Features
The Suspension of Coordinated Review: A Giant Step Backward on the Road to Uniformity
In a disappointing announcement released on Aug. 6, 2007, Dale Cantone, chairman of the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Securities Administrators Association, informed the franchise bar that the state authorities that participate in the coordinated review program ('Coordinated Review') have suspended the program until further notice. The announcement also stated the franchise administrators would re-evaluate whether to reintroduce the program after July 1, 2008.
Features
Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in <i>Leegin</i> 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 <i>Leegin</i> have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: <i>Leegin</i> 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 <i>per se</i>; 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 <i>per se</i>, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
Features
Bucking the Tort Reform Trend? Manufacturer of Non-Asbestos Product Has Duty to Warn About Asbestos Dangers
Product liability plaintiffs are facing ever-growing barriers to filing suit in state and federal courts. Tort reformers have won significant victories at the state level, including restrictions on asbestos claims and caps on punitive damages. At the federal level, the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') has allowed for easier removal of state class actions to federal courts. In addition to the impact of CAFA, a number of states have enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to file class actions in their courts. Several states also have initiated 'venue reform,' which limits the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to file lawsuits in those states.
Features
Be the Quarterback
Last month's installment discussed how a real estate attorney should create a checklist to bring a transaction from concept to fruition. Part Two of this series addresses compliance issues, dissemination of information, and the level of detail of the checklist.
Features
In the Spotlight: Beware of 'Lite' Indemnification
Some commercial landlords consider indemnification clauses in leases to constitute mere 'legal boilerplate' that do not merit attention from a business perspective. Some lawyers, feeling pressure to minimize the length of lease documents, may seize upon this clause as an opportunity to save space. As a result, it is not uncommon to encounter abbreviated indemnification clauses. At first glance, the language appears suitable. However, when put to the test, these 'lite' clauses often leave landlords unsatisfied. This article demonstrates the value of 'kicking it up a notch' by including ingredients called for in the recipe but often left out of the mix.
Features
The High Cost of FCPA Violations
Earlier this year, Baker Hughes Inc. ascended to the top of an exclusive and prominent list, but it is one on which few companies would want to be mentioned. On April 26, 2007, the Texas-based oil field products and services company announced that it was settling a federal probe alleging that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ('FCPA'), and that it would pay fines and penalties in excess of $44 million ' the largest combined punishment under that law. It was truly one for the record books ' at least for the time being.
Features
Equipment Finance in Canada: Changes to the Income Tax Act May Have an Impact
Canada's conservative minority government recently passed its 2007 Financial Budget (the 'Budget'), which will likely impact the equipment finance industry and particularly cross-border (U.S./Canada) transactions. Central to the Budget was the proposal to eliminate withholding tax on interest payments on loan transactions. As will be discussed below, the likely impact will be that traditional cross-border transactions will be restructured to: 1) provide for quicker repayment of the principal portion of the loan, and 2) provide a means for a greater number of less internationally focused commercial banks and finance companies to undertake cross-border transactions which, prior to the enactment of the new legislation, would have be seen as too complex. This second impact may cause a more competitive environment and further add liquidity to any already liquid market. It is not clear, however, that the proposed legislation will have a significant impact on larger transactions or the activities of internationally focused lenders. While there will likely be enhanced competition for smaller straightforward transactions than currently exists, the market for complex large transactions, while restructured, will have the same level of competition as currently exists.
Features
Drug & Device News
The most recent news you need to know.
Features
An Overview of FIN 48: Accounting for Uncertain Income Tax Positions
In an effort to increase comparability and consistency in how companies report income tax positions on financial statements, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ('FASB') issued on July 13, 2006 FASB Interpretation Number 48 ('FIN 48'), <i>Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes.</i> FIN 48 changes the way companies must account for uncertain tax positions taken on federal, state and local, and international income tax returns for financial reporting purposes. Despite the requests for delay by numerous companies and trade and lobbying groups, the provisions of FIN 48 became effective for fiscal years beginning on or after Dec. 15, 2006. The provisions of FIN 48 apply broadly to all companies that issue financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') and that are potentially subject to federal, state and local, or foreign income taxes.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith 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.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe 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.Read More ›
- The Cost of Making PartnerMaking partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.Read More ›
- 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.Read More ›