Financial Information
| Cited | Statutes | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| Hoy v. Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority | 61.878 | Because the Supreme Court is guided by the principle that under general rules of statutory construction it may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language, the stated language of subdivision (1)(c)2.b. of this section seems quite clear: an entity seeking tax credits pursuant to KRS Chapter 154 need not disclose confidential information submitted in applying for such credits. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995). Link |
| Hoy v. Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority | 61.878 | Since corporation sought investment tax credits through Kentucky Industry Revitalization Authority (KIRA) which was established by and administered through KRS Chapter 154 and the information submitted by corporation to KIRA was done in conjunction with said application for the tax credits and since by amending the Open Records Act, specifically KRS 61.878(1)(C)2.b., to include documents submitted pursuant to KRS Chapter 154, it is evident that the Legislature sought to protect those companies which participate in the revitalization and development of industry in Kentucky, such documents were exempt from disclosure. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995). Link |
| Hoy v. Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority | 61.878 | The financial information required to be submitted by corporation in its application to Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority (KIRA) that detailed the company’s business and revitalization project and included such information as a financial history of the corporation, a projected cost of the project, the specific amount and timing of capital investment, copies of financial statements and a detailed description of the company’s productivity, efficiency and financial stability concerning the inner workings of the corporation is “generally recognized as confidential or proprietary” and falls within the wording of KRS 61.878(1)(c)2.b. Hoy v. Kentucky Indus. Revitalization Auth., 907 S.W.2d 766, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 125 (Ky. 1995). Link |
| Marina Management Service, v. Cabinet for Tourism | 61.878 | The confidential audited financial reports of privately owned, corporate marina operators were exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.878(1)(c)1. The Legislative Program Review and Investigation Committee could not obtain nor disclose such records under the Open Records Act, but could obtain access to them for its use in evaluation pursuant to KRS 6.910 without disclosure to the public. Marina Management Servs. v. Cabinet for Tourism, Dep't of Parks, 906 S.W.2d 318, 1995 Ky. LEXIS 62 (Ky. 1995). Link |
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.