Selling 'Free and Clear': Will It Continue?
January 01, 2004
Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an extraordinary tool to trustees and debtors in possession -- the ability to sell property "free and clear." This unique power, unavailable to a seller outside bankruptcy, not only facilitates the tasks of liquidation or reorganization, but it may even be the critical incentive for entering bankruptcy in the first place. It has now become the principal focus of many Chapter 11 cases.
Proposed New Accounting Rules Rile Franchisors, Franchisees
December 01, 2003
<i>In the wake of accounting scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, and other companies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is upgrading many rules to force public companies to provide more information about their finances. One of the areas it is addressing relates to how the primary company's financial obligations toward "variable interest entities" are shown on its balance sheet. These rules are aimed primarily at companies that have controlling interests in other companies and, as was the case with Enron, potentially could use those companies to hide their own financial obligations.</i>
Cameo Clips
December 01, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Hotline
December 01, 2003
Recent developments of interest to corporate counsel.
IP News
December 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
OK to Use 'Research Tool' Patents Offshore?
December 01, 2003
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has confirmed that there is no patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. 271(g)(1) for the offshore use of a "research tool" patent when only the information gained from such offshore use is introduced into the United States.
Case Briefing
December 01, 2003
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Patent Protection or <i>Per Se</i> Antitrust Violation?
December 01, 2003
As the winter months approached, a storm was brewing in the antitrust world. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Eleventh circuits have split over the per se illegality of Hatch-Waxman patent-settlement agreements by which a patent-holding drug maker pays a generic drug company to delay its entry into the market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has harshly criticized these agreements, and now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to calm the fury.
Spam Gets Canned Federal Anti-Spam Law to Take Effect January 1
December 01, 2003
More than 35 states have enacted laws regulating spam in some form or fashion. Legitimate marketers and businesses adapted to these various state laws, gravitating toward a fairly uniform best practices model, which stopped short of the sort of true "opt-in only" model strongly preferred by consumer and anti-spam groups. Mailers could be fairly confident that they would avoid liability under state spam laws and not overly alienate Internet service providers (ISPs) or their own customers by simply including valid contact information, honoring "opt-out" requests, providing accurate headers and routing information, using nondeceptive subject lines and (in a few states) labeling the messages as advertisements. This widely followed compliance strategy became unworkable in September 2003, however, when California instead enacted a true "opt-in" approach to commercial e-mail marketing. Marketers were faced with a January 2004 compliance deadline and sweeping new prohibitions on marketing to or from any California e-mail address unless the sender had the recipient's "direct consent" or had a "pre-existing business relationship" with the recipient (and the recipient had not "opted out" of such mailings). In response, legitimate marketers aggressively lobbied Congress to accelerate final passage of federal legislation to pre-empt at least the more disruptive aspects of California's new law prior to its effective date. Congress responded to the call, and the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Dec. 16, 2003.
