Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in Leegin held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of Leegin have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: Leegin does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful per se; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful per se, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
These warnings are sage advice coming from authors trying to generalize on the broad application of Leegin to a wide variety of suppliers and purchasers of products. After all, the Supreme Court itself warns that 'if the rule of reason were to apply to vertical price restraints, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from the market.' The problem with carrying this warning to the extreme is that it defeats one of the Supreme Court's very purposes in abandoning the per se rule, namely, to create a degree of certainty for sellers of products rather than serve 'the interests of lawyers … by creating legal distinctions that operate as traps for the unwary ' '
The point of this article is that we franchise lawyers do our clients a disservice when we hedge our bets unduly in this area. We should call a spade a spade when it comes to minimum resale price maintenance by a franchisor: The practice may be a breach of a contract, but it is no longer a federal antitrust violation in light of Leegin. And franchisors should begin to take full advantage of the door now opened by Leegin. Ultimately, Leegin levels the playing field between franchising and integrated supply systems as methods of distributing a product or service (as did decisions like Sylvania, Jefferson Parish, and Kahn before it). Now franchisors, like their competitors that own the entire chain of distribution, can set retail prices (both minimum and maximum) in order to compete in the marketplace. And that is good for franchisors, franchisees, and consumers alike.
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?