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.

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration – Sep 21st NYC

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration- September 21, New York, NY presented by ARK Group :

As clients push for greater value in legal services, the role of law firm marketing is shifting from simply chronicling the firm’s success—to engaging with clients to understand and deliver value. Clients want direct access to a firm’s knowledge assets—both to assess the firm’s expertise and to obtain legal information that will address their basic legal needs—almost as a precursor to determining whether a firm can meet their higher-value needs.  The world is changing and law will “normalize” to look more and more like other industries. Fortunately clients are sharing information about themselves in a variety of new and different ways. And legal marketers with insight and gumption will help their firms deliver superior value at the intersection of communication and collaboration.

Ark Group/Managing Partner’s Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0—Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration will provide a unique platform for legal marketers to discuss and better understand the value of content and collaboration in creating a “marketing culture” that can help the firm leverage its intellectual capital effectively.

Discussion topics and focal points of the forum include:

  • Identifying the link between Marketing and Knowledge Management to energize client development
  • Actionable business intelligence as a byproduct of Knowledge Management
  • Social CRM & Web 2.0 Collaboration: Elevating the conversation with clients and prospects
  • Strategic alignment and cross-functional efforts that contribute to value creation for the client
  • The role of knowledge in developing and retaining clients: Why fresh content will make your attorneys better business developers
  • Why lawyers and marketers must demonstrate—through their own engagement—that they are worthy of knowledge sharing
  • Positioning your CRM platform as the lifeline between the various departmental silos, enabling access and an opportunity (across the organization) to contribute to client data
  • The integration of law firm functions—such as Marketing, Business Development, Client Relationship Management and Knowledge Management
  • Assessing client relationship-building initiatives: keys to success and seeds of failure

For More Information and to Register:

This event is held on September 21st at the AMA Executive Conference Center ~ New York, NY.  Please click  HERE  for more information.


Guilty Plea for Altering HSR Documents

Recently  posted in the National Law Review an article by Jonathan M. Rich and Sean P. Duffy of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP about penalties for dishonesty in Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings:

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has provided a jarring reminder of the penalties for dishonesty in Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings. On August 15, the DOJ announced that Nautilus Hyosung Holdings Inc. (NHI) agreed to plead guilty to criminal obstruction of justice for altering documents submitted with an HSR filing. NHI agreed to pay a $200,000 fine, but the DOJ can still pursue criminal prosecution—and potential incarceration—of an NHI executive.

Companies must make HSR filings with the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and observe a waiting period before closing to enable the agencies to evaluate the likely impact of the transaction on competition. Item 4(c) of the HSR notification form requires parties to provide copies of “all studies, surveys, analyses and reports which were prepared by or for any officer or director . . . for the purpose of evaluating or analyzing the acquisition with respect to market shares, competition, competitors, markets, potential for sales growth or expansion into product or geographic markets.” Such “4(c) documents” provide the agencies with their first insight into the potential impact of a transaction on competition.

NHI, a manufacturer of automated teller machines (ATMs), made a filing in August 2008 in connection with its proposed acquisition of Trident Systems of Delaware (Trident), a rival ATM manufacturer. According to the plea agreement filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an unnamed NHI executive altered 4(c) documents to “misrepresent and minimize the competitive impact of the proposed acquisition on markets in the United States and other statements relevant and material to analyses . . . by the FTC and DOJ.”

Despite the altered documents, the DOJ initiated a merger investigation and requested additional documents from NHI, including copies of preexisting business plans and strategic plans relating to the sale of ATMs for the years 2006-2008. The company submitted the requested materials in early September 2008. According to the plea agreement, an NHI executive altered the business and strategic plans to misrepresent statements concerning NHI’s business and competition among vendors of ATMs.

In early 2009, NHI told the DOJ that an executive had altered 4(c) and other documents produced to the government. NHI and Trident abandoned the proposed transaction shortly thereafter. According to the plea agreement, NHI provided substantial cooperation with the DOJ’s obstruction of justice investigation.

According to the DOJ, the recommended fine of $200,000-$100,000 for each count-takes into account the nature and extent of the company’s disclosure and cooperation. NHI could have faced a maximum fine of up to $500,000 per count of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The plea agreement reserves the DOJ’s right to pursue criminal prosecution of the executive involved in the alterations.

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

Italian Competition Authority Finds Abusive Conduct in Withholding Data and Internal Communications Praising Company Strategy

Posted on August 25th in the National Law Review an article by Veronica Pinotti and Martino Sforza of McDermott Will & Emery which highlights the dangers faced by a dominant market player that owns intellectual property rights or data that are essential for other companies to compete. 

On 5 July 2011, the Italian Competition Authority imposed fines of €5.1 million on a multinational crop protection company for having abused its dominant position on the market for fosetyl-based systemic fungicides in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  In addition, the Authority issued an injunction restraining the company from such conduct in the future.

The Authority considered that the multinational was able to increase its prices for finished products on the downstream market while increasing the volume of its own sales, showing a high degree of pricing policy independence.

In making its decision, the Authority also took into account the fact that, in addition to its high market share, the multinational was the only vertically integrated manufacturer with significant financial capability and it owned certain research data required for the commercialisation of fosetyl-based products.  According to the Authority, these data are vital for accessing the market, given that they are indispensable for competitors seeking to renew marketing authorisations, because the current legislation restricts the repetition of tests on vertebrate animals.  The Authority noted that certain competitors that had joined a task force for the purpose of negotiating access to the multinational’s data were disqualified from renewal of their marketing authorisations and had to leave the market.  Refusal by the multinational to grant access to the data was therefore found to be abusive.

The Authority reviewed a number of the multinational’s internal communications that praised the results obtained in the fosetyl-based business in Italy, thanks to the strategy adopted by the company.  According to the Authority, these communications proved that the company was aware of the anti-competitive character of their conduct.

In the Authority’s view, the company’s conduct constituted a serious infringement and therefore deserved a very high fine.

Comment

The case highlights the dangers faced by a dominant market player that owns intellectual property rights or data that are essential for other companies to compete.  The case also illustrates the importance of the language used by businesses in their internal communications, given that internal communications are often used by the Authority when reaching a decision on potential infringements. Refusals to licence or grant access to market-essential data can only be made if there are objective grounds for doing so.  This is a difficult issue on which dominant companies should seek legal advice.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Asbestos Litigation Case Questions Safety in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review on  an article by C. James Zeszutek and David J. Singley of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding an unsual case  in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred:

Although most would consider asbestos to be an old problem, limited to mainly the manufacturing and construction industries, asbestos has been incorporated into a myriad of products that had many and varied uses. Because asbestos was so pervasive, claims such as the one described below, occurring many years after the last occasions on which asbestos was used and arising from the use of sophisticated equipment in a laboratory, are still prevalent.

Dinsmore attorneys recently handled a premises liability case for a major minerals supply company. The case was unusual in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred into the 1990’s. This is in contrast to the typical asbestos case that usually involves exposure in heavy industry prior to 1980.

The plaintiff in this case initially worked as a technician for a manufacturer of laboratory instruments including thermoanalyzers. A thermoanalyzer is an instrument that allows the user to determine the amount of water in the sample being tested as well as certain other characteristics of the sample as the result of heating the sample to high temperatures. The thermoanalyzer at our client’s premises contained an asbestos paper separator between the “hot” portion of the instrument and the unheated side. The plaintiff testified that whenever he installed or performed service work on the thermoanalyzers, including the one at our client’s laboratory, he was exposed to friable asbestos from the paper separator as well as component insulation on vapor lines contained in the thermoanalyser. The plaintiff also contended that he was exposed to friable asbestos from an asbestos glove and asbestos pad that were provided with the thermoanalyzer. The plaintiff ultimately left his employment with the thermoanalyzer’s manufacturer and started his own business doing the same type of work, namely servicing various laboratory instruments, including thermoanalyzers. Significantly, the plaintiff alleged exposures at our client’s premises into the 1990’s. The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer which is uniformly fatal and is, except in rare circumstances, a signature disease for asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff’s theory of liability as to our client was that because the thermoanlayzer in our client’s laboratory had asbestos in it, and further because the client had not provided a warning to the plaintiff regarding asbestos in the thermoanalyzers, that our client had breached its obligation to provide a safe workplace for tradesmen at its premises. As is typical in asbestos cases, it was not initially clear what theory of liability the plaintiff was pursuing. It was not until the plaintiff was deposed and additional discovery undertaken that it became apparent that the plaintiff was focusing on the alleged failure to provide a safe work place because of the asbestos containing components in the thermoanalyzer. The case was further complicated because it was filed in New Jersey, where the plaintiff lived, but our client’s premises were located in Pennsylvania. Thus, there was a question as to whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law would apply. We argued that regardless of which state’s law was applied, as the premises owner, our client did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, an independent contractor, who was allegedly injured by the very piece of equipment on which he was hired to work.

The Plaintiff argued that the Olivo v. Owens – Illinois case, a New Jersey Supreme Court Case, required a premises owner to provide a reasonably safe place to work for tradesmen coming on to the owner’s premises, including an obligation to inspect for defective or dangerous conditions. The Olivo case was one in a series of cases in which the New Jersey courts were attempting to address premises liability in terms of a reasonableness standard as opposed to the traditional categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee, all of which deal with the person’s status while on the premises. In Olivo, the New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment. The New Jersey appellate court reversed and held there were issues of fact regarding the degree of control the premises owner retained over the work, what safety information the premises owner provided, and what the premises owner told the contractor regarding the presence of asbestos on the premises. The Plaintiff argued that these were exactly the same issues in our case.

Dinsmore argued that Pennsylvania law applied (because the premises in question was in Pennsylvania) and in any event, Pennsylvania law was similar to that of New Jersey, namely, that a premises owner does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor for dangers inherent in the work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Although the court did not overtly address the choice of law issue, it held that our client, the premises owner, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because the plaintiff was responsible for his safety on the equipment on which he was working. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court focused on the premises owner’s lack of any supervision or control over the worked performed by the independent contractor. We also emphasized the independent contractor’s superior knowledge regarding the thermoanalyzer and its components.

Our Advice 

Facilities and equipment managers need to be alert that in facilities built or remodeled prior to the mid-1970’s, or equipment, even laboratory equipment, assembled prior to 1980 and where there was a need for thermal insulation, asbestos may still be present and care should be used in dealing with such equipment. Additionally, although waivers of liability, obtained from the tradesmen coming on the property may provide some legal protection, the facilities and equipment managers should make clear with the tradesmen, or the tradesmen’s employers, that they are being hired for their expertise and knowledge regarding the proposed work and that they are being relied upon to perform the work in a safe manner.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

 

NYC Condo Refinance Collapses Because There Was No "Meeting of the Minds"

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Eric S. O’Connor of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP wherein  plaintiffs sought damages arising out of their attempt to refinance a mortgage loan with the defendant bank:

In Trief v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Index No. 105280/09, — N.Y.S.2d — (Sup Ct, NY County, Apr. 4, 2011) (“Trief”), the plaintiffs sought damages arising out of their attempt to refinance a mortgage loan with the defendant bank (the “Bank”), for breach of contract and violation of New York’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. General Business Law (“NYGBL”) § 349. Justice Charles Edward Ramos granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment on both counts. The parties actually proceeded to closing when plaintiff walked away from the refinancing of a luxury midtown condominium located at 15 West 53rd Street, New York, NY – seemingly over a $518.75 dispute.

The main lesson is that all parties, especially when communicating via more informal modes of communications like email, must clarify and confirm an “agreement on all essential terms” or else a valid contract will not be formed.

The facts – negotiation, informal communications, the exchange of standard loan forms, etc… – follow a seemingly common pattern. A mortgage consultant from the Bank filled out the refinance application on the Triefs’ behalf by telephone and then sent an e-mail attaching a Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges (the “GFE”). The GFE proposed a 5.125% interest rate and a standard provision indicating that the “fees listed are estimated – the actual charges may be more or less.” The cover email asked to “let me know if you would like me to lock you in for 60 days”, which Mr. Trief responded “sure.” After a small dispute about the rate, the Bank faxed a Conventional Commitment Letter (the “Letter”) to the Triefs confirming the rate and other details. Despite language in the Letter that “You must sign and return this commitment letter within that period to ensure receiving the terms specified”, neither party signed the Letter. At the scheduled closing, the Triefs refused to proceed because the Bank sought to charge them a rate lock extension fee of $518.75, which the Triefs claim was never negotiated or agreed to.

The main issue was whether a contract was formed. The Court explained the classic rules that a plaintiff must establish an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound. Kowalchuk v. Stroup, 61 A.D.3d 118, 121 (1st Dept 2009).  Mutual assent means a “meeting of the minds” and must include agreement on all essential terms. Id. The Court held that there was not a meeting of the minds on all of the essential terms of a final contract for refinancing. The two key pieces of evidence – the email from the Bank asking to “let me know if you would like me to lock you in for 60 days” and the standard GFE language that terms were subject to change – were only seeking an acceptance to lock in the rate for a fixed period of time, rather than a final agreement to refinance. Further, the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act(“RESPA”) shows that the legislature did not intend for the GFE to bind a lender to a final loan agreement. See 24 CFR § 3500.7 [a], [g] (the “GFE is not a loan commitment. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a loan originator to make a loan to a particular borrower.”).

Finally, the Court also rejected the Triefs claim under NYGBL § 349. A claim for violation of GBL § 349 is based upon consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading, causing a plaintiff injury. The Court held that the Triefs failed to even identify consumer-oriented conduct on the part of the Bank because private contract disputes, unique to the parties, generally do not fall within the scope of the statute. The Triefs failed to demonstrate injury because they refused to close on the loan refinancing and did not pay any fees to the Bank.
Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Troubled Loan Workouts: Qualified Professionals Can Help Maximize Recovery for All Parties

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Norman B. Newman of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C. regarding workout of a financially troubled loans:

The workout of a financially troubled loan requires the participants—typically the lender, the borrower and the guarantors—to be well versed in legal and business principals, coupled with an ability to understand the emotional aspects of the situation. The primary goal of a troubled loan workout is to maximize the recovery to all parties involved. That end result is best achieved when each party is represented by qualified professionals, including a loan officer who is familiar with the situation, as well as experienced attorneys and workout consultants. Collectively, these resources offer a vast network of appraisers, real estate and business brokers, buyers, prospective lenders and other contacts—all of whom are familiar with financially troubled business matters.

From the lender’s side, a loan workout officer will bring to the table a thorough understanding of the loan documents and know what collateral has been pledged, as well as the extent of the perfection of the security interests granted to the lender. The loan officer will be able to communicate with the borrower and the guarantors with respect to the existing defaults under the loan documents. This individual will also know the lender’s rights in light of the default and whether the lender is choosing to presently exercise its rights under the loan documents or reserve exercising them until a future date.

From a legal prospective, it is essential that all parties involved in a troubled loan workout be represented by attorneys experienced in handling financial distress matters. The lender’s attorney will review the loan documents, examine collateral perfection issues and assist in providing updated UCC, tax lien and judgment lien searches. This attorney will also be able to advise the lender as to the various remedies available in the exercise of its rights against the borrower and the guarantors, including in-court and out-of-court options.

The other parties should also turn to legal counsel for advice regarding their rights, remedies and obligations under the operative documents. Attorneys for the borrower and guarantors will advise their clients how best to cooperate with the lender in a consensual workout scenario or what defenses might be available in an adversarial situation. This advice will also cover in-court and out-of-court options, including the availability of bankruptcy relief as part of a consensual loan workout.

Assuming the lender does not need to take immediate action to get control over or liquidate its collateral, most troubled loan workouts involve some period of forbearance that affords the borrower additional time to resolve its financial problems. Under a limited forbearance arrangement, the lender gives up little, while both the borrower and the lender have an opportunity to pursue various benefits. At this stage, the parties should involve experienced workout consultants who, for example, will help analyze the borrower’s business and provide advice regarding the profitability and viability of the enterprise. They often help prepare short-term and long-term cash flow projections and budgets or test such projections and budgets when they are prepared by the borrower. Additionally, they typically play a role in determining the best way to maximize the recovery to all parties, whether it be a reorganization of the borrower, a sale or an orderly liquidation of the borrower’s assets. If a restructure or reorganization is the chosen solution, workout consultants will help determine what additional funds might be necessary to accomplish the desired result.

The workout of a financially troubled loan involves complex legal and business issues, as well as the emotions of the business owners or the guarantors of the borrower’s indebtedness. Partnering with experienced attorneys and other workout professionals is an essential step towards navigating these difficult waters and ensuring a successful outcome for all of the parties involved.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

Justice Department Investigation of S&P

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Jared Wade of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding the Justice Department investigating S&P:

The Justice Department is investigating Standard & Poor’s for improperly rating the garbage mortgage-backed securities that tanked the economy once the world caught on that they were toxic assets.

The anonymous folks who leaked this info to the press claim that the inquiry began prior to S&P’s downgrade of U.S. debt, but many have speculated that the fervor and depth of the probe has ratcheted up since the nation lost its AAA-status.

Either way, the law dogs are — finally — poking around in the ratings world.

The Justice Department has been asking about instances in which the company’s analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds but may have been overruled by other S.& P. business managers, according to the people with knowledge of the interviews. If the government finds enough evidence to support such a case, which is likely to be a civil case, it could undercut S.& P.’s longstanding claim that its analysts act independently from business concerns.

It is unclear if the Justice Department investigation involves the other two ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, or only S.& P.

Any inquiry should of course involve looking at all three. Each overrated the used diaper mortgage-backed securities to a baffling degree. Whether or not it was incompetence or something more insidious is really the only question, I have. I presume they are capable of both.

But if this investigation focuses solely on S&P then it falls even more into how one talking head on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown described it: more of a Washington story than a Wall Street one.

Honestly, the only weird thing about hearing today about an investigation going on right now is that it was something I expected to hear in 2008.

In related news, and not just to toot our own horn, but I would feel remiss not to mention that our Risk Management magazine cover story this month was titled “The Future of Ratings” and examines “how rating agencies gained so much power, helped tank the economy and figure into the future of risk assessment.”

I’m not going to pretend that I knew just how much play rating agencies would be getting in August when I commissioned the piece a few months ago. I’m many things, but clairvoyant is not one of them. But the piece speaks to many of the questionable issues surrounding the ratings world that have been curiously dormant in the mainstream media for years until recently.

A wonderful writer, Lori Widmer, did a fine job so please do give it a read.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

What To Expect From a President Perry on the Environment? Some Texas-Sized Clues

Posted on August 19, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by Jim Morris and Evan Bush of Center for Public Integrity regarding  Texas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s environmental stance: 

From climate change denial to stances against EPA and Supreme Court, candidate resists feds, aids businesses and helped a billionaire donor

What would President Rick Perry’s environmental agenda look like?

As Texas governor, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry often relied on Bryan Shaw, chairman of the state’s environmental regulatory agency, second from right. Harry Cabluck / Associated Press

For clues, one need only examine Perry’s record as governor of Texas, where the chairman of the state environmental agency writes vitriolic letters to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and questions the science behind climate change.

Bryan Shaw , a 2007 Perry appointee to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who became the agency’s chairman in 2009, opined in a guest column in the El Paso Times last month that a new EPA rule designed to reduce cross-state air pollution from coal-fired power plants was in fact “aimed at cutting Texas jobs, cutting Texas economic growth, increasing Texas energy costs, and harming Texas energy security.”

The column closely followed a statement by Perry himself, who called the rule “another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C.”

Perry’s gubernatorial campaign received more than $5 million in contributions from energy companies and their employees during the 2009-2010 election cycle, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics . Among Perry’s largest contributors during the cycle: Houston oilmen Jeffrey Hildebrand and Gary Petersen , and Valero Energy Corp . Oil and gas companies consistently are among the state’s biggest polluters.

Perry recently told the Christian Broadcast Network that he prays for President Obama every day, asking in particular that “his EPA back down these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money.”

Shaw, in June 30 testimony before the a Senate clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee, attacked another EPA rule meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic compounds from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Shaw maintained, among other things, that “any health benefits [from the rule] would be insubstantial compared to the cost of regulation” and expressed concern that “the reliability of the Texas electrical power system will be severely compromised.”

And in a testy letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Regional Administrator Al Armendariz a year ago, Shaw and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said they would defy EPA regulations – stemming from a 2006  U.S. Supreme Court decision , Massachusetts v. EPA – requiring Texas to begin issuing permits for greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources.

Shaw declined Wednesday, through a spokeswoman at the agency he chairs, to be interviewed byiWatch News . Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman in the governor’s office, said “the governor is proud of [Shaw’s] leadership and expects he will put Texas’s interests at the top of his decision-making.”

Frazier said that Perry, like Shaw, finds the science linking human activities to climate change to be “very questionable.” The EPA, she said, “continues to impose burdensome, job-killing mandates on Texas and the governor believes there needs to be a balanced approach to protecting jobs and protecting the environment. Texas has created a model for how to accomplish that goal.”

Environmental activists in Texas say they grew worried about Shaw when he disclosed during his 2009 confirmation hearing that he didn’t believe the science on climate change was “fully settled.”

“He denies the science no matter what it is – climate change, ozone, mercury,” Jim Marston, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Texas office, said of Shaw. “All the other scientists around the world are wrong. Somehow, the laws of physics and chemistry don’t apply in Texas, apparently.”

“Adhering to the party line is [Shaw’s] guiding compass,” said Matthew Tejada, executive director of Air Alliance Houston , an environmental group that closely follows the commission Shaw chairs. “Every decision, policy, program or position that the TCEQ takes at the commission level is being guided by that compass – what can it do to strike back at an imaginary federal foe and what can it do to coddle industry here in the state.”

Shaw is a former associate professor in Texas A&M University’s Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department. His views on global warming contrast sharply with some of his former A&M colleagues – notably, the entire Department of Atmospheric Sciences, which declared in a statement several years ago that it is “very likely that humans are responsible for the recent warming.”

Loathsome though it may be to environmentalists, Shaw’s and Perry’s anti-EPA posture sits well with at least some members of the Texas business community.

“I think our political leaders in the state have done an excellent job protecting the environment while allowing the state’s economy to flourish in the past 10 years,” said Alex Mills, president of theTexas Alliance of Energy Producers. The EPA, under Obama, has “gone wacko,” Mills said, adding that a Perry administration would feature a “much more hands-off approach” to environmental regulation.

What some critics find most worrisome is Perry’s apparent willingness to reward major donors.

In 2009, the TCEQ approved a low-level radioactive waste dump for Andrews County in West Texas. The dump, expected to open next year, will accept waste from Texas and other states and be operated by Waste Control Specialists, owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons.

Records show that Simmons and his wife have donated roughly $1.2 million to Perry’s campaigns since 1998, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In 2004, Simmons helped finance the “Swift Boat” ads attacking the military record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition , fought licensing of the dump, saying radioactive leakage threatens groundwater and could lead to serious transportation accidents. The term “low-level” is a misnomer, Hadden said; in fact, the dump will take everything but uranium fuel rods from nuclear power plants and plutonium components of nuclear bombs.

An eight-member TCEQ team unanimously advised against licensing the facility in 2007 but was overruled by top-level managers (not including Shaw). Three members of the team, including Glenn Lewis, left the agency in protest.

“We came to the conclusion that it was an unsuitable site geologically because of the immediate vicinity of groundwater,” Lewis told iWatch News . Nonetheless, he said, “We were immediately instructed to begin drafting a license” for Waste Control Specialists.

Asked if he believed Simmons’s relationship with Perry was behind the order, Lewis said, “I’m 99 to 100 percent sure. From the first day I reported for duty on this team, the other members were quite resigned to the fact that if Simmons is behind this, he’s going to get his license.”

The company and the candidate deny any favorable treatment.

“I think the record’s pretty clear there is absolutely no evidence of special treatment of any kind,” said Chuck McDonald, a Waste Control Specialists spokesman. “The licensing process was a long and arduous one. It took five years.”

Frazier, Perry’s spokeswoman, said the Andrews County dump “is supported by that community. It’s a project that will create jobs and bring them economic development opportunities.”

Questions also were raised about a 2005 Perry executive order expediting the state permitting process for coal-fired power plants. At the time, a Dallas-based utility and major Perry contributor, TXU, wanted to build 11 such plants; plans for eight of the 11 were scrapped in 2007 after TXU was acquired by two private equity groups.

In 2008, The Center for Public Integrity and Fort Worth Weekly reported that TXU’s coal plants exceeded federal emission limits nearly 650 times between 1997 and 2006, putting more than 1.3 million pounds of lung-damaging sulfur dioxide into the air.

A growing body of science suggests greenhouse gases produced by human activities – chiefly deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels – are responsible for shifting temperatures and other changes in climate across the globe that could threaten people and wildlife and exacerbate international frictions over scarce resources.

Reprinted by Permission © 2011, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

Power NY Act of 2011 Swings the Door Open for Renewable Development

Posted in the National Law Review on August 17, 2011 an article written by attorneys: David A. Domansky, Joseph G. Tirone and Brian J. Kelly of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Power NY Act of 20ll which Gov. Cuomo recently signed into law:

 

On August 4, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Power NY ACT of 2011 (A. 8510/S. 5844), a comprehensive energy bill that, among other things, reimplements and significantly revises Article X of the New York State Public Service Law. As revised, new Article X provides power project developers a more efficient, streamlined “one-stop” siting process. The new law was sought and supported by both business and environmental groups to remedy a patchwork of inconsistent local siting rules throughout New York, which have hampered project development efforts. Old Article X, which expired on January 1, 2003, was limited to power plants with 80-megawatts or more of nameplate generating capacity. New Article X reduces the capacity threshold to 25-megawatts, thereby allowing smaller generation projects, such as wind, solar and other renewable project developers, an opportunity to take advantage of the streamlined siting process.

Creation and Composition of the Review Board

Following the expiration of former Article X, developers were required to seek the requisite regulatory and environmental permits mandated by state and local laws from the various state and municipal regulatory authorities who had jurisdiction over the site where the proposed power project was to be developed. Under new Article X, the siting and licensing of electric generation facilities of at least 25-megawatts, or the increase in nameplate capacity by 25-megawatts or more of a current power facility, will fall within the purview of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Board”).The seven member Board will consist of five state agency officials (Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Economic Development, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority), as well as two ad hoc members who are required to reside in the community in which the proposed facility is to be located. The Board will be tasked with determining if the contemplated project should receive a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (“Certificate”), which must be obtained before commencement of any site development or facility construction.

Filing Process

New Article X separates the Certificate process into two distinct phases, a pre-application preliminary scoping statement (the “Pre-Application”) and the actual Certificate application. In  the Pre-Application, an applicant is required to provide the Board with, among other things: (a) a description of the proposed facility and its environmental setting; (b) potential environmental and health impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed facility; (c) proposed studies or programs of studies designed to evaluate the potential environmental and health impacts; (d) measures proposed to minimize environmental impacts; and (e) identification of all other state and federal permits required for the construction, operation or maintenance of the proposed facility.

Prior to submission of the Pre-Application, the applicant must meet with interested parties, including community groups and interested state agencies to address these groups’ concerns  with regard to the proposed facility. Following the applicant’s submission of the Pre-Application, the applicant has the ability to enter into side agreements or stipulations to address any concerns regarding the siting and location of the proposed facility. Once completed, the applicant is then required to file a Certificate application with the Board, which includes: (a) a description of the site and facility to be built; (b) an evaluation of the anticipated environmental and health impacts and safety and security ramifications that the facility will have on the surrounding community; (c) a comprehensive environmental impact analysis; and (d) a comprehensive demographic, economic and physical description of the community within which the facility is to be located, compared and contrasted with the county and with the adjacent communities in which the facility is proposed.

Board Decision Process and Timeline

New Article X requires that the Board issue a final decision on a Certificate application no later than: (a) 12 months after submission of a Certificate application deemed complete by the Board for a new-build facility, and (b) six months after the submission of a complete Certificate application deemed complete by the Board for modifications to (1) an existing facility, or (2) the site of a new facility adjacent or contiguous to an existing facility, provided the new facility would result in greater operating efficiencies and lower environmental impact than the original facility.

New Article X also requires that the Board schedule a hearing on the Certificate application no later than 60 days after the date the Board determines the Certificate application is complete. After conducting and taking testimony at the hearing, the Board may grant the Certificate if it finds that: (a) the facility is a beneficial addition to or substitution for the electric generation capacity of New York; (b) the construction and operation of the facility will serve the public interest; (c) the facility’s environmental impact has been minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent practicable; and (d) the facility complies with all state and local laws and regulations.

Any appeal of the Board’s decision denying or granting a Certificate is first heard by the Board itself. The application for rehearing must be filed no later than 30 days after issuance of the Board’s decision. The Board is required to render a decision on the application no later than 90 days after the expiration of the period for filing rehearing petitions. Thereafter, an aggrieved party may seek judicial relief in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. Such proceeding must be initiated within 30 days after the issuance of a final decision by the Board on the application for rehearing.

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Hitting Non-Practicin Entities Where It Hurts

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Robert A. Gutkin and Jeff C. Dodd of Andrews Kurth LLP about the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements. 

 

 

The Federal Circuit Affirms an Award of Substantial Sanctions Against a NPE with a Business Model of Bringing Litigation To Extract Quick Settlements

 

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009 – 1308 (Fed. Cir., July 29, 2011) (Judges Lourie, Mayer and O’Malley)

 

In a July 29 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements. As the Court succinctly stated:

 

The record supports the district court’s finding that Eon-Net acted in bad faith by exploiting the high cost to defend complex litigation to extract a nuisance value settlement from Flagstar. At the time that the district court made its exceptional case finding, Eon-Net and its related entities, Millennium and Glory, had filed over 100 lawsuits against a number of diverse defendants alleging infringement of one or more patents from the Patent Portfolio. Each complaint was followed by a “demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost of litigation, a demand to which most defendants apparently have agreed.” Slip Op at 22.

 

We think that this is a potentially important holding because the Federal Circuit approved an exceptional case for enhanced sanctions based on the business model adopted by some NPE’s—suit followed by quick settlement at lower-than-litigation cost. As we discuss below, the Eon-Net LP case represents the latest in a string of judicial opinions providing defendants with additional ammunition against NPE’s pursuing “objectively baseless” litigation. However, the threat of sanctions may also lead NPE’s to be more difficult in their settlement demands and willingness to offer quick and early settlements.

 

Background

 

The case at issue involved three document processing systems patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,683,697 (“the ‘697 Patent”), 7,075,673 (“the ‘673 Patent”), and 7,184,162 (“the ‘162 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) owned by Eon-Net LP, a patent holding company formed to enforce various patents. The Patents are part of a larger patent family (“the Patent Portfolio”) originating with a parent patent application filed in 1991. Between 1996 and 2001, Millennium L.P., an Eon-Net related company, filed four lawsuits asserting various claims of the Patent Portfolio. After 2001, Eon-Net hired new outside litigation counsel, and the number of patent cases filed on behalf of Eon-Net and its related entities skyrocketed. By the time the district court in the present matter had issued sanctions against Eon-Net, more than 100 lawsuits had been filed, almost all of which resulted in early settlements or dismissals.

 

Eon-Net sued Flagstar Bancorp in 2005, alleging infringement of the ‘697 patent. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Flagstar, finding that Eon-Net failed to adequately investigate its claims prior to filing suit, and finding that the claims were baseless. The district court also assessed Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of $141,984.70 against Eon-Net and its attorney.

 

After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded both the summary judgment and Rule 11 decisions in 2007, Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 249 F. App’x 189 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Eon-Net pursued the case (even adding new claims for infringement). But after receiving an unfavorable Markman decision on claim construction, Eon-Net stipulated to noninfringement. The district court subsequently granted Flagstar’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, finding that Eon-Net pursued baseless claims; the lawsuit was brought for the improper purpose of seeking a nuisance value settlement; Eon-Net destroyed evidence; and, Eon-Net’s litigation tactics were improper. Upon invitation from the district court, Flagstar renewed its prior Rule 11 motion. The district court reinstated in full the $141,984.70 in attorneys fees and costs against Eon-Net and its attorney for violation of Rule 11. The district court also found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and awarded Flagstar $489,150.48 in attorneys fees and costs after Eon-Net continued to litigate the case after remand.

 

The Federal Circuit Decision

 

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction, and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement to which Eon-Net had stipulated.

 

In reviewing the district court’s finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285, the Federal Circuit stated:

 

Indeed, “[l]itigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior may suffice, by themselves, to make a case exceptional under § 285.” Absent litigation misconduct or misconduct in securing the patent, sanctions under § 285 may be imposed against the patentee only if both (1) the patentee brought the litigation in bad faith; and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless (citations omitted). Slip Op at 17.

 

Eon-Net failed to show that the district court’s findings regarding the accused litigation misconduct were clearly erroneous. Eon-Net also failed to overcome the finding that its infringement allegations could only be supported by baseless claim construction positions.

 

Certainly Eon-Net’s behavior during the course of the litigation was egregious, as the court described in detail.1 But that alone would not have warranted our Client Alert, for the behavior giving rise to sanctions in any given case is based on the particular facts of the case. What caught our eye was the Federal Circuit’s condemnation of the business model of filing litigation to obtain a quick return through settlement:

 

Eon-Net’s case against Flagstar had “indicia of extortion” because it was part of Eon-Net’s history of filing nearly identical patent infringement complaints against a plethora of diverse defendants, where Eon-Net followed each filing with a demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost to defend the litigation. Slip Op at 22.

Meritless cases like this one unnecessarily require the district court to engage in excessive claim construction analysis before it is able to see the lack of merit of the patentee’s infringement allegations…. Thus, those low settlement offers—less than ten percent of the cost that Flagstar expended to defend suit—effectively ensured that Eon-Net’s baseless infringement allegations remained unexposed, allowing Eon-Net to continue to collect additional nuisance value settlements. Slip Op at 23.

 

The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and was disturbed by the ability of an NPE, such as Eon-Net, to impose high costs on a company to defend against meritless claims, while at the same time the NPE faces little downside risk other than the loss of future licensing revenue.2

 

Potential Implications of Eon-Net LP

 

We stress that the Federal Circuit did not uphold sanctions merely because a NPE sought to enforce its patent rights. Rather, the Federal Circuit was clearly bothered by the ability of an NPE to exploit the “system” to extort nuisance value settlements while facing little downside risk.

 

Indeed, some NPE’s count on defendants to settle based on the inescapable fact that defense of even a suit on a bad patent is expensive. That cost is built into the architecture of patent litigation. As our colleague David Griffith chronicled in“Patents by the Numbers” in Andrews Kurth’s IP and Technology Developmentsthe median cost of defense in 2009 (as reported by AILPA) was $650,000 if less than one million was at risk, $2.5 million if $1 million to 25 million at risk – $2,500,000. In addition, the median time for an infringement case to get to trial was 2.5 years (2009 data from a report by PwC). While the rate of success was 38% in the 15 most active patent dockets (1995-2009) as reported by PwC (31% for NPE’s) if the patentee survives summary judgment motions and gets to a jury, its odds improve to a 75% win rate (according to the University of Houston Law Center’s patstats). Given these statistics, the temptation for any operating company faced with a lawsuit is to settle and move on with its business if the NPE’s offer of settlement is far less than the cost of defense. NPE’s count on that temptation.

 

The Federal Circuit stopped short of stating that business models like that of Eon-Net provide the sole basis for finding an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. However, the language of the decision does suggest that the business model may per se satisfy the “bad faith” element of the two part requirement for finding an exceptional case. This decision seems to be an attempt by the Court to try to level the playing field for patent litigation by increasing the downside risk for a NPE. Moreover, this case follows a string of other cases, including eBay (which held that irreparable harm would not be presumed in a preliminary injunction action even if infringement had been found) and MedImmune (which allows declaratory judgment actions to be brought under less stringent standards than the Federal Circuit had historically applied).

 

Just as importantly, we are seeing many other trends and techniques that defendants are starting to use to combat vexatious NPE litigation. Some defendants are finding success in obtaining venue transfers from courts thought to be more favorable to NPE litigation; others are using declaratory judgment actions; yet others are pursuing early summary judgments (by some accounts approximately 60% of patent cases are decided on summary judgment and patentee success at the summary judgment stage is only 12%).

 

Our firm also has had success strategically employing the re-examination to narrow or even eliminate patent claims from weak (or worse patents). Our success is consistent with some compelling statistics. Again our colleague David Griffith reported that the chances that PTO will grant an ex parte/inter partes reexamination application are greater than 90% (based on USPTO statistics as of March 2011). According to an AILPA 2009 report, the median cost of an ex parte reexamination was $10,000; for an inter-partes proceeding the median was $188,000. Moreover, according to USPTO statistics as of March 2011, in most cases claims were cancelled or modified:

 

ex parte reexamination (third party requested re-exam)

inter partes reexamination

All claims confirmed: 24%

All claims confirmed: 12%

All claims cancelled: 13%

All claims cancelled: 45%

Claims modified: 63%

Claims modified: 43%

 

The bottom line: defendants in NPE litigation should consider in the calculus of settlement not only litigation cost but also the trends and techniques favoring defendants over NPE’s, especially now that Eon-Net LP may encourage courts to shift the expenses of defense that NPE’s count on encouraging quick settlement—at least in the most abusive cases.

 

 

1. The court provided an extensive litany of Eon-Net’s sanctionable behavior throughout the course of the litigation, including: destroying relevant documents prior to the initiation of the lawsuit; flaunting the fact that as a patent enforcement company they did not believe they needed to have a document retention policy; refusing to participate in the claim construction process; lodging incomplete and misleading evidence with the court; submitting declarations contradicting deposition testimony; and, evidencing a general disdain and disrespect for the court process including statements made at a deposition by a party witnesses complaining that his deposition was “an inconvenience and a bother” and that he was “so sick of this stuff by now. I am so sick of this stuff, especially this haggling over stupidities and trivialities which is the name of the game in litigation.” Slip Op at 20.

 

2. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions, even though it was undisputed that Eon-Net’s counsel did examine portions of Flagstar’s website and reach a conclusion that it worked in a manner that infringed the ‘697 patent. “A reasonable pre-suit investigation, however, also requires counsel to perform an objective evaluation of the claim terms when reading those terms on the accused device.” Slip Op at 26. It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that Eon-Net’s claim construction position “borders on the illogical” and that “[t]he specification exposes the frivolity of Eon-Net’s claim construction position.” Id.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.