Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Considers Price Fixing Agreements
Franchisors and franchisees alike are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that could change the marketing and promotional practices of franchisors and distributors. In PSKS, Inc. d/b/a Kay's Kloset v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., the Supreme Court heard challenges to the application of the per se rule to vertical minimum price fixing agreements under antitrust law, and some commentators believe that the Court will overturn this requirement, which was adopted almost a century ago in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911).
In 1995, Leegin, a manufacturer of Brighton women's accessories, began selling its product to PSKS, a women's clothing and accessories specialty store. Shortly thereafter, Leegin instituted the 'Brighton Retail Pricing and Promotion Policy,' stating it would do business only with retailers that follow its suggested retail prices for Brighton products. Leegin made clear that it would not do business with retailers who engaged in discounting Brighton products. Leegin later introduced the 'Heart Store Program,' a marketing initiative designed to provide incentives to Brighton retailers to promote the brand within a separate section of their stores. To become a Brighton Heart Store, retailers had to pledge to 'follow the Brighton Suggested Retail Pricing Policy at all times.'
In late 2002, PSKS placed its entire line of Brighton products on sale. After learning of the violation of the pricing policy, Leegin suspended all shipments of Brighton products to PSKS. PSKS filed an action under '1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Applying the per se rule, the jury awarded PSKS $1.2 million, which was trebled by the court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In March 2007, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether price floors such as Leegin's always should be treated as illegal under the existing per se rule, or evaluated under the rule of reason to determine if they are pro-competitive. Several themes were prevalent at oral argument.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?