Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
Features
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
Features
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
As headlines continue to report data security breaches at an alarming rate, discussion often focuses on the need for enhanced technical controls, such as two-factor authentication and encryption, to protect sensitive, personally identifiable information. The role of the company employee, both as the cause of, and the first line of defense against, security breaches is often lost in the analysis. Yet developing law is increasingly requiring administrative or procedural controls, particularly those directed at employees, as a component of a legally compliant security program.
Features
The issue of directors' and officers' liability for deepening insolvency has been the source of a significant number of judicial opinions over the past few years with little consensus being reached on the viability of these claims. This may have changed however. Despite the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's recent decision, <i>In re: Scott Acquisition Corp.</i>, 2006 WL 1732277 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), which ruled that directors and officers of insolvent subsidiary companies owe fiduciary duties to both its creditors and the subsidiary itself. The Delaware Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine presiding, subsequently and resoundingly waded into the breach of fiduciary duty and zone of insolvency arena with its decision in ,<i>Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst &Young, L.L.P., et al.</i>
Features
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently delivered good news for franchisors and their counsel, as it expressly held 'that there are circumstances where the nature of the breach permits the aggrieved party to immediately terminate the contract despite a 'cure' provision where a franchisee commits grievous acts of dishonest conduct.' In <i>LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp.</i>, __ A2.d __, 2006 PA Super 176, 2006 WL 1977508 (Pa. Super, Pa. July 17, 2006) (No. 2068 EDA 2005), Judge Richard B. Klein, with Judge Maureen Lally-Green concurring, authored the opinion affirming a Northampton County trial court's order denying the franchisee's motion for summary judgment and granting the franchisor's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Features
The recent wave of investigations and lawsuits involving the alleged backdating of stock options promises to become one of the most widespread corporate crises in recent years. As these allegations mount, targets of the investigations will look to their insurance companies to help pay their potentially substantial defense costs and any resulting liabilities. <br>At the same time, insurance companies will be looking for ways to minimize, or even evade entirely, their coverage obligations. As a result, targets of backdating investigations must move quickly to protect their insurance coverage.
Features
The composition of the modern corporate board has evolved into a complex and sophisticated governing body that places increasing demands on the lawyers. In the post Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley world, corporate boards continue to be comprised of directors with their own myriad personal and business agendas. These boards, however, have also become more mindful and responsive to watchdog agencies, and have a renewed focus on board independence, financial expertise and diversity. There is, therefore, an increased need for adaptable, experienced, and informed lawyers ' both in house as well as outside a given company ' to counsel the board and its members on these and other controversial issues. The best practices for doing so, including those addressing how to better understand the client board's structure, culture and goals, as well as the board member's personal concerns, is the subject of this piece.
Features
We have all run into a situation where an existing or potential client has outlined a deal management wants to do (or, in some cases, has already done), which meets the legal definition of a franchise, but the client is adamant about avoiding the real or perceived burdens of being deemed a franchisor. Establishing a franchise system may require, among other things, compliance with franchise sales laws, public disclosure of financial statements, observing contractual limitations imposed by franchise relationship laws, and enduring the public image of being a franchise. There are a variety of distribution models other than franchising available to clients for structuring envisioned expansion. However, if certain elements are involved in the proposed transaction, creation of a franchise system may become legally necessary. This article addresses the issues practitioners face in advising clients in these scenarios and explores some of the various alternatives to the franchise model and exemptions from franchise disclosure law that are available to your clients.