Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation Traps in Purchasing a Business
When prospective purchasers of businesses don't perform a thorough due diligence on the sellers, the result can be unneeded and protracted litigation. Due diligence should include investigation into trade secrets, other potential purchasers, covenants not to compete, seller's liabilities and insurance coverage. The purchaser should consider all 'what ifs' including claims and remedies during the due diligence period. What if the seller defaults? What if the seller breaches the representations and warranties? What if the seller violates the covenant not to compete? What if the seller discloses or has already disclosed to others acquired trade secret information? Paying too much too early to a seller without substantial assets or sufficient holdbacks are red flags. In the event of a seller's breach and purchaser's lawsuit, any resulting judgment may be uncollectible.
Purchasing Trade Secrets That Were Not Adequately Protected
The Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) defines 'trade secret' as information that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. The purchaser's due diligence should include an analysis of the seller's trade secrets. If those trade secrets are generally known to the public or, more likely, known to other persons who can obtain economic value from disclosure or use, or not the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy, trade secret protection will not be afforded in the event of misappropriation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.