Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Global LPO Conference, U.S. – Buyers and Vendors Meet -June 15-16 Grand Hyatt – New York, NY

This conference aims to bring together law firm leaders such as partners, general counsels and other potential stakeholders in the LPO industry to share practical experiences in the nascent services for clients. The New York meeting will focus on how to implement the human and social capital for the benefit of the industry at large. 

The Global LPO Conference – Buyers and Vendors Meet in USA is an event to develop the business relationship of both buyers and vendors. This event will address genuine transformation of the outsourcing landscape from theoretical to practical. Leading authorities from global legal associations will assess the impact of changing policies in the legal offshoring industry. Key law firm partners and general counsel will give their thoughts and apprehensions about offshoring work to countries like India, Philippines, South Africa and others. LPO veterans, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to address those concerns and help buyers find the best possible legal support. Global lawyers and general counsel will learn how to prepare case presentations to win over their boards of management.

For more Information – Please Click Here:

Standing and In Pari Delicto Issues Arising in Bankruptcy Cases

Congrats to Rui Li of the The University of Iowa College of Law -one of  winners of the Spring 2011 National Law Review Student Legal Writing Competition:   Rui’s topic addresses whether a bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.  

1.  Introduction

Corporate and managerial fraud is pervasive in today’s economic climate. When fraud leaves a company insolvent and forced to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code, oftentimes bankruptcy trustees commence legal actions against attorneys to generate recoveries for the benefit of the debtor’s estate. A common scenario goes something like this: A company is in dire financial straits before the fraud or is created as a vehicle for the fraud. The defendant is the corporation’s attorney, who assists the corporation in the fraud. The attorney is hired to ensure the company’s compliance with existing law. The attorney does the bidding of the company’s management in pursuance of their fraud. After the company’s collapse, the bankruptcy trustee sues the attorney for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and legal malpractice.

Drawing upon the equitable defense that bars recovery by a plaintiff bearing fault with the defendant for the alleged harm, common law principles of agency imputation, and the Constitutional requirement that a plaintiff has standing to sue, a defendant may move to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the bankruptcy trustee lacks standing to sue.

This Note provides an analysis of the issue whether the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.

2.  The In Pari Delicto Doctrine

a) Background

In pari delicto means “at equal fault.” It is a broadly recognized equitable principle and common law defense that prevents a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages resulting from the wrongdoing.[1] The policy behind this doctrine is to prevent one joint wrongdoer from suing another for damages that resulted from their shared wrongdoing.[2] Therefore, if a bankruptcy trustee brings a claim against an attorney on behalf of the corporation, and if the corporation is involved in the corporation’s wrongful conduct which serves as the basis for the claim, the in pari delicto may bar the claim.

The use of the doctrine against bankruptcy trustees emerged in the wave of corporate frauds in the last few decades. This novel application required the introduction of an important new element: agency law. Under agency principles, if the principal acted wrongfully through an agent in the scope of that agency relationship, then the wrongdoing of the agent is attributed to the principal.  Because the acts of corporate managers in the course of their employment are imputed to the corporation, and because a bankruptcy trustee “stands in the shoes” of a debtor corporation, the fraudulent acts of the debtor’s former managers will be imputed to the trustee—unless the trustee can show that management was acting entirely on its own interests and “totally abandoned” those of the corporation to break the chain of imputation.[3]

An analysis of the equitable defense in pari delicto at issue is separable from a standing analysis.[4] “Whether a party has standing to bring claims and whether a party’s claims are barred by an equitable defense are two separate questions, to be addressed on their own terms.”[5]

b)  The Second Circuit’s Approach

In Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit adopted the controversial approach of treating in pari delicto as a question of standing rather than an affirmative defense. Specifically, the standing analysis in the Second Circuit begins with the issue of whether the trustee can demonstrate that the third party professional injured the debtor in a manner distinct from injuries suffered by the debtor’s creditors.[6] In many jurisdictions, the question of the trustee’s standing ends here.[7] In Wagoner, the Second Circuit went further and added a second inquiry that incorporates the equitable defense ofin pari delicto.[8] By combining these two issues, the Wagoner rule blends the in pari delicto question into a rule of standing.

In Wagoner, the sole stockholder, director, and president of a corporation had used the proceeds of notes to finance fraudulent stock trading.[9] After the corporation became insolvent, the trustee brought claims against the defendant, an investment bank, for breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the company’s president to engage in inappropriate transactions.[10] The court held that because the president participated in the alleged misconduct, his misconduct must be imputed to the corporation and the bankruptcy trustee. This rationale derives from the agency principle that underlies the application of in pari delicto to corporate litigants: the misconduct of managers within the scope of their employment will normally be imputed to the corporation.[11] The court ruled that the trustee lacked standing to sue the investment bank for aiding and abetting the president’s alleged unlawful activity.[12] By adopting the Wagoner rule, the Second Circuit upped the ante by making an equitable defense a threshold question of standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage, rather than an affirmative defense better resolved on summary judgment or at trial.

c)  Approaches of Other Circuits

Although the Wagoner rule still prevails in the Second Circuit, a majority of other courts have declined to follow it, including the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. These circuits have “declined to conflate the constitutional standing doctrine with the in pari delicto defense.”[13] “Even if an in pari delictodefense appears on the face of the complaint, it does not deprive the trustee of constitutional standing to assert the claim, though the defense may be fatal to the claim.”[14]

The Eighth Circuit held that in pari delicto cannot be used at the dismissal stage.[15] On a motion to dismiss, the court is generally limited to considering the allegations in the complaint, which the court assumes to be true in ruling on the motion.[16] Because in pari delicto is an affirmative defense requiring proof of facts that the defendant asserts, it is usually not an appropriate ground for early dismissal.[17] An in pari delicto defense may be successfully asserted at the pleading stage only where “the facts establishing the defense are: (1) definitively ascertainable from the complaint and other allowable sources of information, and (2) sufficient to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.”[18] Thus, the in pari delicto defense is generally premature at this stage of the litigation, and the court must deny the motion to dismiss.

The existence of a possible defense does not affect the question of standing.[19]Standing is a constitutional question, and all a plaintiff must show is that they have suffered an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and that the requested relief will likely redress the alleged injury.  In this matter, the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits’ approach is more convincing. Those courts hold that whether a trustee has standing to bring a claim and whether the claim is barred by the equitable defense of in pari delicto are two separate questions and that the in pari delicto defense is appropriately set forth in responsive pleadings and the subject of motions for summary judgment and trial.

3.  Standing Issues The Trustees Face 

a)  Background

The next question is whether the bankruptcy trustee fulfills the constitutional requirement of standing. Article III specifies three constitutional requirements for standing. First, the plaintiff must allege that he has suffered or will imminently suffer an injury. Second, he must allege that the injury is traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Third, the plaintiff must show that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.[20]

A critical issue in evaluating whether a trustee or receiver has standing to sue is whether the claim belongs to the corporate debtor entity or to the individual investors of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court held in Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York, 406 U.S. 416, 433-34 (1972), that a bankruptcy trustee has standing to represent only the interests of the debtor corporation and does not have standing to pursue claims for damages against a third party on behalf of one creditor or a group of creditors. Although the line is not always clear between the debtor’s claims, which a trustee has statutory authority to assert, and claims of creditors, which Caplin bars the trustee from pursuing, the focus of the inquiry is on whether the trustee is seeking to redress injuries to the debtor that defendants’ alleged conduct caused.[21]

b)  The Shifting Focus of the Second Circuit

In Wagoner, the Second Circuit held that the corporation and the trustee did not have standing to bring a claim because a “claim against a third party for defrauding a corporation with the cooperation of management accrues to creditors, not to the guilty corporation.”[22] The rationale for this rule is “though a class of creditors has suffered harm, the corporation itself has not.”[23] Without cognizable injury, the trustee representing the debtor corporation failed to meet the constitutional standing requirement.

Commentators have criticized the Wagoner rule that there is no separate injury to the corporation on several grounds. First, the court’s finding that a corporation is not harmed when its assets are squandered effectively ignores the existence of the corporation during the bankruptcy process.[24] Furthermore, the Wagonercourt seems to acknowledge the trustee’s right to sue the guilty managers for damages done to the corporation. Such a construction leads to the absurd result that when management and its accomplices defraud a corporation, management can be sued on behalf of the corporation for the harm caused to the corporation, but the accomplices cannot be sued on behalf of the corporation because the corporation was not harmed.[25] Recognizing the faults of this rule, the Second Circuit recognized that there was “at least a theoretical possibility of some independent financial injury to the debtors” as a result of the defendant’s aid in the fraud.[26] Nevertheless, the court denied the plaintiff’s standing, relying on the observation that any damage suffered by the debtor was passed on to the investors, and “there was likely to be little significant injury that accrues separately to the Debtors.”[27] In other words, most of the alleged injuries in Hirsch were suffered by third parties, not by the debtors themselves. The Second Circuit shifted the focus of the Wagoner rule from lack-of-separate-injury (the first inquiry of theWagoner rule) to the in pari delicto (the second inquiry) in Breeden v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, 336 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2003). In that case, the court denied the trustee standing, holding that even if there was damage to the corporation, the trustee lacked standing because of the debtor’s collaboration with the corporate insiders.[28]

c)  Approaches of Other Circuits

In Lafferty, the creditors’ committee brought an action against the debtor’s officers, directors and outside professionals, alleging that through participation in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, the defendants wrongfully prolonged the debtor’s life and incurred debt beyond the debtor’s ability to pay, ultimately forcing the debtor into bankruptcy.[29] The Lafferty court articulated different kinds of harms to the corporation: (1) fraudulent or wrongful prolongation of an insolvent corporation’s life, (2) prolongation that causes the corporation to incur more debt and become more insolvent, and (3) diminution of corporate value had prolongation not occurred.[30] Recognizing that conduct driving a corporation deeper into debt injures not only the corporate creditors, but the corporation itself, the Third Circuit held the committee had standing to sue the outsiders on behalf of the debtor.[31]The court also noted that although the Tenth and Sixth Circuits had applied the in pari delicto doctrine to bar claims of a bankruptcy trustee, those courts assumed that the bankruptcy trustee at least has standing to bring the claim.[32]

The Eighth Circuit held that a trustee who had alleged sufficient injury traceable to the actions of the defendants had standing to sue.[33] The court held that the defendant law firm and attorneys participated in stripping the corporation’s assets and that the injury was traceable to the activities of the lawyers who engineered the transaction to the detriment of their client.[34] In addition, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Third Circuit in Lafferty and the Ninth Circuit (in Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP 421 F.3d at 1004) rejected the argument that a cause of action for harm to an insolvent corporation belongs to the creditors rather than the corporation. The Eighth Circuit adopted the rationale of Lafferty that simply because the creditors may be the beneficiary of recovery does not transform an action into a suit by the creditors.[35]

The Ninth Circuit found that the trustee had standing to pursue breach of contracts and duties against attorneys, auditors and investment bankers where, if defendants had not concealed the financial condition of debtor, the debtor might have filed for bankruptcy sooner and additional assets might not have been spent on a failing business.[36] “This allegedly wrongful expenditure of corporate assets qualifies as an injury to the firm which is sufficient to confer standing upon the Trustee.”[37] The court stated that “We rely only on the dissipation of assets in reaching the conclusion that the debtor was harmed.”[38] “A receiver has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against third parties who allegedly helped that corporation’s management harm the corporation.”[39]

To sum up, when a director or officer enlists the help of attorneys to misstate the financial health of a company, it causes significant harm to a corporation. Harms include: (1) the fraudulent and concealed accrual of debt which can lessen the value of corporate property, (2) legal and administrative costs of bankruptcy, (3) operational limitations on profitability, (4) the undermining of business relationships, and (4) failed corporate confidence.

If court were to afford standing to trustee, third parties would be deterred from negligent, reckless, or other wrongful behavior. It will provide a means for increasing attorneys’ liability for the wrongs they commit. While limitless liability for attorneys is not the solution, increasing liability will require attorneys to answer in court when they fail to detect fraud or manipulation on the part of directors and officers that a reasonable attorney would discover.

4.  Conclusion

Attorneys are equipped with the tools to prevent fraud. An attorney may always report fraud to the appropriate authority or refuse to participate in the fraud. However, attorneys may not want to jeopardize important client relationships unless the consequence of inaction makes reporting more beneficial. Given the turmoil of the financial markets since 2008, increased liability for attorneys could help alleviate corporate fraud and bolster consumer confidence in this distressed market.

For the above reasons, the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the debtor corporation against attorneys who allegedly helped that corporation’s management with the fraud.

 

[1] Terlecky v. Hurd (In re Dublin Sec., Inc.), 133 F.3d 377, 380 (6th Cir.1997).

[2] In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 383 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

[3] Wight v. Bank American Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 2000).

[4] See generally Jeffrey Davis, Ending the Nonsense: the In Pari Delicto Doctrine Has Nothing to Do with What is Section 541 Property of the Bankruptcy Estate, 21 Emory Bankr.Dev. J. 519 (2005); Gerald L. Baldwin, In Pari Delicto Should Not Bar a Trustee’s Recovery, 23-8 Am. Bankr.Inst. J. 8 (2004); Tanvir Alam, Fraudulent Advisors Exploit Confusion in The Bankruptcy Code: How In Pari Delicto Has Been Perverted To Prevent Recovery for Innocent Creditors, 77 Am. Bank. L.J. 305 (2003); Robert T. Kugler, The Role of Imputation and In Pari Delicto in Barring Claims Against Third Parties, 1 No. 14 Andrews Bankr.Litig. Rep. 13 (2004);Making Sense of the In Pari Delicto Defense: “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?” 23 No. 11 Bankr. Law Letter 1 (Nov.2003).

[5] Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co.,267 F.3d 340, 346-47 (3d Cir.2001).

[6] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 118.

[7] R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d at 340.

[8] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 118.

[9] Id. at 116.

[10] Id. at 116-17.

[11] Wight, 219 F.3d at 86.

[12] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 120.

[13] In re Senior Cottages of America LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases).

[14] Id. at 1004.

[15] Id. at 1002.

[16] Wilchombe v. Tee Vee Toons. Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009).

[17] Knauer v. Jonathon Roberts Financial Group, Inc., 348 F.3d 230, 237 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2003).

[18] Gray v. Evercore Restructuring, LLC, 544 F.3d 320, 325 (1st Cir. 2008).

[19] Novartis Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 190 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 1999).

[20] Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 756-58 (1984).

[21] Smith v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th Cir. 2005).

[22] Wagoner, 944 F.2d at 120.

[23] Id.

[24] Jeffrey Davis, Ending the Nonsense: The In Pari Delicto Doctrine Has Nothing to Do with What Is § 541 Property of the Bankruptcy Estate, 21 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 519, 525 (2005).

[25] Id. at 527.

[26] Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1087 (2d Cir. 1995).

[27] Id.

[28] Id. at 100.

[29] Lafferty Co., 267 F.3d at 348-49.

[30] Id.

[31] Id. at 354.

[32] Id. at 358.

[33] In re Senior Cottages Of America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997.

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at 1001.

[36] Smith v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 421 F.3d at 1003 (9th Cir. 2005).

[37] Id.

[38] Id. at 1004.

[39] Id.

© Copyright 2011 Rui Li

 

U.S. Supreme Court Establishes State-of-Mind Requirement for Inducing Infringement Liability

As posted in the National Law Review yesterday by R. (Ted) Edward Cruz of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP – a good overview of the knowledge a patent infringement plaintiff needs to prove:

Today (May 31), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6 (2011), holding that to prove inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) a plaintiff must prove that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” The Court also held that this knowledge requirement can be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.”

Morgan Lewis represented SEB in this case. The leader of our U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Practice, Ted Cruz, argued the case on February 23. In today’s decision, by an 8-1 vote, our client prevailed.

On the facts of the case, SEB had developed an innovative method to produce household deep fryers and received a U.S. patent for this invention. A foreign competitor, Global-Tech Appliances, purchased one of SEB’s fryers in Hong Kong where it would not have patent markings, reverse-engineered SEB’s fryer, and then copied the SEB fryer’s unique technology. Global-Tech hired a patent attorney to conduct a patent search, but deliberately chose not to tell that attorney that its fryer was a copy of another company’s commercially successful fryer. The attorney did not locate SEB’s patent in its patent search. Global-Tech then sold its fryers to U.S. companies to sell within the United States. SEB sued Global-Tech for patent infringement and inducing infringement, and the jury found for SEB on all counts.

On appeal, Global-Tech challenged the finding on inducing infringement liability due to a lack of evidence of its actual knowledge of SEB’s patent. Section 271(b) provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” Over the last two decades, the Federal Circuit has offered various formulations of what mental-state requirement must be proven to establish liability under § 271(b). On appeal in this case, the Federal Circuit held that the mental-state requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “deliberate indifference of a known risk that a patent exists” and that Global-Tech’s actions constituted such deliberate indifference.

The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s analysis but nonetheless affirmed the judgment. The Court held that inducing infringement liability under § 271(b) requires evidence that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Adopting the argument advanced by SEB, the Court held that this knowledge requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.” After analyzing the record, the Court held that the judgment for SEB could be affirmed based on the evidence of Global-Tech’s willful blindness. The Court focused on Global-Tech’s decision to purchase the fryer to reverse-engineer it overseas (where it would not have U.S. patent markings) and then to deliberately withhold from its attorney the basic information that its fryer was a copy of SEB’s fryer.

This decision clears up an issue of long-standing confusion in the Federal Circuit as to the mental-state requirement of § 271(b). The Court’s explication of the standard should be welcome news to both innovators and holders of patents. The decision prevents frivolous claims of inducing infringement by requiring proof of knowledge of infringement. At the same time, it allows companies to protect their intellectual property rights against those companies that willfully blind themselves to a lawful patent in order to copy a commercially successful product. Corporations hiring attorneys to conduct patent searches should be sure to disclose to their attorneys any products copied or relied upon in developing a new technology.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Florida Minimum Wage To Increase Tomorrow

An important FYI posted today by Jay P. Lechner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP about the impending increase in minimum wage in Florida:

 

Florida’s minimum wage increases tomorrow to $7.31 per hour — a 6 cent increase. The minimum wage for tipped workers also goes up 6 cents, to $4.29 per hour. These increases are the result of a recent circuit court decision in Leon County ruling that the state’s method of calculating minimum wage was incorrect under the Florida Constitution.

The Florida Constitution and the Florida Minimum Wage Act require the state to annually “calculate an adjusted state Minimum Wage rate by increasing the state Minimum Wage by the rate of inflation for the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers….” Neither the Constitution nor the Act specifically addresses deflation in the computation of the minimum wage. Yet, due to a slight cost of living decrease during the 12-month period preceding September 1, 2009, the state lowered the state minimum wage rate in 2010 from $7.21 to $7.06, dropping it below the federal minimum wage. Then, in determining the 2011 rate, the state calculated an increase to $7.16 (still below the federal rate) based on a 1.4 percent cost of living increase during the 12-month period preceding September 1, 2010.

The court found that the state’s method for calculating the state minimum wage rate was incorrect because, based on the constitutional language, the minimum wage cannot be decreased. Soon after the ruling, a Florida Senate bill intended to amend the Act consistent with the state’s approach was withdrawn from consideration.

When the federal and Florida minimum wage rates differ, Florida employers are required to pay the higher rate. Tomorrow’s increase raises the Florida minimum wage above the $7.25 federal minimum wage rate. Thus, employers currently paying federal minimum wage to eligible workers in Florida must adjust their pay practices accordingly.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Prevailing Antitrust Defendants Recover $367,000 in e-Discovery Costs

Posted yesterday at the National Law Review by Eric S. O’Connor  of  Sheppard Mullin – a recent case out of the Western District of PA – Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., where prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded  by the court $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. 

Recently, prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011). While the Court labeled the facts as “unique” and that its holding was limited, the Court’s opinion is very thorough and the facts may be familiar to many antitrust defendants.

In today’s age where the costs of e-discovery can run several hundred thousand dollars or more and outside vendors are routinely hired to help, this holding can be used as a shield and a sword. During discovery, a party can alert the other side that aggressive discovery requests and a demand for many electronic search terms is a major factor in awarding costs of e-discovery – if the responding party prevails. And, if a party should prevail, the potential for an award of the costs of e-discovery can be an additional bonus and/or leverage for any post-verdict resolution without appeal.

The facts are simple. Plaintiff Specialty Tires America (STA) brought antitrust claims against Hoosier Racing, its tire supplier competitor, and Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. d/b/a World Racing Group, a motorsports racing sanctioning body. STA claimed that a so-called “single tire rule” by various sanctioning bodies like Dirt Motor Sports, as well as the related exclusive supply contracts between some of these sanctioning bodies and Hoosier violated Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and caused STA in excess of $80 million in damages. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F. 3d 57, 62-73 (3d Cir. 2010). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants finding that STA had failed to demonstrate antitrust injury, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 83-84.

The normal rule that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)) creates a “strong presumption” that all costs authorized for payment will be awarded to the prevailing party, so long as the costs are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the general taxation-of-costs statute. As prevailing parties, the defendants each filed a Bill of Costs in which the majority of amounts requested were e-discovery costs. Plaintiff objected arguing that e-discovery costs were not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).


Section 1920(4) allows recovery of “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies … necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). There are two statutory interpretation questions that have divided Courts. First, costs of electronic scanning of documents can be recoverable as “necessary” or unrecoverable as a mere “convenience.”

The other issue takes a few different forms, but focuses on whether the terms “exemplification” and “copying”, which originated in the world of paper, should be limited to physical preparation or rather updated to take into account changing technology and e-discovery. The Court discussed a litany of these cases. Some courts that have applied § 1920(4) to today’s e-discovery demands, have limited exemplification and copying to just the costs for scanning of documents, which is considered merely reproducing paper documents in electronic form, and refused to extend the statute to cover processing records, extracting data, and converting files. Courts are also divided on whether extracting, searching, and storing work by outside vendors are unrecoverable paralegal-like tasks, or whether such costs are recoverable because outside vendors provide highly technical and necessary services in the electronic age and which are not the type of services that paralegals are trained for or are capable of providing.

In this case, because the Court and the parties anticipated that discovery would be in the form of electronically stored information and because plaintiff aggressively pursued e-discovery (e.g., directing 273 discovery requests to one defendant and imposing over 442 search terms), defendants’ use of e-discovery vendors to retrieve and prepare e-discovery documents for production was recoverable as an indispensable part of the discovery process. The Court also found that the vendor’s fees were reasonable, especially because the costs were incurred by defendants when they did not know if they would prevail at trial.

The Court also denied the plaintiff’s request for a Special Master to assess the reasonableness of e-discovery costs incurred by the prevailing defendants as an unnecessary cost and delay.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. 

2nd Social Media Legal Risk and Strategy Conference Jul 19-21 SanFrancisco

The National Law Review would like you all to know about the upcoming 2nd Social Media Legal Risk and Strategy Conference:  Minimizing Legal Risk for Corporations Engaged in Social Media July 19-21 in San Francisco, CA.  

Key Conference Topics Include:

  • Insights and updates on the changing legal landscape for social media
  • Practical strategies to develop robust and compliant social media strategies
  • The role and involvement of legal in the social media initiatives
  • Overcoming the various legal risk from IP, Employment Law to Privacy when organizations engage in social media engagement
  • Analyzing emerging trends and potential legal risk in social media

Key Conference Features Include:

  • Pre-Conference Workshop A (July 19th): Uncovering Current and Emerging Social Media Trends and Applications To Forecast and Minimize Potential Legal Liabilities
  • Pre-Conference Workshop B (July 19th): Monitoring And Tracking Online Activities To Mitigate Legal Risk
  • For More information and to Register Please Click Here:

Attendees are eligible to receive up to 20 CLE credits!

 

Can We Talk? Doing So Significantly Increases Early Allowance of Patent Applications

Posted this week at the National Law Review by James E. Bradley, Jeffrey S. Whittle, and Glenn M. Strapp of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP – a nice overview of the United States Patent Office (“Patent Office”) data which shows that by talking to a patent examiner prior to a first official action, an applicant is three (3) times more likely to get a first action allowance of a patent application.

Talking to patent examiners often helps advance the examination of a patent application.  Now United States Patent Office (“Patent Office”) data shows that by talking to a patent examiner prior to a first official action, an applicant is three (3) times more likely to get a first action allowance of a patent application. A newly expanded Patent Office program makes it easier to talk to the Examiner prior to initial examination.1 The heart of the program is an “Examiner Interview” that takes place before the examiner issues a first official action, which allows the examiner and patent applicant to discuss the application, identify allowable patent claims, and shave months or years off of the time from filing of an application to receipt of an issued patent.

The new program, officially called the Full First Action Interview Pilot Program, is not entirely new. The First Action Interview Pilot Program began in April, 2008, and this initial program transitioned into the Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program in October, 2009. Those programs were limited to patent applications in specific technologies, or “art units,” within the Patent Office.2  Under the new full program, patent applications in all art units are eligible, provided that the applications meet other specific requirements. Unlike the previous interview pilot programs, the full program does not limit eligibility to patent applications filed before a specific date.3 The full program, however, still is a pilot program and is scheduled to continue only until May 16, 2012.4 The one-year period will give the Patent Office time to collect more data on the benefits of the full program.

A brief summary of the patent prosecution process helps illustrate where the First Action Interview Program can reduce the patent prosecution time. In a conventional patent application cycle, the patent applicant submits an application to the Patent Office, and the application sits in a queue until the examiner evaluates the patentability of the claims. If the examiner considers one or more claims not to be patentable, the examiner issues a first official action. The applicant can respond by arguing the merits of the claims based on how the claims currently exist in the application or by amending the claims in the application to make them patentable. The examiner, in turn, can either allow the claims or issue a subsequent (non-final or final) official action. Under the best of circumstances, it can take months for the Patent Office to issue a subsequent official action, and the response from the applicant can take weeks or months. These delays associated with subsequent official actions can be reduced or eliminated by the First Action Interview Program.5

The heart of the First Action Interview Program is an interview between the applicant and the examiner in which the examiner and the applicant can talk about the application before the examiner issues the first official action. Participants in the earlier First Action Interview Programs have found the program beneficial because it gives the applicant the opportunity to resolve patentability issues one-on-one with the examiner at the beginning of the patent prosecution process.6 When the applicant and the examiner communicate, i.e., by talking one-on-one, before the first official action, much of the patent prosecution activity that would normally follow the first official action can be reduced. Statistics published by the Patent Office indicate that resolving issues before the first official action can lead to early allowance of the patent application. Indeed, under the First Action Interview Pilot Programs, approximately 34% of all applications were allowed on the merits on the first action, compared to about 11% of all applications not involved in the program.7

Existing Patent Office rules already allow an applicant to request an examiner interview before the first official action. Unfortunately, those interviews are granted at the examiner’s discretion, and the examiner may require the applicant to show why such an interview is justified. Under the First Action Interview Program, the interview is granted on a non-discretionary basis, provided the applicant follows specific procedures defined by the program. To qualify for the program, the applicant must file the request for interview before May 16, 2012 and meet each of the following requirements:

  1. The application must be a non-reissue, non-provisional utility application or an international application that has entered a national stage;
  2. The application must contain three or fewer independent claims and 20 or fewer total claims;
  3. The claims must be directed to a single invention;8
  4. The request for a first action interview must be filed electronically; and
  5. The request must be filed before a first official action on the merits.

If the application meets these requirements, the examiner will conduct the usual prior art search and issue a Pre-Interview Communication to the applicant. That communication will include citations to prior art references and an identification of any rejections of or objections to the claims. The applicant then has one month to schedule an interview with the examiner and submit any proposed amendments or remarks, or else file a request not to have the first action interview with the examiner. At the interview, the applicant and the examiner can talk about the prior art and try to identify the broadest allowable patent claims.  After the interview, the examiner will (hopefully) issue a Notice of Allowability or a First Action Interview Office Action. There is no additional fee required to participate in the First Action Interview Program. Therefore, it is a cost effective way to reduce the patent prosecution time by potentially reducing the time from the first official action to the issuance of the patent.

Because the Full First Action Interview Pilot Program is a pilot program and is scheduled to end on May 16, 2012, those interested in participating in the program should request an interview without delay.

___________________

1 “Full First Action Interview Pilot Program,” Kappos, David J., Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, May 6, 2011, available here(opens in a new window).
2 Art Units 1610, 1795, 2150, 2160, 2440, 2450, 2617, 2811-2815, 2818, 2822-2823, 2826, 2829, 2891-2895, 3671, 3672, 3673, 3676, 3677, 3679, 3735, 3736, 3737, 3777, 3768, 3739, 3762, 3766, and 3769. Date restrictions further limited eligible applications within these art units. Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program, available here.
3 The Enhanced First Action Interview Program, which ended April 1, 2011, was limited to applications filed before a specific date. The specific dates were different for each of the 19 eligible art units, and ranged from Aug. 1, 2006 and May 1, 2008. Id.
4 Applicants that apply and meet all requirements will be able to participate in the program regardless of whether the interview and first official action occur after the May 16, 2012 end-date of the program. See Frequently Asked Questions Regarding The First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program, available here(opens in a new window).
5 In 2010, Average First Action Pendency, the average time from filing a patent application until the first official action, was 25.7 months. The Average Total Pendency, the average time from filing until the application issued as a patent or abandoned, was 35.3 months.
http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/2010/mda_02_03.html
6 “Full First Action Interview Pilot Program,” Kappos, David J., Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, May 6, 2011, available here(opens in a new window).
7 USPTO Announces Full First Action Interview Pilot Program, May 16, 2011.
8 If the Examiner finds patent claims are directed to more than one invention and issues a restriction requirement, the Applicant must elect claims for a single invention without traverse. Failure to elect without traverse disqualifies the application from the First Action Interview Program.

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Implementing Effective Litigation Holds

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Laura Broughton Russell and David L. Woodard of Poyner Spruill LLP – Important things for Employers to Consider about Litigation Holds:

Does your company have an established procedure for issuing timely litigation holds?  Recent court decisions make it clear that employers have a duty to preserve electronically stored information and paper documents they know or should know would be relevant to a current or threatened legal action.  The consequences for failing to do so can be severe.  Events which trigger an employer’s duty to preserve information/documents include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Receiving notice that the employer is a party to a legal or an administrative proceeding, such as a charge of discrimination;
  • Receiving a letter threatening a claim on behalf of an applicant or current or former employee;
  • A verbal demand from an applicant or current or former employee relating to a legal claim;
  • Other “red flags” exist or a “totality of circumstances” indicate a claim is likely to be made by an  applicant or current or former employee.

A litigation hold notice is best made in writing,  It should instruct recipients to preserve and not destroy (or overwrite) electronically stored information and paper documents that are relevant to current or threatened litigation.

Although the litigation hold notice must be tailored to the facts of each particular situation, at a minimum, it should include the following:

  • Name of the matter or individual involved;
  • Warning of the importance of the hold and the consequences for not complying with it;
  • Direction not to alter or destroy information/documents;
  • Reason for the hold – e.g., legal action;
  • Reason the recipient (see below) is getting the hold notice;
  • Types of information included in the hold and the applicable time period.  (Information subject to the hold could include personnel files and other employment related documents, e-mail and other forms of correspondence and electronically stored information.)
  • Instructions for preserving information/documents;
  • Suspension of any routine document retention/destruction policy;

The hold notice should be issued to all employees reasonably likely to have information relevant to a claim – the “key players” in the matter.  There could also be instances in which outside vendors would also need to be issued a hold notice.

The employer’s IT department should help implement litigation holds, particularly with regard to documents housed or stored in e-mail accounts, or on computers, cell phones PDAs, or on flash drives, as well as with regard to taking control of backup tapes and stopping any automatic overwriting of electronic data.

Finally, employers should enforce litigation holds and, if a violation of the hold is discovered, take prompt action to remedy the violation if possible.  Steps also should be taken to ensure no further violations occur, such as taking disciplinary action up to termination.

Litigation hold notices must be tailored to the facts of each case and should be reviewed by counsel knowledgeable in this area.  If you have a question about litigation hold practices, Poyner Spruill attorneys are experienced in minimizing legal risks through the effective use of litigation holds and are available to assist employers with any of their needs.

© 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

Which Employers Will Be Responsible For Health Coverage In 2014?

Recently posted at the National Law Review by Abby Natelson  of  Greenberg Traurig, LLP – provides more details about which employers will be responsible for providing healthcare coverage in 2014:

The new health care law, otherwise known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), requires that, beginning after December 31, 2013, “applicable large employers” must provide affordable health coverage to their full-time employees.   Failure to do so may subject these employers to a shared responsibility payment, or an “assessable payment,” pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §4980H.

An “applicable large employer” is defined as “an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.” A full-time employee with respect to a given month is defined as “an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week.”

While these definitions may appear to be straightforward, the recent Notice issued by the Internal Revenue Service, together with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, indicates that the analysis is not so simple.

Notice 2011-36 was issued on May 2, 2011, seeking comments and providing suggested rules for interpreting and applying the meaning of “full-time employees” for purposes of IRC §4980H.

Notably, the Notice provides rules for determining whether an employer has “50 full-time employees,” which includes full-time equivalents. This means that, on a monthly basis, an employer must take the following steps to determine whether 50 full-time employees are employed:

1)                  Determine the number “full-time” employees. 
This group includes seasonal employees and all employees of a controlled group, an affiliated group, and a predecessor employer. This group does not include leased employees.

2)                  Determine the “full-time equivalents.”
This number is determined by aggregating the number of hours of service for all employees determined not to have a full-time status for the month, and then dividing these hours by 120.

At the end of a calendar year, the employer must add together the 12 monthly calculations, and divide the sum by 12 to get the average monthly full-time employees for the prior year. If the final number is 50 or more, the employer is an “applicable large employer.” 

For example, if a business employs 40 full-time employees with 40 hours of service per week and 20 part-time employees with an average of 20 hours of service per week, the employer will still be considered an “applicable large employer.”   This is because each month, the employer will have to add approximately 13.3 “full-time equivalents” (approximately 80 hours worked per month by each part-time employee, multiplied by 20 part-time employees, divided by 120) to the 40 full-time employees, bringing the total “full-time employees” for purposes of health coverage obligations to 53.3. As this example demonstrates, an employer that relies on part-time employees may still be subject to the shared responsibility provisions of the PPACA.

The Notice provides for an exception in the case of seasonal workers. This seasonal employees exception applies where an employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or less during a calendar year and the employees in excess of 50 were employed during those days as seasonal employees. In this case, the employer is not considered an “applicable large employer.”

Employers “not in existence during an entire preceding calendar year,” are not exempt from assessment payment liability pursuant to the Notice, and will be considered an applicable large employer if the employer reasonably expects to employ an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the current calendar year.

The Notice also indicates the intent of the IRS, DOL, and HHS to allow employers to measure 130 hours of service per month to determine full-time status, rather than 30 hours of service per week. Further, the Notice includes a safe harbor for determining an employee’s full time status for future months based on the employee’s status as a full-time employee in prior months, which is intended to make administration of this rule for full-time employees easier.

In short, the proposed guidance set forth in Notice 2011-36 expands upon the inclusive definition of “full-time employees” set forth by the PPACA and reinforces the continuous burden imposed on employers to evaluate the “full-time” status of each of their employees.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Chief Judge Imposes Privilege Waiver Sanctions Against Defendant for Repeated Discovery Misconduct in DL v. District of Columbia

Recently posted at the National Law Review byMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP  an  overview / warning about discovery violations:  

Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sent a clear message to litigants last week: repeated discovery violations will not be tolerated and may subject the violator to harsh sanctions, including waiver of privilege. In his May 9 ruling in DL v. District of Columbia,[1]Judge Lamberth denied defendant District of Columbia’s (District’s) request for reconsideration of his April 7, 2011 order, which imposed privilege waiver sanctions with regard to all of the District’s as-yet unproduced email and ordered the District to produce all such email within one week after the close of trial.

The plaintiffs in this Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) case had been waiting almost six years for trial. Beginning on the first day of trial (April 6, 2011), however, the central issue in the case quickly became the District’s failure to timely meet its discovery obligations when the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that “document production from the District was still flooding into his office,” including the production of “thousands of e-mails just days before trial.” Indeed, the District intended to “continue to produce thousands of e-mails on a ‘rolling’ basis even after the trial concluded.” As the unproduced e-mails were from more than two years prior, no basis existed for such a lengthy delay in production, especially in a case in which discovery had been closed for more than two years. The court found the District’s explanation for its untimely rolling productions of email (which the District described as the result of a “supplemental search” that had been “ongoing for months”) completely unacceptable. The court especially noted the District’s failure to bring its delayed production to the court’s attention at either the pretrial conference or at any number of pretrial proceedings.

Among the District’s numerous discovery violations, the court highlighted the following:

  • Failure to timely produce relevant documents
  • Violation of multiple discovery orders
  • Failure to timely provide a privilege log
  • Failure to inform the court of any delays in production in order to request appropriate extensions

The court may have been more lenient had the District not requested and been granted an extension of its discovery deadlines from June 27, 2008 until October 14, 2008. The District, despite being recently sanctioned for discovery violations, failed to comply with several discovery milestones ordered by the court, including the submission of a privilege log. In addition, the District’s certification that it had completed its production was not only late, but also inaccurate since the District clearly had not yet completed its production. Furthermore, on September 22, 2010, the district court ordered both parties to supplement their discovery responses and document productions up until the date of the trial, an order that the was also violated by the District.

In its ruling, the court emphasized the District’s failure to (a) alert the court to the delayed production of email and (b) seek an appropriate extension.

“If at any point the District realized that it was behind, or for any other reason could not comply with this Court’s Orders, it should have informed the Court of the problem. . . . It could have said something at any of the multiple status conferences held in this case or at the pretrial conference. Instead, the District failed to produce documents for over two years, violated multiple Court Orders in the process, and instead of informing the Court of the situation at any point along the way, it simply sprung the news on the first day of trial.”

Further, the court stated that, absent entering a default judgment in the case, the order granting privilege waiver sanctions and compelling production of all remaining e-mail within one week of trial was the only realistic alternative.Otherwise, the parties would face extremely burdensome delays and increased litigation time and costs, which would also affect the court’s already overloaded trial docket. The court stated state that the District “should not be surprised that its misconduct has caught up with it.”

This case underscores the importance to companies involved in litigation of diligently complying with all discovery deadlines and promptly bringing to the court’s attention any delays in compliance. Failure to do so may result in severe sanctions, including privilege waivers.

[1]. Case No. 1:05-cv-01437-RCL (D.D.C. May 9, 2011). Plaintiffs in this class action suit sued their local school district, the District of Columbia, over the District’s failure to provide them with a free appropriate public education, as required by law.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.