Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Latest News on NorVergence
There have been three recent developments in two state courts in the closely watched NorVergence matter. First, a Florida circuit court judge dismissed the State Attorney General's suit against a number of leasing companies, holding that the leasing companies had not violated Florida's laws. Among other things, the court stated that the hell and high water and the waiver of defense and warranties clauses are permitted under Florida law and that the NorVergence forum selection clause is valid and enforceable under Florida law.
In the second case, the Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of one of the assignees of lessors' rights, Preferred Capital, finding that it had no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The state appellate court held that the trial court orders dismissing the cases were not “final” appealable orders because the cases can be refiled in other states.
In another related matter, the Massachusetts Attorney General announced a settlement with three finance companies linked to NorVergence that will benefit 1000 small business owners from across the country, including 73 in Massachusetts. The settlement resolves allegations that CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc., Lyon Financial Services, and Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. knew or should have known that their financing agreements with more than 1000 small businesses were fraudulently obtained. Under the terms of the settlement, CIT, US Bancorp, and Wells Fargo will refund or clear $24 million in rental payments they claimed to be owed by more than 1000 NorVergence customers nationwide. In Massachusetts, CIT, US Bancorp, and Wells Fargo will refund or not collect more than $1.6 million in rental payments they claimed to be owed by 73 Massachusetts consumers. In addition, CIT, US Bancorp, and Wells Fargo have agreed not to enforce the waiver of jurisdiction clause ' which means that even if a Massachusetts customer opts not to accept the terms of the AG's settlement, that customer can no longer be sued outside of Massachusetts. The settlement mandates that CIT and USB will only collect 15% of the customer's remaining balance after July 15, 2004. Wells Fargo will collect 14% of the customer's remaining balance after July 31, 2004. Also, consumers that previously settled with CIT, US Bancorp, or Wells Fargo regarding NorVergence service for terms that are less favorable than this settlement can receive the more favorable settlement terms if they choose. The Massachusetts AG led this multistate action with Attorneys General from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, the District of Columbia and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.