporation, biannually, from the California Secretary of State, requests this same information. The state filing fee is $20 and it is an official document.
Another member called the chamber on Oct. 6, stating they had received a call from National Safety Supplies, Safety Compliance department insisting that they need to purchase a mandatory CalOsha kit for $369. This kit contains the employee posters, etc.
When the chamber attempted to call the phone number that had been given to the member, it rang once and then nothing.
By December of this year, the Lake County Chamber will once again be selling the mandatory State Employee Information Posters for under $25 each, as a convenience for local businesses. Fulton said they annually purchase these posters along with the mandatory brochures ($2.50 each), from the California Chamber. Watch for order information in the Lake County Chamber November newsletter. Non Chamber members can also purchase these products from us, at a slightly higher price, but still under $30/each.
The Lake County Chamber urges everyone to be very diligent in making sure all invoices and statements from entities you do not know are, in fact, legitimate.
Above all, do not pay for anything you do not remember ordering, regardless of harassing phone calls, etc. Unless those pressing for payment can prove they have received your written authorization for such products, you are under no obligation to pay.
The Lake County Chamber is located at 875 Lakeport Blvd., Vista Point in Lakeport, phone 707-263-5092. Visit their Web site at at www.lakecochamber.com .
- Details
- Written by: Editor
These loans offset economic losses because of reduced revenues caused by high temperatures that occurred from May 15 through May 31 in Glenn and Tehama counties, announced Alfred E. Judd, Director of SBA’s Disaster Field Operations Center - West.
“SBA eligibility covers both the economic impacts on businesses dependent on farmers and ranchers that have suffered agricultural production losses caused by the disaster and businesses directly impacted by the disaster,” Judd said.
Small, non-farm businesses, small agricultural cooperatives and most private, non-profit organizations of any size may qualify for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDLs) of up to $2 million to help meet financial obligations and operating expenses which could have been met had the disaster not occurred.
“Eligibility for these working capital loans is based on the financial impact of the disaster only and not on any actual property damage. These loans have an interest rate of 4%, a maximum term of 30 years, and are restricted to small businesses without the financial ability to offset the adverse impact without hardship,” Judd added.
By law, SBA makes EIDLs available when the U. S. Secretary of Agriculture designates an agricultural disaster. Secretary Tom Vilsack declared this disaster at the request of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Businesses primarily engaged in farming or ranching are not eligible for SBA disaster assistance. Agricultural enterprises should contact the Farm Service Agency (FSA) about the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assistance made available by the Secretary’s declaration.
Information and application forms are available from SBA’s Customer Service Center by calling 800-659-2955, emailing
Applicants may also apply online using the Electronic Loan Application (ELA) via SBA’s secure Web site at https://disasterloan.sba.gov/ela .
The deadline to apply for these loans is May 25, 2010.
For more information, visit SBA’s Web site at www.sba.gov/services/disasterassistance or write the SBA Field Operations Center - West, P.O. Box 419004, Sacramento, CA 95841.
- Details
- Written by: Editor
SACRAMENTO – Late Wednesday, the California Chamber of Commerce and three former governors filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ability to control spending by reducing or eliminating appropriations through the veto power.
The California Taxpayers' Association and the California Business Roundtable also signed onto the brief.
The brief was filed in response to a legal challenge brought against the governor in the wake of last year’s budget crisis.
At issue is whether the Legislature may through a single bill make selective and multi-item appropriations but deprive the governor of his constitutional ability to control spending by selectively reducing or eliminating appropriations through the power to line-item veto. In July, Gov. Schwarzenegger was faced with the need to veto certain appropriations in order to cut spending.
CalChamber argues in its brief:
Legislative attempts to circumvent the Governor’s veto authority are not new, and the courts have rejected these ploys.
The supreme executive power of the state is vested in the Governor. The Governor is responsible for the administration of state government for the benefit of its citizens. One of the most important functions of a governor is to control state spending. The line item-veto is an essential tool in carrying out that function.
Under the guise of a fiscal crisis, the petitioners have invented a theory out of whole cloth to deprive governors of the authority that has been conferred on them by the California Constitution since 1922.
Neutering a governor during a fiscal crisis is irresponsible, particularly when such action is not supported by logic, reason or law. Checks and balances are what keep democratic governments functioning through the good times and bad.
If by simple wordsmithing the legislative branch can create an omnibus spending bill limiting the governor’s oversight only to a veto of the entire bill, then the budgetary process is reduced to a game of “chicken” daring a governor to bring state government to a halt through a veto.
The novel and legally unsupportable theory which petitioners advance is not limited to the current fiscal crisis.
If the petitioners prevail in their theory, absent a constitutional amendment, there will be no constraints on the Legislature to pass multi-item appropriations on a majority basis on the theory they are not appropriations subjects to a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and, for the same reason, are outside a governor’s line-item veto authority.
- Details
- Written by: Editor
The lawsuits, filed in San Diego Superior Court, seek to recover more than $3 million.
"These cases will send a powerful signal that small business owners must be on the alert," Brown said. "These rip-off artists sent official-looking documents through the mail for the sole purpose of duping small business owners into paying them money - for no value in return."
The three cases are separate scams, each following a similar theme. The defendants mailed to small businesses solicitations that appeared to be government documents featuring an official-looking seal, an official-sounding name, citations to the Corporations Code and a "reply by" date. The forms claimed that the business was in danger of losing its corporate or limited liability status if payment was not made within a short period of time.
In the first case, Anthony Williams operated Compliance Annual Minutes Board that mailed to California businesses official-looking forms demanding that the recipient complete the form and return it with payment of an "Annual Fee" of $150 or risk loss of corporate status. Williams claimed that in exchange for payment, he would provide corporate minutes. Instead, he prepared generic fictitious minutes for the business owners who paid his fee.
The next case involved George Alan Miller, Rebecca Miller, Arghisti Keshishyan and Kristina Keshishyan who together operated two corporations and one limited liability company: Annual Review Board, Inc., Business Filings Division and Corpfilers.com, LLC. Miller and his co-conspirators mailed solicitations to California limited liability companies and corporations, demanding that the recipients complete the form and return it with payment or risk penalties, fines and suspension. The payment amounts varied from $195 to $239, but all mailers were designed to be official-looking government documents that misled the recipients into sending money.
In the third case, Maria Jones operated Corporate Filings Division and Corporate Compliance Filings, Inc., which mailed official-looking forms entitled "Annual Minutes Disclosure Statement" to California businesses, implying that the recipient business was required to complete the form and return it with payment of an "Annual Fee" of $175 or risk loss of corporate status. In exchange for payment, Jones agreed to provide corporate minutes. The information she solicited, however, was inadequate for legitimate corporate minutes, and she instead provided fictitious minutes.
All defendants are accused of violating:
Business and Professions Code section 17533.6 (Deceptive Solicitation Statute);
Civil Code section 1716 (Phony Billing Statute);
Business and Professions Code section 17500 (False Advertising Statute);
Unfair business practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
In all three cases, the Attorney General's Office seeks civil penalties, injunction and other equitable remedies and costs.
Since 2004, the Attorney General's Office has received more than 5,000 complaints against a growing number of individuals who mailed solicitations made to look like governmental forms to small businesses in California. The Thursday announcement adds to the five cases the office has already successfully handled since these scams were brought to the office's attention.