Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Watch
COO's Title Insufficient to Create Liability Under State Franchise Act
How much control does it take for an individual to be liable for alleged violations of a franchise act? In the case of Cherrington, et al v. Wild Noodles Franchise Company, LLC, et al, 2006 WL 1704301 (D. Minn., June 15, 2006), the court said that it takes more than a title to create liability.
The Cherringtons entered into an area development agreement in late 2003 that allowed and obligated them to open nine Wild Noodles locations. They signed separate franchise agreements to open two of the locations, but those stores soon failed and the other seven planned stores were never opened.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?