Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Copyright-infringement suits in which plaintiff accuses defendant of improperly taking from the plaintiff to create the defendant's work are common in the entertainment industry. But even with the frequency and long history of this type of litigation, infringement principles continue to develop as litigators face many substantive and procedural challenges. In the following interview, conducted by Entertainment Law & Finance Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, veteran entertainment-litigator Christine Lepera ' a partner in the New York office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP ' discusses infringement litigation issues from her perspective as defense counsel in the copyright suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against rappers Ludacris and Kanye West and related companies. <i>BMS Entertainment/Heat Music LLC v. Bridges</i>.
Features
<i>Burgo v. Lady of America Franchise Corp.</i>, CCH Bus. Franchise Guide '13,367 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2006) addresses choice of law clauses that often come into effect in franchisor-franchisee disputes. Twenty-two franchises of this women's fitness franchise filed suit in a California federal court against the Florida-based franchisor ('LOA') and its Florida-based president ('Wittenberns') for violations of the California Franchise Investment Law ('CFIL') and the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, and the Florida Franchise Misrep-resentation Act ('FFMA'). The franchise agreement contained a choice of law clause, which provided that the agreement and 'the relationship created thereby' would be 'construed and governed solely by internal Florida Law, without regard to any conflict of laws rules.' LOA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Wittenberns moved to dismiss for lack of <i>in personam</i> jurisdiction.
Features
Roark Capital is one of the most prominent private equity firms participating in the franchise industry. The company has been investing in franchise operating companies since 2001, and has invested in nine brands comprising more than 2600 locations in 50 states and 29 countries. The firm's roots are in franchising, as Neal Aronson, founder and managing partner, was co-founder of U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., before selling the franchise operator and starting Roark Capital.
Features
The decision by the House of Lords in <i>Inntrepreneurs Pub Company v. Crehan</i> concerning the Inntrepreneur chain of franchised pubs and its exclusive supply of beer under the franchise agreement is the latest and probably final step in a long-standing dispute about the consequences of the infringement of European Competition Law by a franchise (or indeed other) agreement. It concluded that damages can be awarded for breach of Article 81(1) of the Treaty of Rome ' the EU's antitrust law ' but should not be awarded in this particular case.
Features
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
An often-overlooked component of an e-commerce company's intellectual property portfolio is the company Web site. This is something that is true in general for firms of any type, including law firms that advise e-commerce ventures, but it's especially true in the fast-paced world of technology firms, whose primary emphasis is usually core technology in the form of patents or trade secrets. The Web site, as a matter of course, is the most innocuous of assets, but it's an asset, nonetheless, and one of which tech-world denizens should be aware. The job of the general counsel's office, and of lawyers hired to act in that capacity, is to protect this asset.
Lost benefit suits are especially threatening to product manufacturers because these claims are particularly susceptible to class aggregation. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits plaintiffs to assemble into classes when, among other things, they share 'questions of law or fact' and those common questions 'predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Ordinarily, injury and causation are sources of diversity between plaintiffs and, by extrapolation, impediments to class treatment. Plaintiffs who claim injury from tobacco, for example, frequently claim different injuries and different causal mechanisms and, therefore, typically may not assemble into classes. <i>See, e.g., Aspinall</i>, 442 Mass. at 392-93, 813 N.E.2d at 485-86. By dispensing with the injury and causation requirements, lost benefit suits destroy a source of diversity between plaintiffs and promote class treatment.
Features
As the stigma of mental illness lessens, employers are handling more frequent requests for accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because serious physical impairments are often easier to identify and accommodate, learning to handle the gray areas of mental disorders as they relate to the ADA can be a challenge for employers.
Features
The explosive growth in electronic communications has resulted in a corollary growth of e-mail as a primary source of legal discovery when organizations are faced with litigation. As recent high profile cases demonstrate, traditional litigation hold processes are being successfully challenged as inadequate in the context of electronic communications. The lesson, therefore, is that if a company uses technology to run its daily business operations, it will be expected to utilize similar technologies to search, collect and produce requested or subpoenaed business records. Symantec Corporation, a developer of security and availability software tools, is leveraging its own products and the expertise of both its legal and IT departments to develop and implement a litigation hold program designed to significantly reduce the time and money spent to collect and preserve e-mail records. This article summarizes some of the 'lessons learned' by Symantec as we worked with our own technology to develop our legal hold program.
Features
Discovery demands on in-house legal staff have changed drastically in recent years. Historically, complying with subpoenas and document production requests were quotidian chores for in-house legal staff. After receiving a complaint, counsel's office issued a standard 'document hold' to affected employees and directed that those involved in the case preserve their files and not destroy anything. Questions might arise, but they were manageable. What must be disclosed? What documents are privileged? How long will it take to retrieve documents from storage? How many staff hours will complying require? How much will it cost? Who bears the cost? Which discovery requests should be challenged?
