The producer who filed the suit is asking for unspecified damages, producer's fees and the rights to participate in any of the movie's potential sequels -- a significant request, because Tom Cruise's character is featured in many of the book author's other novels.
]]> The plaintiff first joined the "One Shot" project in 2005 and helped develop the film, renew Paramount Pictures options for the film rights, and search for a screenwriter. But the producer says that in July 2010, two of the film's other producers began excluding him from meetings with the production team. They continued to assure him, however, that he would remain involved in the project.The suing producer says he eventually became so frustrated from being cast aside that he sent an email to one of the producers in June 2011. "I'm getting the message loud and clear that you have no intention of involving me," the email read. "Am I wrong?"
Another month went by, and the studio made the announcement that Cruise would star in the film, which had gotten the green light. The producer to whom the plaintiff sent the email said he would do what he could to give the shunned producer credit, but that he and his partner were not getting "our deal" on the film. He said their failure to secure that deal essentially nullified their oral agreement with the plaintiff, according to his lawsuit.
Business agreements that have nothing to do Hollywood or major motion pictures often fall prey to such breaches of contract. If you're involved in a contract dispute, an attorney experienced in business law can represent you and ensure that you take the best legal course of action.
Source: Reuters, "Producers on Tom Cruise film sued for breach of contract," Brent Lang, Feb. 6, 2012
]]>Although Congress turned down the department's $3 million request for six new hires last year, the Justice Department is now seeking 14 new employees, including nine attorneys, in the proposed 2013 budget. If approved by Congress, the hires would bring the enforcement team to 34 people. "We've had an increase in the number of cases that we're dealing with in (intellectual property)," said a deputy attorney with the department. "We think this is an area that really needs some focus and some efforts and increases in the future."
]]> Take the example of Megaupload, one of the most heavily trafficked websites in the world. Last month U.S. prosecutors accused the site of selling copyrighted movies, TV shows and music and earning tens of millions of dollars in the process. The takedown of the site represented one of the largest copyright infringement cases of all time.The entertainment industry has been pushing the Obama administration to do more, and legislation that would crack down harder on intellectual property crimes has stalled. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act were met with an uproar of protests, which included the blackout of several prominent websites. The protestors argued that either bill would impede free speech and give the Justice Department too much power to censor the Internet.
It remains to be seen whether such a divided Congress will oblige Obama's request during an election year. But in an age when technology makes it easier and easier to reproduce content without permission, the issue of intellectual property enforcement is bound to become increasingly important.
Source: Reuters, "Justice Dept seeks to bolster IP enforcement team," Jeremy Pelofsky, Feb. 13, 2012
]]>Just like a good marriage, a successful merger requires a harmonious blend of strengths, experience and common likes and dislikes. Take the example of New Jersey's Modera Inc. and Back Bay Financial of Boston, which merged in early 2011. After meeting years ago and developing a mutual respect for each other, the heads of both firms did a lot of careful planning before finally tying the knot.
]]> Like any merger, the combination of these two firms wasn't without its wrinkles. "The cultural part was the hardest," says one of the firm's principals. "We had to make sure we agreed on how to operate and that everyone felt comfortable with the work and with each other."The firms held a retreat for employees to get to know each other and establish common goals. They also involved workers in decision making where possible. Fortunately, combining workforces is getting somewhat easier with modern technology because they may not need to physically move into one building. Instant messaging and remote conferencing allow people to work from almost anywhere.
Newly merged companies also allow workers to focus on their specialties because there are more people with various skills and experience. A manager at a smaller company may have had to wear a lot of different hats, but once the company merges, there are more people to take on separate roles. Of course, that means everyone has to be willing to give up some control and remember they're working toward a common goal.
Another issue Modera and Backbay had to resolve was their separate technology. They had to weigh the pros and cons of their different accounting systems and decide which was the best one to stick with. This is another area where merging companies need to remember they aren't competing, but trying to find the most effective process for the new company.
As you combine your companies, don't be afraid to explore your differences. After all, varying strengths are part of what makes a successful merger. Just make sure to do as much of learning about each other before you commit. "You cannot learn as you go," said one of Backbay's co-founders. "Too many mergers have failed because the principals only got to know each other after the fact."
Source: Financial Advisor, "Anatomy of a merger," Karen Demasters, Feb. 13, 2012
]]>The Red Tape Commission was created in 2010 by Executive Order and held several public meetings in 2011. Its nine members include a Democrat and a Republican from both houses of the state Legislature. The aptly named commission mentions "red tape" in its report 90 times in its descriptions of improvements and recommendations it's made.
]]> As an example of the commission's accomplishments, the report mentions that some paper procedures have shifted to online-only and recommends making more government services available online, such as orientation classes for professionals that are currently offered only a few times a year in person. Some government functions have been condensed and others eliminated altogether.When it came to laws, the commission traded red tape for a red pen, striking out "rules defying common sense." For example, it changed school bus inspections from a mileage basis to every three months, which the report says will help rural school districts save money. It also makes several recommendations for state legislators, such as unifying the bidding process for all state agencies and cutting back on some licensing requirements.
The report also suggests moving some functions to other departments, like having auto body repair shops apply to the Department of Environmental Protection or Consumer Affairs, which regulates the shops. Currently auto body shops have to apply to the Motor Vehicle Commission to get licenses, even though "the actual business of auto body repair has no logical connection to the MVC other than the fact that repair work is done on motor vehicles," the report states.
If the commission's recommendations are heeded, they could very well improve New Jersey's business climate.
"It is beginning to work," the lieutenant governor said. "If we all work together, we streamline government, we cut red tape."
Source: NJ.com, "Lt. Gov. Guadagno: Scaling back N.J. regulations has had positive impact on business relations," Megan DeMarco, Feb. 8, 2012
]]>Before you scoff, bear in mind that just four days after little Blue Ivy was born, a noted fashion designer submitted his own application to trademark "Blue Ivy Carter NYC." Another application was submitted for "Blue Ivy Carter Glory IV" in hopes of launching a line of fragrances. Both filings were denied with the explanation that the name of the "very famous infant" could lead consumers to assume that the products were approved by her parents.
]]> Although the application by Beyonce's company, BGK Trademark Holdings, is pending, it's essentially a done deal because parents are legally authorized to trademark their minor children's names. But the fact that federal officials took such swift action on the filings has caused some to wonder whether Beyonce and Jay-Z are receiving special treatment. A trademark action usually takes three to four months, is usually first-come first-served, and the line is very long. The office gets hundreds of thousands of applications every year.But when a name with huge potential to make money comes along -- think "Occupy," "99%," even New Jersey's own "The Situation" -- it comes with a huge spike in trademark filings, and with good reason. A trademark identifies the source of goods and services and protects businesses from unauthorized use of a brand. "You can make a ton of money with T-shirts," says one trademark attorney.
When the applications for a potentially valuable name come pouring in, the trademark office pulls them aside and channels them to examiners who can do research and make rulings on such filings. That's what happened in Blue Ivy's case, with one exception: A boutique in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, applied to trademark its name, Blue Ivy, in January 2011 -- well before Beyonce was pregnant. Having received approval in August, the store owners now have the right to use the name for their store, website and any items they want. Of course, they could also sell the trademark ... if a certain celebrity couple asked for it.
Source: Washington Post, "'Blue Ivy,' the trademark: Feds move fast on rights to Beyonce and Jaz-Z's baby's name," The Reliable Source, Feb. 3, 2012
]]>A current example is Kodak, which filed for bankruptcy last month. The company's stock share price had already been on a downward slide for years, diving from an average $31 per share 10 years ago to just 35 cents Monday. A Kodak employee has filed suit against the company, claiming it should have done a better job of safeguarding employees by eliminating the company stock as an investment option. The lawsuit, which could reach class-action status, seeks an order forcing the CEO and other defendants to personally make up the losses from investments in Kodak stock. It also asks for any profits the defendants made at the retirement plan's expense to be put in a trust and divided among the plan's participants.
]]> The suit alleges that "a prudent fiduciary facing similar circumstances would not have stood idly by as (the retirement plan) lost tens of millions of dollars." Beyond that amount, the lawsuit doesn't specify the amount of losses. But Kodak stock was a substantial part of the company's Employee Savings and Investment Plan, under which employees can invest in a stock fund, a self-directed brokerage account or mutual funds. They also had the option of investing in company stock.Kodak's CEO, other executives and other shareholders named as defendants say there were good reasons for keeping the retirement plan loaded with Kodak stock. Taking it out of the investments would have reduced the overall market demand for the stock and sent a strong negative signal to Wall Street analysts, driving the price down at least as quickly.
It should be noted that employees had the power to divest of the stock themselves, at least on a periodic basis. But this is where a company's retirement plan participants differ from other stockholders. Although some may have declined to change their plans out of company trust and loyalty, many others likely weren't paying attention.
Source: Democrat and Chronicle, "Lawsuit takes aim at Kodak," Matthew Daneman, Jan. 31, 2012
]]>The lawsuit claims executives at Adobe Systems, Intuit, Lucasfilm Ltd., Pixar and Apple formed secret anti-poaching agreements to avoid recruiting each other's best workers. The plaintiffs claim that emails from Apple's Steve Jobs and other executives offer evidence of these agreements. In one email provided to the U.S. Justice Department for a similar lawsuit in 2010, a former Google executive said the company had a policy of not recruiting from Apple. The email included a forwarded message from Jobs complaining that Google was trying to hire away an engineer at Apple. Another from an Intel CEO and Google board member describes a "handshake 'no recruit'" between Intel and Google.
]]> It's based on a practice called cold-calling, in which company recruiters try to lure workers from rival companies with competitive salaries and perks. Bidding wars can then ensue, driving up salaries. In addition, cold-calling gives workers a sense of what they're worth in the market. So when the calls stop, workers lose both leverage and knowledge of what salary they can demand. The lawsuit contends the executive agreements have kept wages artificially low by preventing bidding wars.The companies' attorneys have denied a conspiracy exists, but said some companies had separate one-to-one pacts as they worked together on business ventures. An attorney for Apple said that such arrangements were common.
The 2010 case included most of the same companies as the current lawsuit. Those companies settled without admitting they'd done anything wrong, but agreed not to enter into future agreements that would prevent cold-calling. Antitrust cases surrounding hiring practices can be very difficult to win, in part because it must be defined who makes up the class of workers being harmed by the violations. But if the plaintiffs are successful, tech workers could see substantial gains in both salary and perks.
Source: IndyStar.com, "High-tech firms fight nonrecruit allegations," The Associated Press, Jan. 30, 2010
]]>According to Macy's, a 2006 agreement with Martha Stewart Living granted the department store company the exclusive right to manufacture and sell certain products. But last month, J.C. Penney announced plans to open shops selling Martha Stewart products in shops within its stores. Macy's is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Martha Stewart from violating the contract as well as an order to seal the lawsuit and motion. Macy's said it had renewed its agreement to exclusively sell Martha Stewart products for another five years.
]]> Macy's said it went to court to enforce the original agreement that Martha Stewart Living signed in 2006, "in which the right for Macy's to sell product exclusively in these categories was clearly outlined," the department store company said in a statement.Although Martha Stewart Living said it doesn't usually comment on legal matters, a company statement pointed out Macy's intent to extend its contract with Martha Stewart Living to feature and promote the company's products -- its No. 1 home brand, according to Martha Stewart Living -- in Macy's stores.
The New York state Supreme Court filing doesn't detail the products in question, but J.C. Penney's CEO said last month that the partnership with Martha Stewart Living "will be transformational" for the department store chain. It agreed to acquire a 17 percent stake in the brand for $38.5 million, or $3.50 a share, according to a joint statement by the companies.
Will the breach of contract case put an end to the deal with J.C. Penney, which is hoping to revive its sales with new mini stores promoting Martha Stewart products? That remains to be seen, but Stewart herself would likely admit an unwillingness to step into any more legal hot water.
Source: Thomson Reuters, "Macy's sues Martha Stewart Living," Jan. 23, 2012
]]>The lawsuit was announced at a press conference last Wednesday on the Statehouse steps on the second anniversary of Corzine's signing of the legislation. The attorney heading up the litigation said he hoped it would put an end to the current administration's "foot-dragging."
]]> Meanwhile, storefronts converted into dispensaries sit empty, waiting for the state Health Department to issue them a permit. The owner of one of those storefronts says the state told him to build his growing facility once he had a signed lease. That was back in August. Although he and his associates have paid rent on two facilities and invested more than $80,000 in their business, originally intending to open this month, they say they still have no idea when they'll be issued a permit.Other business owners still can't find a place to operate, having been turned down by multiple municipalities not willing to approve a medical marijuana business within their borders. The owners say they plan to sue those municipalities, arguing that every time owners are turned down, the next city is more likely to assume there's something wrong with the business. A spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services simply said the timetable for each center's opening "has many variables" and that the approval process in each city or town is highly complicated.
Will a lawsuit speed up the process and get the dispensaries off the ground? Only time will tell.
Source: NJ.com, "Lawsuit brewing over N.J. medical marijuana program," Amy Brittain, Jan. 16, 2012
]]>A good example of this is the Broadway production of "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark." You may have heard about the problems that plagued the production from the start, including the injuries of four of the actors. Although the production ultimately proved to be a money maker, there's been some legal wrangling between the lead producers and the director, who's being sued for breach of contract for her alleged refusal to collaborate or make requested changes to the show.
]]> The director filed her own lawsuit back in November, contending that although much of the show was rewritten, the final script still had about one-fourth of her own ideas in it, for which she deserved royalties. The producers countersued, saying that she refused to deliver the family-friendly script they requested, instead delivering a "dark, disjointed and hallucinogenic musical involving suicide, sex and death," according to their lawsuit. The producers say they had to fire the director and hire others to create a new version of the show; therefore, she didn't deserve royalties to the Broadway show or any subsequent productions elsewhere.This case is one of many in the entertainment world that have come up because a production tanked or turned out radically different from the original treatment. It's a good illustration of the importance of clear language in contracts. The more specifically demands and expectations are laid out at the beginning, the easier it is for someone filing a breach of contract suit to win in court when things don't go according to plan.
Source: NJ.com, "Not a spider fan: 'Spider-Man' Broadway producers countersue Julie Taymor," Vicki Hyman, Jan. 18, 2012
]]>A trade secret is defined by law as information that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
]]> Misappropriation means the acquisition of a trade secret by a person who either knows or has reason to know the secret was acquired by improper means, improper disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent of the trade secret owner. If the holder of a trade secret finds evidence of misappropriation, he or she can seek the following remedies:• Damages for the actual loss suffered and for unjust enrichment of the defendant caused by the misappropriation. The trade secret holder can also try to impose a royalty.
• Injunctive relief for actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. In some cases, a trade secret holder may be able to grant future use of the information on the condition of a paid royalty.
• Punitive damages, in cases where the misappropriation was found to be willful or malicious. The damages must not exceed twice the amount awarded for damages and unjust enrichment.
A court will also be able to award attorney fees in cases where willful and malicious appropriation exists, a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, or a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith. If the defendant in a misappropriation case is a public entity or employee, the provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act supersedes any conflicting provision of the bill.
Both the state House and Senate approved the bill unanimously and takes effect immediately. Although it doesn't apply to past or ongoing cases, it provides necessary legal consequences to those who wrongly disclose confidential information for all state businesses going forward.
Source: PolitickerNJ.com, "Scutari's 'New Jersey Trade Secrets Act' Now Law," Trish Graber, Jan. 9, 2012
]]>The policy change was born out of a case involving Citigroup, in which a judge tossed out a $285 million settlement with the SEC that included that language. But the change won't affect that case, in part because there was no accompanying criminal case against the corporation. In fact, it will only apply to SEC cases in which a company or individual has already admitted to criminal charges filed against them. The SEC only files civil charges.
]]> The SEC's enforcement director said the policy change, which the commission has been considering since last spring, will not apply to cases in which companies don't admit to related criminal charges filed against them and aren't convicted of those charges.The policy change will make the language used in SEC settlements more consistent with that in their respective criminal trials. In a case last month, a bank agreed to pay a $148.2 million settlement for federal and state charges accusing it of rigging dozens of bidding competitions. The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations by the SEC, but did admit to the Justice Department that it had manipulated the bidding process.
The problem with such inconsistency, according the U.S. district judge in the Citigroup case, is that it makes it hard for judges to know whether the penalties a company is paying in settlements are justified by the facts. The new policy change should clear up that confusion, though it may put an extra burden on companies defending themselves in civil cases involving the SEC.
Source: Law.com, "SEC Changes 'Neither Admit nor Deny' Policy," Associated Press, Jan. 9, 2012
]]>The toothpaste, developed by university researchers in Louisiana, was launched at a news conference last week. But its beginnings stretch back to the 1980s, when one of the company's co-founders began studying the effects of nutritional ingredients on pre-natal teeth. Recognizing the significance of the discovery, he continued his research as part of his doctoral thesis, testing it on human teeth and doing comparisons between the cocoa extract and fluoride. His initial findings held true: Cocoa strengthens and enlarges the crystals that make up the tooth, making the enamel more robust. Fluoride, meanwhile, strengthens teeth by sticking to and incorporating itself into the tooth.
]]> Theodent LLC is housed in the New Orleans BioInnovation Center, a $47 million business incubator focused on developing local bioscience industry based on university research. The center is just 7 months old, and Theodent is one of the first of its tenants to convert a scientific discovery into a commercial product. Theodent is now available online and at Whole Foods stores around the country.But making that leap was no small feat. The company contracted with companies across the country to put its product together, from tube to cardboard box, and its scientist founders admitted they were frustrated by the multiple iterations and refining necessary to develop a product, not to mention the distribution and marketing. They're now working on raising more money to expand their product line, which could include injecting a kid-friendly version that does taste like chocolate. It's all part of getting both kids and parents more excited about brushing their teeth.
As these researchers discovered, the process of developing a product and taking it to market can be extremely complicated. A law firm experienced in business formation can be very helpful in guiding you through the process of getting your product from the lab to the store shelf.
Source: Nola.com, "New toothpaste derived from cocoa extract heralds sweet potential for N.O.," Kimberly Quillen, Jan. 1, 2012
]]>The estate of the late photographer, who was legendary for capturing famous moments in rock and roll history, filed a copyright infringement suit last week against Bloomingdale's and a men's clothing designer, claiming they used some of his most famous photos in their stores without authorization. The photos were of musicians such as the Beatles, Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix and the Rolling Stones.
The dispute began years ago, when the clothing designer bought proof copies of the photos and allegedly made unauthorized copies to use in his New York store. Upon learning that the photos were being produced and used without permission, the photographer issued a warning to the designer and said the use wasn't acceptable. But according to court documents, he did the designer a favor by letting him keep the reproduced photos on the wall in one store "and the one store only."
]]> In March 2010, the photographer was scheduled to attend an event the designer was holding at his store, where the photos were allowed to be displayed. But he passed away that night at the age of 74. The designer went ahead with the event anyway, paying tribute to the photographer and saying his photos would never "fade away."What didn't fade away were the limitations the photographer set for the designer. After the photographer died, the designer was accused of making "new infringing reproductions" for display in other stores. The photographer's estate is now suing for willful copyright infringement and has asked the court for an order barring future use and is demanding money for damages, attorney fees and the cost of litigation. The damages could amount to up to $3 million.
The photographer was said to have a gift for getting musicians to trust him and capturing their essence. Just as the photos allow the spirit of those musicians to live on, the photographer's estate is trying to ensure that his ownership of the photos lives on, too.
Source: Hollywood Reporter, "Death of Rock Photographer Invited to John Varvatos Event Leads to Bizarre Lawsuit," Eriq Gardner, Jan. 3, 2012
]]>A retired police officer has filed a class action suit against his former employer, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He claims it has revoked his and other retirees' right to free tolls for life, a benefit he says was promised to him when he started his job at the Port Authority in 1971. He's seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of promise and unjust enrichment.
]]> The man, who retired from the Port Authority in 1998, says the agency broke its promise to employees with a vote in December 2010 that rescinded their right to free tolls on bridges and tunnels, as well as free parking at airports managed by the Port Authority. The retirees must now pay up to $12 per crossing of all the bridges and tunnels, and an average of $24 for four-hour parking at airports. These tolls can add up quickly for regular users, particularly those no longer actively earning a salary.The retired officer estimates that the class contains more than 4,000 retirees, and says that 400 have notified him of claims they filed. As of yet, the officer has not hired an attorney. Instead he's filed the claim himself. But in what could be a sizeable lawsuit affecting thousands of people, he may be better off retaining a qualified business lawyer experienced in class action suits that involve breach of contract.
Source: Courthouse News Service, "Port Authority Retirees Fight for Free Tolls," Chris Fry, Dec. 30, 2011
]]>