Features

In a standard lease syndication transaction, the lease syndicator (<i>ie</i>, the seller of the lease) wants to ensure that it is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the underlying lessee's financial data. The seller thus typically requires its buyer to affirmatively acknowledge that the buyer itself has made a complete and independent investigation of the lessee's financial condition and is fully satisfied with the lessor's credit standing. The buyer will also be expected to acknowledge that, in acquiring the syndicated lease, it is in no way relying on the seller's business judgment or financial expertise, and has not relied on any information provided by the seller as to the lessee's financial condition.

The legal industry faces powerful and rapid changes. Mergers and acquisitions have increased the number of national and international mega law firms ' and this trend is expected to increase. Competition in local markets is fierce as large law firms open satellite offices or buy mid-sized or small firms in cities across the nation. Accounting firms are big competitors. They employ hundreds of attorneys to serve their many existing clients and to hunt for new prospects. The shrinking number of companies created by mergers and acquisitions in the business sector makes getting new clients more competitive. With a limited client base, everyone is targeting everyone else's clients and clients are demanding better service at lower prices. But most leaders are beginning to really understand this is where the profession stands. Staying at the top in such a competitive and challenging market, however, may be something that is new to many of today's law firm leaders.

What does a firm do when differences in philosophy and management style threaten its very existence? How do you begin to deal with the issues that have accelerated to the crisis stage? Following is the experience of one firm that had to face some difficult decisions about its future. We were requested to step in and sort out the problems with a view towards proposing solutions and providing a basis for reconciliation. This scenario presents the case of a fictional law firm, Mason &amp; Logan, and is a composite of the types of problems encountered by a firm in transition.

Features

In most complex commercial transactions ' mergers, acquisitions, loans and other financings ' the seller's or borrower's counsel is called upon to provide an opinion letter. The letter typically addresses various matters of interest to the buyer or lender, including any exposure to litigation, government inquiry or other proceedings that might have an impact on the value or viability of the client's business. Increasingly, when something goes wrong with the transaction, aggrieved buyers and lenders are seeking recourse, not just against the seller or borrower, but also against the law firm that wrote the opinion letter. <br>What happens when a law firm provides an opinion letter that is later found to have errors or omissions?

The cost of patent litigation is enormous, and continues to increase. According to the 2003 AIPLA survey, the median cost for a patent litigation with less than $25 million at stake was close to $2 million. Furthermore, many large companies are increasingly coming under attack from small patent holders or patent holding companies. Because of these developments, the <i>inter partes<i> re-examination procedure is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative for patent defendants. However, the <i>inter partes<i> re-examination procedure carries its own risks. As discussed further below, the advantages and disadvantages should be carefully weighed prior to instigating an <i>inter partes</i> re-examination.

One of the first things that a party does when planning a patent litigation or when sued for patent infringement is hire a phalanx of experts. However, what gets lost in the equation is the preliminary questions of "are all of these experts necessary?" and "will their testimony be accepted by the court?"

Features

Consider the following hypothetical situation. Mr. Jones, an engineer with your Company XYZ, informs you that a supplier for XYZ saw a rival company's Product X, which appeared quite similar to the one currently in development at XYZ. Mr. Jones tells you that representatives of XYZ had mentioned that Product X is patented. Should you (a) disregard what Mr. Jones has told you, (b) await word from attorneys for Product X, (c) contact attorneys for Product X to discuss possible infringement issues, or (d) request a formal opinion from outside counsel?

Features

The Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2005) is noteworthy for the Court's decision to sidestep modifying the standard that the Court set in the <i>Sony</i> case in 1984 as to when a product distributor can be liable for infringing uses of its product. Although the Supreme Court was faced with compelling arguments from copyright owners and the technology industry alike both for and against modifying the standard in <i>Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), it ultimately found that Grokster and its co-defendant StreamCast could be liable for infringing downloads, not because they distributed a product that was used to infringe copyrights, but because they took the additional step of actively inducing their users to download copyrighted material. In so doing, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether it was appropriate that a mere distributor of a product "capable of substantial noninfringing use" should avoid liability even when its product is being used for massive copyright infringement.