Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Amend Your Arbitration Clause to Comply with New Rules
Franchising companies often select arbitration to resolve issues with their franchisees and critical vendors. An arbitral forum allows the parties to discuss and resolve marketing initiatives outside of the prying eyes of the media and competitors. Although some companies welcome the limitations on appeals of arbitration awards as an advantage in reaching finality of business disputes, others find it a reason to avoid arbitration, because the costs of a bad outcome can be high. For example, just recently, a JAMS arbitrator entered an arbitration award against the Starbucks chain in the amount of $2.8 billion in favor of Kraft Foods for terminating a marketing deal. There, the single arbitrator selected by the parties, Edward Bobrick, a retired magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, awarded $2.23 billion in damages and $527 million in legal fees and pre-award interest over Starbucks' termination of the deal in 2010.
Kraft had signed a contract in 1998 under which it took exclusive responsibility for marketing Starbucks coffee in supermarkets. Starbucks terminated the contract in 2010 after becoming dissatisfied with Kraft's performance. Starbucks complained that Kraft had failed to cooperate in its sales planning, budgeting and advertising and undermined the contract by Kraft promoting its own Yuban coffee blend in violation of the exclusive deal.
After failing to renegotiate the agreement and refusing a proposal to be bought out of the contract, Kraft unsuccessfully sought an injunction in district court against the termination. The basis for the injunction was not only the lost revenue, but also the loss of a “category captain” for many retailers that opened doors for Kraft. After the injunction was denied, Kraft filed arbitration proceedings in November 2010, claiming compensation from Starbucks for unilaterally ending the contract.
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.
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?