Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In The Marketplace
New York Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, has announced a settlement with General Electric Capital Corporation in connection with a widespread telecommunications fraud involving NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey-based telephone equipment and service company. Under the terms of the agreement, GE Capital will forgive approximately $2 million in payments due from New York customers who had signed long-term contracts with NorVergence.
NorVergence began aggressively marketing its telecommunications products in 2002, falsely promising potential customers savings of up to 60%. It attributed these savings to its use of a proprietary device referred to as a “Matrix box.” The company claimed this technological innovation provided customers with wireless, toll-free inbound, local and long-distance telephone service; and high-speed Internet connection, all for a fixed monthly fee. In truth, the equipment accomplished none of these functions; rather, it is commonly used in the industry to permit both voice and data transmission through a high-speed service line. NorVergence's sales force was trained to apply deceptive and high-pressure sales tactics to prospective customers, which included small businesses, not-for-profits, and religious institutions. Nationally, the company secured approximately 11,000 customers, nearly 1000 in New York.
The company's customers typically signed 5-year contracts, which the company then sold at a discount, to third-party financial institutions including GE Capital. The financial institutions, in turn, then billed customers under the original contract terms. These multiyear commitments purported to obligate customers to pay as much as $340,000 for the matrix box, even though the market value of the devices was no more than $1500. After NorVergence filed for bankruptcy, its customers were left without telecommunications services and they had to purchase alternative service on a per call basis. The financial institutions, however, continued to bill customers for the discontinued services.
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.