Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 2, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a franchisee that stays in business cannot sue for constructive eviction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (the “Act”). The Court also decided that a franchisee waives its constructive nonrenewal claim when it enters into a renewal agreement.
In Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, service station franchisees sued their franchisor, Motiva Enterprises LLC (a joint venture of Shell Oil and two other companies) for withdrawing a volume-based rent subsidy, thereby effectively raising the franchisees' rent when they were up for renewal. As each franchise agreement expired, Motiva offered new agreements that contained a new rent formula for calculating rent, which resulted in higher rent. The franchisees sued both for constructive termination and for constructive nonrenewal, while continuing in operation. The theme of the franchisees' case at trial was that the franchisor sought to drive the franchisees out of business for the purpose of taking over their service station locations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.