The meaning of "anti-assignment" clauses has been hotly disputed since 2003, when the California Supreme Court interpreted the clause in a manner that restricted the transfer of coverage rights in certain corporate transactions. This article examines how other courts have resolved the anti-assignment issue in the last decade.
Recently, two New York federal district courts reached conflicting decisions in the Coudert Brothers LLP and Thelen LLP bankruptcy cases with respect to a law firm's purported ownership interest in future profits from its former clients' matters pending on the date of the law firm's dissolution, or "unfinished business.
The firestorm of publicity regarding clients pushing back and refusing to pay for certain fees, and especially soft costs, begs the question: Is the traditional cost recovery model dying or perhaps already dead? The answer is no.
Overly aggressive enforcement of trademark rights by high-profile brand owners can lead to consumer backlash when such enforcement is perceived as "trademark bullying" of the "little guy." Such enforcement efforts have grown increasingly hazardous during the era of Internet blogging and social networking.
The Seventh Circuit has now adopted the conflicting view that ' 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code does not affect trademark licenses in one way or another and that <i>Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.</i> was incorrectly decided.
In a closely followed case involving the patentability of DNA sequences of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which account for most forms of inherited breast and ovarian cancer, the Federal Circuit largely followed its prior 2011 ruling and again held that isolated DNA sequences are patent-eligible subject matter.
Google Inc. has given up the fight in a closely-watched case accusing the company of infringing trademarks and facilitating the sale of counterfeit goods.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
