Tag: Litigation

Seeking Corporate Dissolution: One Way to Turn Up the Heat on a Deadbeat Debtor

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Jeffrey M. Schwartz of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstei P.C. regarding a seldom-used remedy that can significantly increase your chances of recovering a debt:

Put yourself in the place of a creditor. One of your customers, an Illinois corporation, owes you money. The customer does not dispute the debt and has even admitted it in writing. However, you can’t get the customer to pay. You have tried everything. First, you are told “the check is in the mail” and of course, it does not show up. The customer then agrees to a payment plan but fails to make the required payments. Finally, the customer promises to “pay next month when we have the money.” Still no check. In a last ditch effort, you call repeatedly, but the customer has now gone incommunicado. It has become obvious that the only way to collect the debt is to file a lawsuit.

You are hesitant, however, because of the time and expense it will take to obtain and enforce a judgment. After all, the customer will likely go to great lengths to delay the lawsuit and hold you at bay for as long as possible. From the customer’s point of view, the worst case scenario is that it will have to pay you the money it has already admitted it owes. Is there anything you can do to minimize the time and expense of obtaining and enforcing a judgment?

You may want to consider a seldom-used remedy that can significantly increase your chances of recovering a debt. Under the Illinois Business Corporation Act, a creditor may seek to have its claims against an Illinois corporation satisfied by bringing an action for dissolution in the state’s circuit court. By adding a cause of action for corporate dissolution to a collection lawsuit, creditors may increase pressure on the debtor to pay what is owed or resolve the dispute in a timely, cost-effective manner. In essence, this alternative remedy can change the dispute from a simple beach of contract or collection matter to a scenario where the customer risks losing control of the corporation and must fight for its very existence.

The Illinois Business Corporation Act, which has little case law interpreting it, does not require much. The statute provides that in an action brought by a creditor, a circuit court in Illinois may dissolve a corporation if it is established that:

  1. The creditor’s claim has been reduced to judgment, a copy of the judgment has been returned unsatisfied and the corporation is insolvent; or
  2. The corporation has admitted in writing that the creditor’s claim is due and owing, and the corporation is insolvent.

(Note: Many other states have similar statutes that allow a creditor to satisfy a claim against a corporation through dissolution or liquidation. Accordingly, if your customer is not an Illinois corporation, you should check to see if its state of incorporation has a similar statute.)

One advantage of using this statute is that it does not actually require a creditor to obtain a judgment. The creditor need only show that the debtor has admitted in writing that it owes the money and that the corporation is insolvent. The written admission can come in a variety of forms. For example, the debtor may have sent a letter or e-mail admitting that it owes the debt or may have acknowledged the debt in a forbearance or settlement agreement. In addition, the admission need not be made directly to the creditor. According to People Ex Rel. Day v. Progress Ins. Ass’n, a 1955 Illinois Appellate Court decision, it may be sufficient that the indebtedness is recognized in the debtor’s books and records. Furthermore, the insolvency requirement is satisfied if the corporation is “unable to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of its business,” as stated in the Illinois Business Corporation Act.

The statue also allows the circuit court, as an alternative to dissolution, to (1) appoint a custodian to manage the business and affairs of the corporation to serve for the term and under the conditions prescribed by the court; and (2) appoint a provisional director to serve for the term and under the conditions prescribed by the court. Like the prospect of dissolution itself, these alternatives put the debtor at risk of losing control of the company.

While your customer may be willing to take the chance that a judgment will be entered against it after extensive litigation and delay, it may not be willing to risk dissolution or loss of control of the corporation. Therefore, adding a count for corporate dissolution to a collection lawsuit can alter the playing field and give you—the creditor—significant negotiating power to resolve the dispute quickly and on better terms.

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

 

 

Ninth Circuit Finds Grocers’ Revenue-Sharing Agreement Must Go Through Full Rule of Reason Check-Out

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney  Scott Martin of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held:

Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc.,[1]that an agreement among four large competing Southern California supermarket (“chains”) to share revenues during a labor dispute was neither protected from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption nor so inherently anticompetitive as to be condemned per se or evaluated under a truncated “quick look” test. Rather, the agreement — which reimbursed to a chain targeted by a strike an estimation of the incremental profits, for a limited period of time, on sales that flowed to the other chains in the arrangement as a consequence of the strike — was subject to traditional rule of reason analysis, balancing any legitimate justifications against any substantial anticompetitive impacts.

Dissenting in part, Chief Judge Kozinski (joined by Judges Tallman and Rawlinson) stated that the majority’s “groundbreaking” ruling on the inapplicability of the non-statutory labor exemption was “very likely an advisory opinion,” and had “no basis in the record, common sense or precedent.”

The case arose from circumstances surrounding 2003 labor negotiations between local chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union and three of the supermarket chains that, with the union’s consent near the expiration of the labor contract, formed a multi-employer bargaining unit to negotiate. Along with the fourth chain (which also had a labor agreement that expired within months), the supermarket chains entered into a Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement (MSAA). The MSAA provided that if one of the chains was targeted for a selective strike or picketing (a so-called “whipsaw” tactic by which unions increase pressure on one employer within a bargaining unit), the other chains[2] would lock out all of their employees within 48 hours. As part of the MSAA, the chains also entered into a revenue-sharing provision (RSP), under which any of them that earned revenues during a strike or lockout above their historical shares relative to the other chains would pay 15 percent of those excess revenues to the other chains in order to restore their pre-strike shares.[3]

After negotiations with the UFCW broke down, a strike ensued. Picketing was focused on only two of the chains in the bargaining unit, and lasted for approximately four-and-a-half months. The two picketed chains ultimately were reimbursed under the RSP to the tune of approximately $146 million.

While the strike was underway, the State of California filed suit, claiming that the RSP was an unlawful restraint of trade under Section One of the Sherman Act.The grocers sought summary judgment on the ground that the RSP was immune from Sherman Act scrutiny pursuant to the non-statutory labor exemption, which shield certain restraints from Sherman Act challenge in order to allow for meaningful collective bargaining. The State also sought summary judgment on the grounds that the provision was unlawful per se, or should have been analyzed under an abbreviated (“quick look”) analysis. The district court denied both motions, and the parties pursued a streamlined appeal, after agreeing to a stipulated final judgment for defendants under which the State would not pursue the theory that the RSP was unlawful under a full rule of reason analysis, and the grocers would not pursue their affirmative defenses other than the non-statutory labor exemption.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the original panel (in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt, who dissented in part[4]from the later en banc opinion that requires a full rule of reason analysis) considered the history of profit-sharing arrangements and the circumstances and details of the chains’ arrangement, applying a “quick look” analysis of sorts, and concluded that the RSP was likely to have an anticompetitive effect. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected the application of the non-statutory labor exemption, and also found that “driving down compensation to workers” as a consequence of the agreement did not constitute “a benefit to consumers cognizable under our laws as a ‘pro-competitive’ benefit.”[5]The Circuit then agreed to hear the case en banc.

In the en banc decision, the majority declared that “novel circumstances and uncertain economic effects” of the RSP required “open discovery and fair consideration of all factors relevant under the traditional rule of reason test,” thus approving the district court’s original determination of the proper standard. The Ninth Circuit majority acknowledged that application of the full test was “not a simple matter,” but concluded that “[g]iven the limited judicial experience with revenue sharing for several months pending a labor dispute, [it could not be said] that the restraint’s anticompetitive effects are ‘obvious’ under a per se or quick look approach.” The court distinguished the RSP from other profit-pooling arrangements subject to stricter scrutiny on the grounds that, by its terms, the RSP (i) was effective only for a limited and unknown duration, thus arguably preserving incentives to compete during the revenue-sharing period; and (ii) did not include all participants in the relevant markets, leaving other competitors in the market who could discipline pricing.

However, the majority then opined that the RSP was not entitled to protection from antitrust analysis under the non-statutory labor exemption. In so doing, the court distinguished the supermarket chains’ RSP from the agreement among a group of NFL teams to unilaterally impose terms and conditions from a lapsed collective bargaining agreement that was considered in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (holding that the non-statutory labor exemption may extend to an agreement solely among employers). The Ninth Circuit majority determined that revenue-sharing is not an accepted practice in labor negotiations with a history of regulation; does not play a significant role in collective bargaining; is not necessary to permit meaningful collective bargaining; does not relate to the “core subject matter of bargaining” (wages, hours and working conditions); and restricts a business or “product” market, not a labor market.

Because the State of California had stipulated to a dismissal in the event that it did not prevail on a categorical basis under a per se or quick look analysis (which it did not), Chief Judge Kozinski wrote in dissent that the majority had in effect written an impermissible advisory opinion, and had gone “out of its way to rule on thenon-statutory labor exemption.” Chief Judge Kozinski went even further, however, In his view, “all of the relevant Brown factors weigh heavily in favor of exempting the RSP from antitrust review.” This was not a case of employers using a labor dispute as a pretext for price-fixing, but rather one of employers responding to union strike tactics, and then only to the degree that the tactics were effectively deployed. According to Chief Judge Kozinski, adding to strikes “the additional threat of antitrust liability — with its protracted litigation, unpredictable rule of reason analysis and treble damages — will no doubt force employers to think twice before entering into a revenue-sharing agreement in the future” and, contrary to precedent and policy, force employers “to choose their collective-bargaining responses in light of what they predict or fear antitrust courts, not labor law administrators, will eventually decide.”[6]

With the Ninth Circuit having effectively elevated the antitrust laws over the labor laws, one might postulate a fair chance of a petition for certiorari being accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case implicating significant questions of both law and public policy. Unfortunately, in light of the stipulated dismissal, such review may have to wait, as the grocery chains may lack standing, let alone incentive, to seek it here.

[1]Nos. 08-55671, 08-55708 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).

[2]The fourth chain, which was not in the original multi-employer bargaining unit, was not required by the MSAA to engage in the lockout.

[3]The RSP would be in effect until two weeks following the end of a strike or lockout, and it required the chains to submit weekly sales data for an eight-week period prior to the strike or lockout to a third-party accountant.

[4]Judges Schroeder and Graber joined in Judge Reihardt’s partial dissent.

[5]California ex rel. Brown v. Safeway, Inc., 615 F.3d 1171, 1192 (9th Cir. 2010).

[6]Quoting Brown, 518 U.S. at 247.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 15-17 September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Resort, Spa, Las Vegas, NV

The National Law Review is  pleased to announce the Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 is taking place on the 15 through 17 of  September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Las Vegas, NV.

A Unique Event

The future of litigation will bring new matters, increased competition and a strong need for budget maximization. Employment, IP, product liability, commercial and securities litigation continue to become more complex and therefore more costly. As a Chief Litigation Officer, one of the main challenges is to stay within budget, and tactics such as eDiscovery and specialized outside counsel certainly compound this challenge.

Executives that can find solutions and best practices to work through these challenges will stand out amid a mounting sea of litigation counsel. By employing alternative billing structures, one can allow for fair and accurate budgeting in hopes of maximizing resources, which will help contribute to a successful trial. Skillful planning, organizing and managing of cases is absolutely necessary to stay on top of your game during the trial or deciding on alternative dispute resolution. Enhancing outside counsel relationships through effective communication can greatly increase your odds and assist in dealing with a building case load.

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit provides a unique forum for service providers to gain access to the leading in-house counsel across the nation. Over three days, service providers will meet and interact with the heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations through a number of one-on-one business meetings and many networking activities. In addition, service providers will attend strategic conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by these heads of litigation. Within the luxurious settings of The Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa, this networking event presents a unique opportunity to develop meaningful and valuable business relations.

marcus evans will seek CLE accreditation in those states requested by registrants which have continuing education requirements. CLE credit hour information will be displayed on the certificate of attendance, which is provided to the attendees after the event has run and once each State has confirmed approval. marcus evans certifies that this activity has been approved for CLE credits by the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Pennsylvania.

Our executive delegation is selected according to the following criteria:

  • Scope of Responsibility
  • Budget
  • Sign-off Authority
  • Company Revenue
  • Interest in Purchasing Products and Services

Delegates will include decision makers with the job titles of General Counsel Litigation, Assistant General Counsel Litigation, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Chief Litigation Officer, Vice President, Litigation and Senior Litigation Counsel with ultimate responsibility for litigation within their corporations.
Six Reasons Why You Should Attend the Summit:

  • Attend innovative summit sessions that outline tools to maximize the profitability of your company or organization
  • Network with an executive, focused group of your peers to discuss and debate differentiated strategies and develop future business contacts
  • Meet with leading Solution Providers to gain solutions to your most pressing business challenges
  • Maximize your time spent at the event by pre-selecting Keynote presentations, summit sessions, one-on-one meetings and networking activities through the Secured Summit Web site and scheduling software
  • Extensive opportunities for informal peer networking throughout the weekend through day and evening leisure activities
  • Documentation of presentations and information presented at the Summit via the interactive Web site

 

 


Delegate Package 

  • Pre-event Secured Web site access for scheduling
  • Executive Summit Program
  • 8-10 one-on-one business meetings with Solution Provider executives
  • Post-event Web site access for documentation and information on next event
  • Two nights accommodation at the Resort
  • All meals, receptions & special events
  • Participation in the Summit networking activities


For information on attending as a Delegate, please contact:
Marketing Manager
E: webenquiries@marcusevansbb.com
T: 246 627 3761

 

Fan Death Re-Emphasizes MLB Ballpark Safety

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding risk, death and baseball…

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that have unfortunately converged to become a grave concern for Major League Baseball this season. One fan recently died in Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas, while reaching over a railing for a ball. Last summer, another fan fell 30 feet and fractured his skull.

Rangers Ballpark, the site of a recent fan death that has caused all MLB teams to re-evaluate fan safety.

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that This, combined with some other high-profile incidents at ballparks in recent years, has led all teams to reconsider the height of their safety railings and ponder other potential solutions to keep spectators safe.

Yesterday, ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program featured a great investigative report into the matter. You can watch Texas Rangers owner/legend Nolan Ryan discuss the controversy here. And below is the opening paragraphs of their written story.

Ronnie Hargis remembers his right hand brushing Shannon Stone’s shorts as he tried to grab the 6-foot-3-inch firefighter who went over a front-row railing in Section 5 of Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

But Hargis missed. Stone’s 6-year-old son Cooper, who had been standing next to Hargis, saw his dad fall 20 feet to the concrete below. Stone, 39, died about an hour later.

Even though Hargis struggles to come to terms with the events of July 7, he does not believe that the 33-inch railing that Stone fell over was too low. He joins a cadre of fans who disagree with the Rangers’ decision to raise all front-row railings to 42 inches in response to Stone’s fall and two other falls before it.

As officials with other Major League Baseball ballparks say they’re currently reviewing their railings, baseball fans are divided on whether to raise the railings, keep them where they are, or implement alternative safety measures, such as nets.

It isn’t just the Worldwide Leader who is interested in how teams are keeping fans safe, however.

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

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

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.

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.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fda-issues-draft-guidance-510k-device-modifications-new-emphasis-potential-impact-modificati

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by  Sylvie A. Durham, Genna Garver and Dmitry G. Ivanov of Greenberg Traurig, LLP about a dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law  indenture 

The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law indenture against the co-issuer of the notes and collateral manager for breach of contract because the noteholders failed to comply with the “limitation of suits” provision in the indenture.

The court stated that the allegation of the noteholders that they did not receive proper distribution amounts on the notes constituted an “event of default” under the indenture, and as such “falls squarely within the limitation on suits clause.” However, since the noteholders did not comply with all the contractual prerequisites for bringing a lawsuit set forth in the “limitation of suits” provision of the indenture, the court did not allow them to proceed with breach of contract claims against the co-issuer and collateral manager. However, the court did not dismiss the breach of contract claims against the indenture trustee based on the same “no-action” clause, since compliance with such clause “would require [noteholders] to demand that the [indenture trustee] initiate proceedings against itself to rectify the alleged error.”

A copy of the case can be accessed here.

 ©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Addresses Issues Concerning the Default Judgment Statute, the Direct Action Statute, and Personal Liability for Corporate Officers

Recently posted  posted in the National Law Review an article by Heidi L. Vogt and Jessica M. Swietlik of von Briesen & Roper, S.C. regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision in Casper, et al. v. American International South Ins. Co.

 Casper, et al. v. American International South Ins. Co., et al., 2011 WL 81

On July 19, 2011, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision in Casper, et al. v. American International South Ins. Co., et al., 2011 WI 81 (“Casper”) in which it addressed three issues: 1) the excusable neglect standard relative to default judgments; 2) whether an insurance policy must be delivered or issued in the State of Wisconsin in order to subject the insurer to a direct action under Wis. Stat. §§ 632.24 and 803.04(2); and 3) whether a corporate officer may be held personally liable for non-intentional torts that occur within the scope of employment.

The Casper case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Mark Wearing, a co-employee of Bestway Systems, Inc. (“Bestway”) and Transport Leasing/Contract Inc. (“TLC”), struck the Caspers’ minivan from behind, seriously injuring all five passengers in the Caspers’ vehicle.

Investigators learned that Wearing was under the influence of oxycodone, diazepam, and nordiazepam when the collision occurred. At the time of the accident, Wearing was en route to make a delivery for a Bestway customer. Jeffrey Wenham, the CEO of Bestway, had allegedly approved a driving route for Wearing on this particular delivery that required him to drive 536 miles through several states overnight. Wearing claimed he was told he would be fired if he did not complete the route as planned. However, Wenham had never met Wearing and the route that Wenham apparently approved was designed a year and a half prior to the accident. An expert hired by the Caspers opined that the route violated the hours of service requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”) and was unsafe.

The Caspers brought suit against fourteen named defendants, including: Mark Wearing, his co-employers Bestway and TLC, Bestway’s CEO Jeffrey Wenham, and TLC’s excess insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA (“National Union”). The appeals in this case stem from three orders issued by the trial court, all of which were affirmed by the court of appeals: 1) its order granting National Union’s request for a 7-day extension to file its answer and denying the Caspers’ motion for default judgment against National Union on the grounds that National Union had demonstrated excusable neglect; 2) its order granting summary judgment to National Union on the grounds that under Kenison v. Wellington Ins. Co., 218 Wis. 2d 700, 582 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1998) the Caspers could not maintain a direct action against National Union because its insurance policy was not issued or delivered in Wisconsin; and 3) its order denying Wenham’s motion for summary judgment on the Caspers’ claims for negligent training and supervision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court considered each of these issues separately, and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions consistent with its decision.

The court affirmed on the first issue, holding that the trial court did not erroneously abuse its discretion by finding that National Union’s “lost in the mail” excuse amounted to excusable neglect such that granting an extension and denying the motion for default judgment was appropriate. The court noted that “although courts should be skeptical of glib claims that attribute fault to the United States Postal Service,” it was satisfied that a reasonably prudent person could neglect a deadline when correspondence gets lost, as was the case with National Union here.

Second, the court reversed on the direct action issue and thereby explicitly overruled Kenison. In doing so, the court acknowledged that the court of appeals properly applied Kenison as it lacked authority to ignore it. In Kenison, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Stat. § 631.01 limited the application of the direct action statute, § 632.24, to insurance policies issued or delivered in Wisconsin. The Casper court disagreed. After carefully examining the plain language and the legislative history of Wis. Stat. §§ 631.01, 632.24, and 803.04(2), the court concluded that “Section 803.04(2) explicitly and § 632.24 by necessary implication are intended to apply to liability insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery outside Wisconsin, so long as the ‘accident, injury or negligence occurred in this state.’” Accordingly, the Caspers should have been allowed to maintain a direct action against National Union even though its policy was neither issued nor delivered in Wisconsin because the accident occurred in Wisconsin.

With regard to the third issue, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that there are some instances where corporate officers like Wenham can be held personally liable for non-intentional torts committed in the course of employment. Both the trial court and the court of appeals had ended their inquiries there, finding that issues of fact existed regarding Wenham’s alleged negligent supervision and training of Wearing such that summary judgment was not appropriate on those claims. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered and ultimately reversed on public policy grounds, holding that even if Wenham’s approval of the route that allegedly violated the FMCSR was a cause of the accident, “the results are so unusual, remote, or unexpected that, in justice, liability ought not be imposed.”

Justice Bradley issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Chief Justice Abrahamson joined in Justice Bradley’s concurrence/dissent.

©2011 von Briesen & Roper, s.c