Weekly Legal Update: September 11, 2026.

The panel held that MCR 3.501(A)(5) precludes class actions seeking to recover damages under statutes that mandate a minimum amount of recovery for any action brought under the statute, where the statute does not expressly authorize class recovery. The plaintiffs, a repossession agent and his company, had sued on behalf of a putative class under the Michigan Occupational Code and the Regulation of Collection Practices Act, challenging the business model of forwarding companies that act as intermediaries between creditors and local agents. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the class claims to the extent consistent with its opinion and vacated the dismissal to the extent it was not. It reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' individual claims, holding that the court rule restricts class treatment alone, and remanded to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings.

The Court affirmed summary disposition for the insurer, holding that the mandatory residual liability limits in MCL 500.3009, being $250,000 for each person and $500,000 for each occurrence, apply only to a policy delivered or issued for delivery in Michigan with respect to a vehicle registered or principally garaged in Michigan. Because the policy at issue was issued in New York for a New York registered vehicle, the statute did not operate to increase its stated limits of $25,000 for each person and $50,000 for each occurrence. The panel further held that the policy's out of state insurance provision raised coverage only where the law of the other jurisdiction affirmatively required an increase, and Michigan law imposed no such requirement on these facts. The decision is published and therefore binding precedent.

The Court of Appeals approved for publication an opinion that reverses a circuit court order dismissing an administrative appeal for want of jurisdiction. The panel held that the proceeding was a contested case because the governing federal regulations entitle the affected person to an opportunity for a hearing before benefits are terminated, and that the appellant had exhausted administrative remedies when the agency issued a final decision denying her hearing request. The case was remanded for development of the record on whether adequate notice was given and whether a hearing was required. The event within this week is the grant of publication, which converts the reasoning into binding authority.

The Service published the applicable federal rates for September 2026. With annual compounding, the short term rate is 4.18 percent, the mid term rate is 4.49 percent and the long term rate is 5.12 percent. The section 7520 rate for September 2026 is 5.40 percent. These rates set the minimum interest that must be charged on many related party loans and drive the valuation of the split interests used in charitable and family transfer planning.

The final regulations implement the deduction for qualified passenger vehicle loan interest under section 163(h)(4). A taxpayer may deduct as much as $10,000 of qualifying interest for a year, subject to a phaseout that reduces the allowance by $200 for each $1,000 of modified adjusted gross income above $100,000, or above $200,000 on a joint return. The regulations address which vehicles qualify, the personal use requirement, and the treatment of refinancing. They also implement information reporting under section 6050AA, requiring a person who receives $600 or more of such interest during a calendar year to file Form 1098-VLI with the Service and to furnish a statement to the borrower. The deduction applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024 and before January 1, 2029.

The Service is accepting applications for the 2027 Compliance Assurance Process until October 30, 2026, and will notify applicants in February 2027. The program resolves tax issues with large corporate taxpayers cooperatively before a return is filed rather than through examination afterward. An applicant must have assets of $10 million or more and must not be under investigation by, or in litigation with, any government agency in a manner that would limit the Service's access to current tax records. An applicant must also be either a publicly traded United States corporation that files Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, or a privately held C corporation, including a foreign owned corporation, that produces audited annual financial statements carrying an unqualified opinion.

The Service placed on public inspection a proposed rule titled Information Reporting Regarding Qualified Opportunity Zones and Updated Qualified Opportunity Fund Certification and Decertification Procedures. The document runs 121 pages and was scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026. As the title indicates, it addresses the information that qualified opportunity funds and related parties must report, and it revises the procedures by which a fund is certified and by which certification is withdrawn. The comment period and applicability dates appear in the published text, which should be consulted directly.

In Candor Compass LLC v. iDentivisuals SRL, the Court held after trial that the parties' term sheet was a binding preliminary agreement of the type that creates fully enforceable obligations, not an agreement merely to negotiate toward a later contract. The Court found the defendant breached by failing to deliver the licensed technology and failing to place the intellectual property in escrow as the term sheet required. It rejected the defenses of prior material breach and unclean hands. As a remedy the Court ordered specific performance, directing that the technology and escrowed material be conveyed in fee simple to the plaintiff.

In Youngerwood v. AP Sulphur Spring LP, the Court held that the limited partnership agreement's inspection clause, which gives partners access upon prior notice to the books and accounts and any other records, expands the default rule and displaces the necessary and essential limitation that 6 Del. C. section 17-305(f) would otherwise impose. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to records responsive to all five categories stated in his demand of November 11, 2025, rather than the two categories the Magistrate had allowed, although the contractual notice requirement confined him to the categories actually demanded. The Court also held that the general partner was a proper defendant on the contract claim, distinguishing the case law developed under the corporate books and records statute. It declined to shift fees.

In McAllister v. Stidham, the Court held that claims alleging misappropriation of company assets and usurpation of a company opportunity belonged to the limited liability company rather than to the member personally, so Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 required either a demand or particularized allegations excusing one. The plaintiff's futility allegations rested on a deadlock among members and on the defendant's relationship to another member, but that governance structure had ceased to exist nine months before the defendant was added to the case, because a liquidating trustee had become the sole manager. No demand was made on the trustee and no facts were pleaded showing that a demand on that neutral, court appointed fiduciary would have been futile. The Court declined to recognize a practicality exception and held that serving the trustee through the electronic filing system does not substitute for a formal demand.

The Department announced a proposed consent decree with Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC resolving claims of information sharing and algorithmic coordination in residential rents. If the decree is approved, Pinnacle must refrain from using any anticompetitive algorithm that generates pricing recommendations from competitors' competitively sensitive data, must stop sharing such information with rivals, and must accept a court appointed monitor if it uses third party pricing software that is not certified under the decree. Pinnacle must also decline to participate in vendor hosted meetings of competing landlords and must cooperate in the case against the remaining defendants. The settlement will be published in the Federal Register, and written comments are due within sixty days of that publication.

The Commission proposes to rescind Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act, which bars an adviser from receiving compensation for advising a government client for two years after a covered political contribution. The proposing release states that the rule has proved operationally difficult, has led advisers to impose blanket prohibitions on employee political donations, and functions as a de facto strict liability standard. The Commission reasons that the antifraud provisions, the fiduciary duty, compliance policies under Rule 206(4)-7 and codes of ethics under Rule 204A-1 already address the underlying conduct. The proposal would also amend the recordkeeping rule to drop the associated documentation requirements.

The Commission extended the deadline for public comment on its proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing from September 18, 2026 to September 25, 2026. The release defines personalized pricing as the use of personal data to set prices according to the amount that a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. We include this item, which issued one day before the research window, because the deadline falls within the next two weeks.