Lippitt O'Keefe, PLLC

10/08/2026

Come down to the Microloan Conference at Hollywood Casino at Greektown next Wednesday 10/14! Carey L. Robinson and Lippitt O’Keefe, PLLC will be presenting different options for financing your small business.

10/06/2026

Come see Brian D. O’Keefe speak at the Microloan Conference at Hollywood Casino at Greektown next Tuesday 10/13! See below for a sneak peek of his presentation on obtaining a liquor license in Michigan!

09/28/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

A 35-year-old man posing as a National Football League (“NFL”) player conned approximately 61 women out of over $1.3 million with the help of his 18-year-old accomplice.

On August 17, 2026, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) filed a criminal Complaint against Daejon Labrayae Love and Taylor Jamie Chan alleging numerous counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The Complaint is presently sealed but an Affidavit in Support written by FBI Special Agent Tyler Esswein is available to the public.

The Affidavit alleges that from at least February 2022 until at least March 2026, Love and Chan conspired to solicit money from victims by falsely representing that they would invest the funds and provide a return on the funds invested with them. Many of the alleged victims were women who Love became romantically involved with after meeting them on online dating platforms. Love often portrayed himself as a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers. Love’s Instagram profile, which has since been deactivated, featured multiple posts of him in a 49er’s jersey and helmet and his bio read “NFL Wide Receiver .” The Affidavit explains that, due to Love’s representations on social media, artificial intelligence “occasionally stated that Love was a bonafide 49ers player.”

The Affidavit details the FBI’s investigation into 14 victims, all of whom are identified by their first and last initial. One victim loaned Love $30,000 in a span of four months after Love told her that he had a “private contract” with the 49ers. Love allegedly told other victims that Chan was his financial advisor, and the two Defendants solicited money from the victims for fake investments. Love allegedly told one victim, A.A., that he was related to Jordan Love, the quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. A.A. took out two loans worth $17,200 that she gave the Defendants after they told her that her investment would “double or triple in value within ten days.” Neither of the aforementioned victims were able to recover any of their money.

The Affidavit and Complaint originally identified 26 women as victims of the scheme, but the FBI has since reported that an additional 35 women have come forward alleging that they too were defrauded by Love and Chan.

The Defendants were arrested on August 24, 2026, at the Boise Airport in Idaho. Chan was granted pretrial release on September 3, 2026. Love remains in custody.

The Court has appointed public defenders for both Love and Chan.

One of the more than 60 reported victims of Daejon Love's alleged schemes alerted the 49ers eight months before he was arrested.

09/17/2026

We’re excited to announce that Brian O’Keefe and Carey Robinson of Lippitt O’Keefe will be speaking at the 2026 National Microloan Conference, October 13–14 at Hollywood Casino at Greektown in Detroit!

Brian and Carey will be sharing their experience and practical legal insight on two important topics for small businesses, lenders, and community development professionals:

➡️ Navigating Michigan’s Complex Liquor Licensing Process
Michigan’s liquor licensing process can be daunting—but it doesn’t have to be. From the initial application to the first pour, we’re here to help businesses understand the process, avoid unnecessary delays, and move forward with confidence.

➡️ Avoiding the Legal Landmines When Financing Your Small Business
Financing can be an essential part of growing a business, but it also comes with legal considerations that shouldn’t be overlooked. Brian and Carey will discuss common legal pitfalls and practical ways to identify risks, stay compliant, and better position your business for long-term success.

We’re looking forward to connecting with microloan professionals, small business lenders, entrepreneurs, and community development leaders from across the country right here in Detroit.

We hope to see you there!

08/31/2026

The More You Know:

On Monday, August 24, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Zillow and Redfin, two large online real estate marketplaces, were scheduled to argue over alleged antitrust violations in the Eastern District of Virgina. Instead, on the morning of August 24th the FTC announced a proposed settlement with the Defendants.

On September 30, 2025, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Zillow and Redfin alleging that the Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in February 2025 whereby Redfin agreed to stop competing for the sale of multifamily rental advertising and to transition its multifamily customers, predominantly property management companies, to Zillow in exchange for $100 million. The Complaint explains that Zillow and Redfin, which operates Rent.com, already exist in a “highly concentrated” market for rental “internet listing service” (“ILS”) advertising. The FTC alleges that Redfin agreed to terminate all of its advertising contracts with managers of multifamily rental properties, to stay out of the market for up to 9 years and to use its network to show only rental listings that are also displayed on Zillow’s sites.

The Complaint alleges that the agreement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that it will “result in reduced choice, higher prices, and reduced quality for multifamily rental advertising customers and will provide no cognizable procompetitive benefits.” The FTC alleges that diminished competition will harm prospective renters in addition to advertising customers.

On August 24, 2026, the FTC announced that it will file a stipulated order with the court that resolves the litigation. According to the FTC, the proposed order lasts for 10 years, and it requires that the Defendants amend their agreement by, among other things, eliminating any restrictions on Redfin’s ability to sell advertising services.

Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition stated, “This settlement delivers better, quicker, more certain results for both renters and property management companies than we would have been able to achieve after prevailing at trial, including firm and enforceable commitments by Redfin to relaunch its rentals advertising business.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/zillow-redfin-settle-ftc-case-over-rental-listings

The US Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement resolving its antitrust case against Zillow Group Inc. and Rocket Companies Inc.’s Redfin, the agency said.

08/19/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

A group of investors have filed a lawsuit against Selena Gomez, the famous musician and former Disney actress, alleging that Gomez and her mother, Mandy Teefey, defrauded the Plaintiffs out of $1.2 million in investments in a mental health and wellness platform called “Wondermind.”

As explained in the Complaint, Wondermind was launched in 2021. In 2022, at the time of the Company’s Series A offering, the Company merely had a “vision” that it sold to investors. This vision included an editorial publication, a mobile app, an original podcast, and related wellness products. The vision allegedly deceived the Plaintiffs into thinking they would see a return on their investment.

The Complaint alleges that Gomez, Teefey, and Daniella Pierson, the former chief executive of Wondermind, directly induced Plaintiffs to invest by promising that Gomez would have an active role in the Company, that Pierson was an experienced executive who had already secured institutional employer partnerships, and that a “full slate of revenue-generating initiatives” were already underway. However, the Plaintiffs allege, “[t]he partnerships did not exist. The initiatives never materialized. The app was never built. And for three years, while the Company quietly collapsed around them, not one of its founders, officers, or directors said a word to the investors whose money was funding the collapse.”

The Plaintiffs allege that their “most salient consideration” was the representation that Gomez would be actively involved in the Company. The Plaintiffs allegedly invested in Wondermind after being assured that Gomez, who has 404 million followers on Instagram alone, would market the Company to her “pre-existing, substantial, and loyal follower base.” Though not mentioned in the Complaint, Gomez founded Rare Beauty, a cosmetics brand that is worth approximately $2.7 billion and is described as “the fastest-growing celebrity beauty brand on social media.” Gomez’s monumental success with her beauty business may have also contributed to the investor’s expectations.

In August 2025, Forbes published an article about Pierson that accused the Wondermind executive of misrepresenting her business acumen. After the article was published, Teefey informed investors that Pierson had been ousted from the Company in early 2023 after she had misappropriated Company assets to “fund her lavish lifestyle,” including her $60,000 monthly rent for an apartment in New York City. The Plaintiffs were allegedly not given this information until they reached out to Teefey following the publication of the Forbes article.

Shortly after, in September 2025, The Cut published an article about Wondermind that “recounted, in painstaking detail, the significant operational, financial, and management issues at the Company.” For the first time, the Plaintiffs learned that Wondermind “had no plan for its future.” Instead, the Plaintiffs learned that Gomez was disinterested in the Company, Teefey and Pierson had a hostile relationship, and Teefey’s performance was materially altered due to alleged substance abuse issues. The investors allege that once they demanded the return of their investment, they were essentially ghosted by the Defendants.

The Complaint alleges multiple counts of securities fraud as well as breach of contract, recission due to failure to satisfy conditions precedent, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Wondermind’s website currently indicates that Teefey and Gomez are co-founders and the apparent leaders of the Company.

Gomez’s lawyer called the lawsuit “completely meritless, both factually and legally.” Pierson has stated that she “categorically denies the allegations against her and welcomes the opportunity to present concrete documentation and financial records that establish the facts.” Teefey has yet to comment on the lawsuit.

In a new lawsuit, investors say they gave $1.2 million to Wondermind to build out the company’s products and expected Gomez to be involved in marketing.

08/17/2026

Lippitt O’Keefe, PLLC is excited to announce the recent merger of its long-standing client Exotic Automation & Supply (“Exotic” or the “Company”) with Value Added Distributors, LLC (“VAD”). Alongside Varnum LLP, Lippitt O’Keefe attorneys Brian D. O’Keefe and Carey L. Robinson served as legal counsel to Exotic. Amherst Partners, LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Exotic in connection with the transaction.

Exotic is a family-owned Michigan-based company that specializes in engineered solutions for motion control and custom molded rubber and plastics. The Company was founded in 1963. In 1972, Exotic received the first distribution agreement with Parker Hannifin, and the Company remains a leading distributor of Parker Hannifin products today. The Company has grown impressively under the leadership of CEO Tom Marino and his son Tommy Marino II.

Following the transaction, Exotic has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of VAD, which is another leading distributor of Parker Hannifin products. The combined company will have an expanded network of ParkerStores, additional product lines and resources, and increased service capabilities.

Lippitt O’Keefe congratulates everyone involved with the new combined entity and looks forward to the Company’s continued success.

08/14/2026

The More You Know:

Regulatory Reporting Rule Repeal!

On August 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) effectively repealed its “Reporting Rule” thereby removing the requirement that U.S. companies report beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

FinCEN implemented the Rule in September 2022, which became effective in January 2024. The Rule required companies to file BOI reports disclosing the beneficial owners of the company (i.e., those who exercise substantial control over the company or those who own or control at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests). The Rule also required that companies formed after December 31, 2023, disclose the company applicants who formed or registered the company.

The Rule faced legal challenges shortly after its implementation. In March 2024, a federal district court found that the CTA exceeded Congress’s power under the Constitution. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed stating that the CTA fell within Congress’s commerce power.

Not only has FinCEN effectively revoked Rule, but it has also announced that previously reported information by U.S. persons will be deleted from the BOI database. It should be noted that foreign companies will still be required to report beneficial ownership information regarding foreign individuals.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated, “Today’s action is a victory for common sense and American small businesses … Treasury is eliminating a burdensome reporting requirement for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising our national security.”

Other lawmakers are not so happy. Senator Elizabeth Warren issued a statement calling the decision “a gift to cartels, criminals, and U.S. adversaries that exploit shell companies to move millions through our financial system.” The final rule that narrows BOI reporting requirements was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2026.

The Treasury Department on Tuesday officially repealed a requirement for American companies and individuals to report beneficial ownership information to its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, o…

07/13/2026

The More You Know:

The Supreme Court of the United States finished its 2025-2026 term on June 30, 2026, after releasing a flurry of decisions. Below we briefly summarize some of the most significant final decisions that the Court handed down.

In West Virginia v B.P.J., the Court held that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow schools to maintain separate men’s and women’s sports teams defined by biological s*x. The decision concerned two consolidated cases, both of which were brought by transgender girls who wished to join girls’ sports teams at their respective schools. However, West Virginia and Idaho, the two states where the plaintiffs are from, passed laws prohibiting biological males from playing on female sports teams. The decision explicitly stated that it does not apply to biological females who wish to join male sports teams.

The Court addressed birthright citizenship in Trump v Barbara holding that children born on United States soil to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and, as such, are citizens under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision was grounded in the historical context surrounding the Clause, from English common law to the Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott. The case was brought after President Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 that sought to eradicate birthright citizenship. Following the Court’s decision, Trump has stated he plans on asking the Court to rehear the case, which is an extraordinary form of relief that the Court has not granted since 1965. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion and was joined by Justice Barrett and the Court’s three liberal justices.

At issue in Watson v Republican National Committee was whether states are allowed to count absentee ballots that are mailed by election day but received afterward. In 2024, the Republican National Committee sued the Mississippi secretary of state arguing that federal election-day statutes prevent the State from counting absentee ballots that are received after election day. The Court disagreed with this argument finding that nothing in the federal statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. In the opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court explains that “election” has always referred to the “electorate’s choice of candidate.” The Court distinguished the receipt of votes from the act of voting stating that the “electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”

Chatrie v United States is a case that will impact future Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Here, the Court held 6-3 that police conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when they acquired a defendant’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. The case involved the use of a “geofence warrant,” which police use to compel technology companies (here it was Google) to hand over any data regarding cell phones in a given virtual perimeter around a crime scene. The Court stated, “It does not matter if the time period scrutinized was only two hours. Nor does it matter that the materials obtained were handed over by a third-party tech company.” The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination on whether the search was reasonable given the warrant that was issued.

In Trump v Slaughter, the Court overruled its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor and held that the Federal Trade Commission’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers. The case came to the Supreme Court after Trump fired the FTC’s two democratic Commissioners without cause in January 2025. The Court explained, “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” The decision marks a step towards a unitary executive, and it has been both widely applauded and widely criticized.

Finally, in Trump v Cook, a case that is somewhat related to Slaughter, the Court held that Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System failed because Cook was not given the procedural removal protections that she was entitled to. The opinion is not exactly clear, but it appears that Federal Reserve’s for-cause removal provision will stand even in the wake of Slaughter due to the importance of a wholly independent central bank.

The Court’s 2026-2027 term will begin on October 5, 2026. You can access the Court's opinions at https://www.supremecourt.gov/.

06/26/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Terrion Arnold, a cornerback for the Detroit Lions, is in hot water for his alleged role in an armed robbery and kidnapping in Florida.

On June 24, 2026, Arnold was arrested in Hillsborough County, Florida. According to the State’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, Arnold and his friends, six of whom are co-defendants in the case, stayed at an Airbnb in Largo, Florida on January 30, 2026. Two of the alleged victims were also present at the Airbnb that night. The following day, Arnold and his friends discovered that they were missing approximately $250,000 in personal property, including Rolex watches, Louis Vuitton merchandise, and $100,000 in cash.

The State alleges that Arnold and his co-defendants later conspired to lure the victims, whom they believed stole the property, to the Tampa home of two female co-defendants. Once the victims arrived, two male co-defendants allegedly beat the victims using fi****ms while one of the female co-defendants streamed the incident to Arnold who was on his way to the home from Tallahassee. Once Arnold arrived, the State alleges that he instructed his other co-defendants to enter the home and continue the assault. The co-defendants allegedly interrogated the victims and stole the victims’ personal property before they were released.

The two female co-defendants, both of whom pleaded guilty, implicated Arnold. They testified that Arnold devised the original plan to lure the victims to the apartment and he drove the getaway car following the alleged assault. Tampa police have alleged that Arnold was the “primary conspirator.”

Arnold, who was the Lion’s first round pick in the 2024 draft (hosted in Detroit), has been charged with three counts of kidnapping, three counts of armed robbery, one count of conspiracy to kidnap, and one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The State has requested that the court deny bond and order pre-trial detention. All six of Arnold’s co-defendants have been denied bond. The hearing is scheduled for Monday, June 29th.

State Attorney Suzy Lopez stated, “No one has the right to take the law into their own hands. A dispute over missing property does not justify kidnapping, violence or retaliation.” Denise White, the CEO of EAG Sports and Entertainment Agency, issued a statement on behalf of Arnold asserting that he “categorically denies any involvement in the matters underlying the allegations made against him and maintains his innocence.”

The Lions explained, “We are aware of the legal situation regarding Terrion Arnold. We will not comment at this time out of respect for the ongoing legal process.” The Lions' first preseason game is August 13th against the Cincinnati Bengals.

NFL player Terrion Arnold of the Detroit Lions was charged Thursday in Florida with leading a plot to detain and pistol-whip three people whom he believed had stolen luxury goods and $100,000 in cash from him.