Contractual interpretation can be a thorny business. Yet it pales in comparison to the treacherous waters that surround supposed duties nowhere to be found in the language of a contract -- and that may never have been negotiated or discussed by the parties. For many entertainment and sports professionals, the most significant and far-reaching of these implied duties is the duty of good faith and fair dealing that courts read into every contract. As straightforward as the obligation sounds when described in general terms, it can be vexing to determine what particular conduct it may require in specific situations. What's more, the reported decisions construing the obligation tend to be highly fact-dependent, thus providing only limited guidance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided, in a ruling of first impression, that a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit against a foreign defendant under the Lanham Act only if the protested activities have a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. <i>McBee v. Delica Co. Ltd.</i>, 04-2733.
The Internet industry has had a little time to sit back and examine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the <i>Grokster</i> case, pondering its true meaning and its impact on technology and software developers as well as the entertainment industry. In this virtual roundtable discussion, members of <i>Internet Law & Strategy</i>'s Board of Editors and other Internet law experts chime in with their thoughts. I think you'll find these comments insightful and raise the issues that the industry faces in the wake of <i>Grokster</i>.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
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.
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.
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.
