Features
Riding the Fulcrum Seesaw
Troubled businesses also may have turned to the distressed debt market instead of filing for bankruptcy protection due to recent changes to the Bankruptcy Code, which made bankruptcy a more complicated, expensive and uncertain alternative. As a result, when the next wave of Chapter 11 filings comes, hedge funds and other distressed debt investors will act to protect their unique interests and strategies, which will bring new dynamics to bankruptcy cases.
Features
Movers & Shakers
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the most recent franchising cases from around the country.
Features
The Suspension of Coordinated Review: A Giant Step Backward on the Road to Uniformity
In a disappointing announcement released on Aug. 6, 2007, Dale Cantone, chairman of the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Securities Administrators Association, informed the franchise bar that the state authorities that participate in the coordinated review program ('Coordinated Review') have suspended the program until further notice. The announcement also stated the franchise administrators would re-evaluate whether to reintroduce the program after July 1, 2008.
Features
Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
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.
Enforceability of Pre-Dispute Jury Waivers: An Update
Arbitration is under judicial and legislative attack. Late last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held an unexceptional arbitration agreement to be substantively unconscionable simply because it allowed the franchisor to litigate certain trademark-related claims and gave the franchisor home court advantage. <i>Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc.</i>, 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006). On July 12, 2007, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced Senate Bill 1782, known as the 'Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007,' a key provision of which would invalidate pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate franchise disputes.
Features
Movers & Shakers
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
Features
Case Notes
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Home Depot Faces Multiple Suits: Allegations of Health Hazards from Grout Sealer
When Gwinnett County, GA, resident James Flynn bought a spray can of grout sealer from his neighborhood Home Depot in July 2005, he could not have imagined that his purchase would land him in the hospital and cost him the use of a lung. However, Flynn's attorney, Frank Ilardi, said that when his client bought Tile Perfect Stand 'N Seal Spray-On Grout Sealer, its manufacturer had been fielding complaints for more than a month about potentially devastating effects associated with its use.
Deference to the FDA's Preamble
A cursory review of the conflicting decisions being rendered across the country reveals that courts are fairly split over the issue of federal pre-emption of failure-to-warn strict liability claims in pharmaceutical litigation. The FDA directly addressed the issue in the Preamble to the Final Rule ('Preamble') published Jan. 24, 2006.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- New York's Latest Cybersecurity CommitmentOn Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.Read More ›
- INTERVIEWIn this exclusive interview with International Franchise Association (IFA) chairman Steve Siegel, Associate Editor Kevin Adler, asks about policy priorities for 2003, and other legislative and regulatory developments that affect the franchise industry.Read More ›
- Pension Plan Termination Premiums in BankruptcyIn a case of timely significance, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has recently ruled that pension plan termination premiums are not "claims" subject to being discharged under a Chapter 11 plan, but rather, must be paid in full upon emergence from bankruptcy.Read More ›
- The 'Friendly Fraud' ChargebackThe abuse of the chargeback option has resulted in a "friendly fraud" epidemic harming not only merchants, but the very consumers the programs were designed to help.Read More ›
- <b><i>Social Media Scene:</i></b> How Social Are Your Social Media Activities?The modifier "social" is supposed to separate social media from other forms of marketing and PR. But the tactic's social aspect is also the part that either prevents us from using it or from using it as the two-way communication tool it's supposed to be.Read More ›