Search

On March 13, 2003, Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced two proposed rules from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that are intended to improve patient safety and are part of a strategic initiative by the FDA to reduce adverse events involving products that it regulates.

In a recent article in this newsletter, we described a hypothetical situation about a publicly traded health care entity that was under attack by government regulators, disgruntled shareholders, and likely a qui tam relator. See, Michael E. Clark, Proffer Agreements May Be a Viable Strategy for Negotiating with Government, (Health Care Fraud & Abuse Newsletter, October 2002). This hypothetical situation continues in this article, as we illustrate some of the heightened compliance risks facing officers, directors, and attorneys who represent publicly traded entities as a result of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ('Sarbanes-Oxley'), Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002), which ushered in major reform measures when signed into law on July 30, 2002 (and also in light of other proposals for strengthening corporate accountability from the major self regulatory organizations and exchanges: the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) (see NASDAQ Corporate Governance Proposals, September 13, 2002) and The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) (see Corporate Governance Rules Proposals Reflecting Recommendations from the NYSE Corporate Accountability and Listings Standards Committee As Approved by the NYSE Board of Directors, August 1, 2002).

Franchisors have long packaged a business model along with a collection of intellectual property that includes service marks, trademarks, trade names, logos, trade secrets, and copyrighted materials (<i>eg</i>, operating manuals, product information sheets, and advertising collateral), in order to form a business opportunity that is attractive to potential franchisees. In order to protect franchisees from unfair competition, franchisors have always had federal copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement actions and state law trade secret and unfair competition actions as part of their legal arsenal against such competitors. This arsenal also includes state law breach-of-contract causes of action against insurgent franchisees failing to 'follow the rules' of the business model (<i>ie</i>, failing to honor the obligations set forth in the franchise agreement crafted by the franchisor). In today's economic and technological climate, one more option should be considered for inclusion in a franchisors' arsenal &mdash; business-method patents and the threat of a federal patent infringement suit against unfair competitors and insurgent franchisees.

Five years ago, professionals who served the business world were actively seeking ways to blend across various professions. Accounting firms practiced law; law firms did consulting; and consultants practiced law. In large measure, the same still holds true today, but each of us is a little more reluctant to step out of his zone of comfort. In the post Enron/ Worldcom/Tyco environment, many professionals are on edge.

The recently enacted South Korean Act on Fairness in Franchise Transactions (AFFT) went into effect on Nov. 1, 2002. According to the Korean government, the purpose of the AFFT is to establish 'fairness in franchise transactions and promote balanced and mutually complementary development on even terms between a franchisor and a franchisee for purposes of advancement of consumer welfare and a sound national economy.'

When the relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee breaks down, one might think the standard measure of damages is just the lost franchise fees. However, just as a simple failure to perform is not the only type of wrong suffered by franchisors, unpaid fees are not the only types of damages available. This article examines a number of cases in which the franchisor's claims &mdash; and claimed damages &mdash; were outside the ordinary.

Central Leasing Corporation of Birmingham, AL has named Barry Thomas as credit manager. Formerly vice president and group manager at SouthTrust Bank, Thomas will be responsible for overseeing the credit department for the commercial leasing and finance company. In addition, he will also be responsible for managing day-to-day operations.

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news and cases from around the country.

The law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of <i>United States v. Microsoft,</i> 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.