Features
William L. Killion
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in <i>Leegin</i> held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of <i>Leegin</i> have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: <i>Leegin</i> does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful <i>per se</i>; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful <i>per se</i>, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
Features
Kenneth R. Meyer, Brian P. Sharkey
&
Genevieve M. Spires
Product liability plaintiffs are facing ever-growing barriers to filing suit in state and federal courts. Tort reformers have won significant victories at the state level, including restrictions on asbestos claims and caps on punitive damages. At the federal level, the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') has allowed for easier removal of state class actions to federal courts. In addition to the impact of CAFA, a number of states have enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to file class actions in their courts. Several states also have initiated 'venue reform,' which limits the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to file lawsuits in those states.
Features
Steven J. Roberts
Last month's installment discussed how a real estate attorney should create a checklist to bring a transaction from concept to fruition. Part Two of this series addresses compliance issues, dissemination of information, and the level of detail of the checklist.
Features
Randolph M. Perkins
Some commercial landlords consider indemnification clauses in leases to constitute mere 'legal boilerplate' that do not merit attention from a business perspective. Some lawyers, feeling pressure to minimize the length of lease documents, may seize upon this clause as an opportunity to save space. As a result, it is not uncommon to encounter abbreviated indemnification clauses. At first glance, the language appears suitable. However, when put to the test, these 'lite' clauses often leave landlords unsatisfied. This article demonstrates the value of 'kicking it up a notch' by including ingredients called for in the recipe but often left out of the mix.
Features
William Steinman
Earlier this year, Baker Hughes Inc. ascended to the top of an exclusive and prominent list, but it is one on which few companies would want to be mentioned. On April 26, 2007, the Texas-based oil field products and services company announced that it was settling a federal probe alleging that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ('FCPA'), and that it would pay fines and penalties in excess of $44 million ' the largest combined punishment under that law. It was truly one for the record books ' at least for the time being.
Features
Jonathan E. Fleisher
&
Andrew M. Reback
Canada's conservative minority government recently passed its 2007 Financial Budget (the 'Budget'), which will likely impact the equipment finance industry and particularly cross-border (U.S./Canada) transactions. Central to the Budget was the proposal to eliminate withholding tax on interest payments on loan transactions. As will be discussed below, the likely impact will be that traditional cross-border transactions will be restructured to: 1) provide for quicker repayment of the principal portion of the loan, and 2) provide a means for a greater number of less internationally focused commercial banks and finance companies to undertake cross-border transactions which, prior to the enactment of the new legislation, would have be seen as too complex. This second impact may cause a more competitive environment and further add liquidity to any already liquid market. It is not clear, however, that the proposed legislation will have a significant impact on larger transactions or the activities of internationally focused lenders. While there will likely be enhanced competition for smaller straightforward transactions than currently exists, the market for complex large transactions, while restructured, will have the same level of competition as currently exists.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
What's new and noteworthy.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The most recent news you need to know.
Features
Peter H. Gruen
&
Lindsay M. LaCava
In an effort to increase comparability and consistency in how companies report income tax positions on financial statements, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ('FASB') issued on July 13, 2006 FASB Interpretation Number 48 ('FIN 48'), <i>Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes.</i> FIN 48 changes the way companies must account for uncertain tax positions taken on federal, state and local, and international income tax returns for financial reporting purposes. Despite the requests for delay by numerous companies and trade and lobbying groups, the provisions of FIN 48 became effective for fiscal years beginning on or after Dec. 15, 2006. The provisions of FIN 48 apply broadly to all companies that issue financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') and that are potentially subject to federal, state and local, or foreign income taxes.
Features
Alexander Terras
&
Jason N. Kaplan
Back in 1985, one of us contributed to an industry publication an article titled <i>Strategies for Recovery in Lessee Bankruptcy</i>. Twenty-two years later, the landscape of bankruptcy law and the leasing industry have changed dramatically, and issues and problems faced by the equipment lessor today have much different priorities. As the equipment leasing community contemplates the landscape today, some new approaches and decision drivers face the leasing executive when his lessee files Chapter 11, or threatens to do so.
