Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
June 28, 2006Rupert Barkoff and Kitt ShipeEasy-to-read listing of everything contained in this issue.
June 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Decided recently by Westchester Supreme Court, Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v. Fraioli raises a much litigated issue in New York: When can a municipality apply a newly enacted ordinance to a pending application by a developer?
June 28, 2006Stewart E. Sterk and Cara Marie KossSona Laser Centers and Sona MedSpas is locked in an increasingly bitter dispute with some of its original franchisees, involving not only typical franchise issues but also the franchisees' allegations that at least one of the services they offer to customers, a laser treatment for hair removal, does not work. While franchisees have received considerable favorable publicity in the fight to date, Sona executives say that the actions of the franchisees belie some of their complaints, and Sona remains committed to building a national chain of spas.
June 28, 2006Kevin AdlerFranchisors that own intellectual property (patents, copyrights, or trademarks) for use as part of the franchise system have long been confronted with an unfortunate and misguided presumption that their intellectual property rights automatically gave them market power — an essential element of many antitrust claims — in the system's patented, copyrighted, or trademarked products and services. From an antitrust perspective, this presumption, although rebuttable, created a significant hurdle for franchisors accused of an illegal tying arrangement — which requires, as a preliminary element, proof of market power in the allegedly tying product (often the franchise itself).
June 28, 2006Erika L. AmaranteLast month, we explained that a matrimonial action may be commenced by the filing of a summons with notice, and without a verified complaint. Because New York requires fault allegations in the complaint, it had become common practice to stipulate to defer the service of a complaint. We asked the question: 'Can the commencement date of a prior discontinued or dismissed action be used as the date to classify property, or as the valuation date of marital assets in a subsequent divorce action? In Part Two, we continue the discussion.
June 28, 2006Michael B. Solomon
This button clears the current text from the Search Input field. Submit your search query.