Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Franchisor's Control over'System Uniformity'Insufficient to Show'Vicarious Liability
The recent and long-awaited opinion from the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 Cal. LEXIS 6251 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014), clarifies the circumstances under which a franchisor may be liable for the employment practices of its franchisees under California law, helping to calm the nerves of franchisors in the wake of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel's July 2014 determination that the NLRB will pursue claims against McDonald's under joint-employer liability theory. See, 'NLRB: McDonald's Is Joint Employer With Franchisees,' Franchising Business & Law Alert, Sept. 2014. Unlike the NLRB's recent determination, the California Supreme Court, in a sharply divided decision, determined that a franchisor's exercise of control over its franchisees to ensure system uniformity is not alone sufficient control that would be necessary to hold a franchisor vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisees. Since the Patterson decision comes from the highest court in California, its holding may resonate to other forums outside of the state. However, the divided 4-3 opinion in Patterson, coupled with the clear unrest in this area of law in recent months, means franchisors would be premature to breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of this opinion.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.