common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:23:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cropped-icon-32x32.png common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ 32 32 Indiana Common Law vs. Lanham Law Clash Over Unfair Competition Allegations Covered Same – Intellectual Property https://prosecutebushcheney.org/indiana-common-law-vs-lanham-law-clash-over-unfair-competition-allegations-covered-same-intellectual-property/ Tue, 01 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/indiana-common-law-vs-lanham-law-clash-over-unfair-competition-allegations-covered-same-intellectual-property/ United States: The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered. March 01, 2022 Khurana and Khurana To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Renee Gabet, Owner of Annie Oakley Businesses (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil lawsuit […]]]>


United States: The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered.

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Renee Gabet, Owner of Annie Oakley Businesses (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil lawsuit against Amazon Inc alleging the sale of their infringing product on the website of the United States District Court for the Southern District of ‘Indiana, (“Indianapolis Division”, “Court”) under the Lanham Act and the common law of Indiana, which includes an action for trademark infringement, use of an advertising idea, dilution of trademark, false appellation of origin and unfair competition and unfair competition at common law and sought compensation as well as injunctive relief.Rise-n-shine (hereafter RNSO) housed several all-natural solutions for the problems of health, wellness and beauty. Mainly RNSO sold raw materials used to make soap, shampoo and creams. Gradually, RNSO started selling its items on Amazon in 2015 and has continued to do so during the ci nq following years. The seller’s name listed on the webpage was “RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC”, but sometimes it was listed as “E&E PREMIER DISTRIBUTOR”. The trademark “RISE N SHINE” was used by the plaintiff in its product because it owned the mark. Whereas RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric sold the product with a trademark of plaintiff on amazon. Initially, plaintiff brought a trademark infringement action against RNSO and Amazon Inc. It was alleged that RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric manufactured, copied, reproduced, sold, offered for sale, publicly displayed, distributed and imported products using a trademark. name RISE N SHINE. Moreover, the same had been sold on the Amazon website. Plaintiffs and RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric settled in May 2020, and their claim was denied with prejudice. Subsequently, the complaint against Amazon was only pending in court.

The Court referred Jackson v. Regions Bank, 838 F. App’x 195, 198 (7th Cir. 2021) decision and affirmed the Court’s decision to dismiss the claims that had not been preserved in the Statement of Claims. Accordingly, based on the alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s trademarks, the only claims Plaintiff can pursue are trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under the common law of Indiana and India. other claims have been dropped.

Therefore, this was not a case in which Amazon had invested too much time and reliable resources in building a brand and selling the offending product. Thus, with respect to Amazon’s affirmative defense against cowards, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also granted and the counter-motion was denied.
In CAE, Inc. c. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 673 (7th Cir. 2001), the court observed that to register a mark under the Lanham Act, such a mark would have to be capable of being distinguished from other marks that have prevailed in interstate commerce. Pursuant to 15 USC 1065, the Lanham Act held that a registered mark that was in common commercial use for 5 years became indisputable. However, the protections available for a trademark depend on its distinctive character. Rise ‘n’ Shine’s recording was protectable because its recording was valid in the field. Thus, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Amazon’s counterclaim.

Unfair competition claimed under Indiana common law is also covered by the Lanham Act. The court concluded that the key issue was whether the offending product created confusion among customers. The question concerned must be resolved by the investigator. Initially, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied, along with Amazon’s counterclaim, which was also denied.
In this case, the court observed Amazon’s liability for potential infringement in two ways: direct infringement and indirect infringement. In a direct violation, the court found that potential liability could not be determined in a judgment summary. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as Amazon’s cross motion were both denied. While Amazon’s cross-motion was partially granted. But in the case of liability for indirect infringement, plaintiff’s summary motion and Amazon’s counterclaim were partly dismissed and partly granted.

Finally, the district court observed that the plaintiff’s motion for interim relief was partly granted and partly denied in direct and indirect violation. However, Amazon’s motion to strike the jury’s claim was granted. The remaining issues had been decided in a bench trial that had been scheduled separately.

The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Brand comparison guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademark comparison guide for the jurisdiction of India, see our comparison guides section to compare across multiple countries

]]>
Application of common law clauses in contracts for the purchase of shares of Colombian companies https://prosecutebushcheney.org/application-of-common-law-clauses-in-contracts-for-the-purchase-of-shares-of-colombian-companies/ Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:25:27 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/application-of-common-law-clauses-in-contracts-for-the-purchase-of-shares-of-colombian-companies/ introduction The market for acquiring control of Colombian companies has intensified in recent years, with local and international buyers investing in our country. This has led to the internationalization of stock purchase agreement (“SPA”) language used by Colombian lawyers, including using concepts imported from common law. The adoption of this language greatly facilitates communication between […]]]>

introduction

The market for acquiring control of Colombian companies has intensified in recent years, with local and international buyers investing in our country. This has led to the internationalization of stock purchase agreement (“SPA”) language used by Colombian lawyers, including using concepts imported from common law. The adoption of this language greatly facilitates communication between foreign clients and lawyers and makes transactions more fluid. However, buyers and sellers who trust Colombian lawyers should not lose sight of the fact that, being an imported contractual language, it has its limits when it comes to applying it in Colombia. Therefore, parties involved in negotiating SPAs of Colombian companies should be careful to keep this in mind when receiving legal advice in the country.

When seeking to acquire a position of control in a company, the transaction does not refer only to the acquisition of a certain number of shares, but mainly to the purchase of an organization which has a life of its own and is made up of a corporate culture, a commercial projection, assets, workers who make autonomous decisions and, in general, elements that interact to create added value. With this in mind, the parties, including the acquirer, may not be able to identify all possible contingencies in the conduct of the target’s business.

This is why the negotiation of representations and warranties (“D&G”) in stock purchase agreements becomes so important. D&G originated from common law and are widely used in Colombian legal practice of mergers and acquisitions. They go hand in hand with the indemnification clause, in which the parties agree on the amount of the claim that the buyer can demand from the seller in the event of lies in the D&G. However, what happens when the D&Gs are inaccurate, or if after the transaction is concluded new contingencies arise that were not disclosed by the seller?

In this article, we seek to explain the contractual and legal numbers that parties to a SPA should keep in mind in order to invoke breach of contract once the transaction has been concluded, with the aim that buyers and sellers can have informed conversations with their advisers and ensure that their interests are adequately protected. To be more specific, we will focus on explaining the D&G clause and the indemnification clause, then explain how they interact with two relevant contractual figures of the Colombian system, such as the action redhibitoria and the relative nullity of the contract due to an error in the quality of the asset (error in the quality of the cosa)

Breach of Contract: Representations and Warranties, Indemnification Clause and action redhibitoria

To begin with, the legal nature of D&G is contractual and based on the autonomy of the will of the parties. This means that these are clauses that are not incorporated into Colombian law and that it is the parties – through the clause – who are responsible for spreading the risks of the sale of the shares. D&G assumes that, if a contracted party makes an assertion that leads to the closing of the legal transaction, then it must guarantee its truth and be liable for the consequences if it is not true. 1 Ultimately, this can be expressed by a statement of the following type: “The Company has no liabilities or obligations for a value greater than 20% of the total assets. Likewise, each of the principal obligations has been disclosed in Schedule A of this contract.”

It is important to point out that in SPAs, the Supreme Court of Justice has clarified that the object of the contract is not the company’s assets, but rather the representative certificates of participation in the company. 2 It is therefore essential that the parties stipulate, taking into account the economic object of the contract, that the contractual object does not relate only to the securities, but also to the assets of the company. 3 At this stage, the D&G clause is particularly important, as well as the indemnification clause, because through these the parties will indicate the characteristics of the company and the amount of the indemnification of the buyer in which they are inaccurate. Similarly, it is important that the parties agree on the limitation period of the indemnification clause, since in the event of their silence, the guarantee will be valid for two years from the signing of the contract (art. 932 Commercial Code). 4

Therefore, this clause ends up being an acknowledgment of the economic purpose of the contract, which truly extends to the acquisition of a business. In addition, it has proven to be one of the most common contractual mechanisms for invoking default due to irregularities of the company being transacted.

Likewise, the parties must bear in mind that in any sale celebrated under the Colombian legal system, the seller is responsible for the obligation to saneamiento. This obligation implies that the seller “is obliged to provide the buyer with peaceful and useful possession of the property sold”. 5 This implies that “the good must materially serve the use for which it is intended according to its nature. 6 Hence, when the good suffers from material defects which prevent it from being used in accordance with its nature, the seller will have broken the contract and the buyer will have the right to lodge a complaint. action redhibitoria hidden defects of the property sold. 7

In SPAs, the action redhibitoria is a legal figure that the parties should not ignore. In this respect, it is important to specify that the object of the contract is not the company, but the equity securities. This would mean that, in turn, the obligation to saneamiento would only accrue to the shares of the company. However, the Supreme Court of Justice has recognized that the parties may extend the obligation to saneamiento to cover the business. 8 Therefore, the obligation to saneamiento may also apply in the event of inaccuracies or defects of the company within the framework of the contractual object. 9

Now, it is vitally important that the parties bear in mind that the action redhibitoria gives rise to the buyer requesting the termination of the contract or the reduction of the price depending on whether the good does not serve its natural purpose or serves it imperfectly. 10 In addition, the limitation period of the action redhibitoria is six months for movable property such as shares. 11

Defects in the consent: relative nullity of the contract due to error in the quality of the good (error in the quality of the cosa)

However, once the nature of the D&G has been clarified, it should be reaffirmed that the mandatory nature of this clause within the contract is incidental to the main obligation of the SPA, which is the transfer of ownership of the shares in question. Despite this, the arbitral awards have proposed that although the nature of the D&G is incidental (since its very origin is common law), its relationship to the primary obligation is such that, in the first place, they could be understood as part the pre-contractual duty of information, a duty which derives from the principle of good faith (art. 871 Civil Code). Secondly, since the veracity of these can be a determining cause to execute the contract, the D&G have a privileged role in the contract which cannot be covered by considering them as auxiliaries. Their importance is such, for the two reasons mentioned above, that arbitral awards have positioned them as part of the consent requirement in the contract. 12

To reach the above conclusion, it is important to remember that according to Colombian law, when signing any contract, the parties must have: legal capacity, consent free from defects, and the contract must be based on a lawful object and cause. Taking this into account, the arbitral justice developed the argument set out in the previous paragraph, saying that the D&G’s lie cannot only lead to the claim of the agreed indemnities, but it can also lead to the relative nullity of the contract, since they would represent a defect in the consent. 13

The defects of the consent, in turn, can be due to force, fraud or error, in this case the defect of the consent would be due to an error in the quality of the asset (error in the quality of the cosa).

Finally, although the declaration of relative nullity of the contract due to falsity of the D&G is an additional possibility to the request for indemnities, or to the exercise of the action redhibitoria, this claim must first be asserted by one of the parties in accordance with article 1743 of the Civil Code. Thus, it is important that the interested buyer or his lawyer remember this arbitration award when resolving any dispute in a litigious manner, since it is not an alternative that the judge can exercise. ex officio.

conclusion

From all that is said in this article, it must be concluded that even if the SPAs are drafted with the same legal figures as those used in common law, this does not mean that they will have the same effects. Therefore, it is important that the parties ensure that the contracts are drafted in a manner consistent with Colombian law, so that in the event of a violation of the agreement by one of the parties, an ordinary judge or arbitrator will grant the effects which the parties intended. These effects are not always peaceful and there are differences between ordinary jurisdiction and arbitration jurisdiction, for which correct legal advice is of vital importance when entering a SPA in Colombia.

Bibliography

  • Arbitral award of Balclin Investmets sl, Altra Inversiones SAS and others against Jairo Gutiérrez Robayo, Jimena Gross Mejía and others. Judgment of September 14, 2011. Referees: Ernesto Rengifo García, Jorge Cubides Camacho and Carlos Gustavo Arrieta Padilla.
  • Congress of the Republic of Colombia. Civil Code. Law 84 of 1873. Official Journal No. 2,867 of May 31, 1873
  • Gomez Estrada, Caesar. Main civil contracts. Fourth edition. Colombia: Editorial Temis SA, 2008. ISBN: 978-958-35-0656-7
  • President of the Republic of Colombia. Trade code. Decree 410 of 1971. Official Journal No. 33 339 of June 16, 1971
  • Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia. Civil Cassation Chamber. Judgment of December 16, 2013. Reporting Judge: Ariel Salazar Ramírez. File No. 248433
]]>
The mayor of Legazpi celebrates the marriage of 68 common-law couples https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-mayor-of-legazpi-celebrates-the-marriage-of-68-common-law-couples/ Tue, 15 Feb 2022 06:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-mayor-of-legazpi-celebrates-the-marriage-of-68-common-law-couples/ JUST MARRIED. A total of 68 resident partners were married in simple rites led by Mayor Noel E. Rosal during the Valentine’s Day celebration at the Legazpi City Convention Center, Monday, Feb. 14, 2022. The mass civil wedding was a project of the Women’s Federation of the city of Legazpi. (Photo by Emmanuel Solis) TOWN […]]]>

JUST MARRIED. A total of 68 resident partners were married in simple rites led by Mayor Noel E. Rosal during the Valentine’s Day celebration at the Legazpi City Convention Center, Monday, Feb. 14, 2022. The mass civil wedding was a project of the Women’s Federation of the city of Legazpi. (Photo by Emmanuel Solis)

TOWN OF LEGAZPI – To legalize the union of common-law couples, a total of 68 living partners were wed free by Mayor Noel E. Rosal in time for Valentine’s Day Monday at the Legazpi City Convention Center (LCCC) here.

The mass civil wedding was organized by the Legazpi City Women’s Federation (LCWF) for the benefit of those who live together but said they lacked the money for a wedding.

LCWF president and mayor’s wife Geraldine Rosal said in an interview that the couples had been pre-identified by the Barangay San Roque Women’s Organization, adding that most of them had been partners for a long time. nearly 10 years old and had children.

“Most of the couples were employed as butchers at the city’s Double ‘AA’ slaughterhouse while the rest were employed as ‘work orders’ at the Legazpi city government,” she said.

Geraldine encouraged the newlyweds to become responsible parents and to always teach their children good values ​​to become good citizens of the country.

She urged them, especially husbands, to become good providers for their families so that they can give their children a better future.

“At the time of pregnancy for all mothers, it is enough to always visit the lengthening clinics in the various villages, including the main clinic of the city health office (CHO) and the city hospital of Legazpi for their maternity exam,” the mayor’s wife said. added.

She noted that the city government has set up five nursing clinics in the southern and northern parts of the city to improve the provision of medical services to mothers and their babies, especially those residing in remote barangays.

Meanwhile, in Camarines Sur, at least 10 housemates have also gotten married as part of a project by the municipal police station in Bombon.

Regional Police Chief Brig. General Jonnel Estomo said in a statement, “The responsibility of the Bicol Regional Police Office (PRO-5) is not only to maintain a peaceful region, but also to have good husband-wife relations.”

He cited the importance of the sacrament of marriage, adding that a happy family is the foundation of a strong and peaceful community. (With report by Connie Calipay/PNA)

]]>
Lawmakers confuse common law with equity – Corporate/Commercial Law https://prosecutebushcheney.org/lawmakers-confuse-common-law-with-equity-corporate-commercial-law/ Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/lawmakers-confuse-common-law-with-equity-corporate-commercial-law/ United States: The legislator confuses common law with equity February 14, 2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Although never a colony of England, California has nevertheless adopted the Common Law […]]]>


United States: The legislator confuses common law with equity

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Although never a colony of England, California has nevertheless adopted the Common Law of England as the rule for adjudication in state courts (except where contrary or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States). United States, or the Constitution or laws of California). Cal. Civil. Code§ 22.2. To see Ahistorical Bedfellows: The California Corporate Code and the Common Law. England also had separate courts of equity and the distinction between law and equity remains important in some contexts. For example, fair questions are generally determined by the judge and not by a jury.

The California legislature appears to have forgotten or ignored the historical differences between law and equity when it enacted the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Section 17703.04(b) of the Companies Code begins by stating “A member of a limited liability company is subject to liability under the common law governing alter ego liability…”. The problem with this provision is that alter ego is a fair doctrine and not common law. To see Alexander v. Carillon Abbey, 104 Cal. App. 3d 39, 48, 163 Cal. Rptr. 377, 381, (1980) (“When considering the application of the alter ego doctrine to a particular situation, it must be remembered that it is a fair doctrine . . “).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: US Corporate/Commercial Law

Misclassification of Independent Contractor

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff

The nuanced distinctions between employees and independent contractors are very important, and recent court decisions and legislative actions have challenged these classifications.

Managing Disputes: Document Drafting Strategies

PC Jones & Keller

As litigators and instructors for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, we constantly deal with contractual issues to prevent litigation. Over the years we’ve seen what works and what doesn’t…

]]>
What is common law and why is it misinterpreted? | Law https://prosecutebushcheney.org/what-is-common-law-and-why-is-it-misinterpreted-law/ Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:31:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/what-is-common-law-and-why-is-it-misinterpreted-law/ What is commmon law? It is the system of law – used in the UK as well as in many places that were once part of the British Empire – based on precedents of judges’ decisions rather than written law. Common law is made by judges who study reports of older cases that have been […]]]>

What is commmon law?

It is the system of law – used in the UK as well as in many places that were once part of the British Empire – based on precedents of judges’ decisions rather than written law.

Common law is made by judges who study reports of older cases that have been decided and then derive principles that will be applied by other judges in the future.

What are fakes commmon legal beliefs?

They vary, but campaigners and others believe they can use Magna Carta and old English law to challenge or ignore regulations and even bring politicians, scientists and journalists to so-called courts of justice. common law for “crimes”.

Such tribunals have no legal existence, nor do fake writs, which anti-vaccine activists have “served” in schools and hospitals, calling for a halt to the administration and promotion of vaccines. Covid-19 vaccines.

Common law writs or common law courts do not exist, nor do “common law officers”, which some activists have “trained” in order to form physical barriers against what they mistakenly believe to be the “illegal” actions of the police and other lawful agents. authorities.

Where is he from?

The modern false common law movement had its roots in American sovereign citizens’ movements, emerging in the 1970s and gaining prominence as it coalesced with the growth of right-wing militias.

He made his way, via Canada, to the UK, where supporters range from fringe political activists who tried to promote him by running for office to others who tried to build forces of “ghost” font. Others included pro-Trump supporters who tried to stage a citizen’s arrest of Sadiq Khan in 2018.

What happened recently?

Proponents of bogus common law have grown more belligerent as Brexit approaches. However, the belief has been reinforced on social media and has found a wider and more receptive audience among those looking for reasons to disobey or ignore lockdown regulations during the pandemic.

A plethora of new anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine groups are promoting it, including in some cases running fake “classes” alongside training in civil disobedience techniques.

Some have tried to disrupt vaccination centers by saying police are carrying out criminal investigations into the work after activists entered the stations and made allegations. The police stress that the reference numbers provided on these occasions to activists, who post images on social networks, do not mean that there are investigations.

]]>
Toronto man and his common-law wife face 400 charges, including incest https://prosecutebushcheney.org/toronto-man-and-his-common-law-wife-face-400-charges-including-incest/ Wed, 09 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/toronto-man-and-his-common-law-wife-face-400-charges-including-incest/ Links to the breadcrumb Toronto and the GTA News criminality Allegations include sexual assault, assault and posting clandestine videos online Publication date : February 09, 2022 • February 9, 2022 • 2 minute read • 21 comments Photographic illustrations Fotolia Content of the article A Toronto man and his common-law wife face a combined total […]]]>

Allegations include sexual assault, assault and posting clandestine videos online

Content of the article

A Toronto man and his common-law wife face a combined total of 400 charges related to alleged sexual assaults, including against minors, which police say took place over at least 14 years.

Advertisement 2

Content of the article

The 38-year-old, who cannot be identified due to a publication ban, was already being held at the Toronto East Detention Center and facing 78 related charges.

The new charges – 229 of them – include allegations of making and possessing child pornography, sexual assault, assault with a weapon, voyeurism and incest.

After an appearance on Tuesday morning via video link before a justice of the peace at Old City Hall Court, the accused refused to leave his cell for an afternoon appearance.

A lengthy investigation by Toronto police – Project Shutter – uncovered a wide range of computers, hard drives, cameras, memory cards, USB drives and cell phones in connection with the charges against the man and the woman.

Sources told the Toronto Sun the man is accused of sexually assaulting his children and stepchildren.

Advertisement 3

Content of the article

The alleged abuse of one of them – according to sources – happened when they were between three and 11 years old.

Two others, sources said, detailed in 2020 how they were allegedly sexually assaulted and assaulted with a dog leash and hot sauce from 2014 to 2018.

At least three women complained to the police in February 2021 after discovering nude videos of themselves – and friends they recognized – posted online on porn sites after they had been recorded without their knowledge or without their consent.

Sources say there are more people who have been registered.

Sources also said images of the defendant’s ex-wife had been discovered online.

After being contacted, the ex-wife said she had consented to the images being taken, but was unaware they had been posted online.

Advertisement 4

Content of the article

We apologize, but this video failed to load.

The accused’s common-law wife – whose identity is also covered by a publication ban – surrendered to officers at the 55th Division on Tuesday.

The 43-year-old woman, who appeared in court, faces 93 charges, including making and possessing child pornography, sexual assault, voyeurism and assault with a weapon. None of the allegations have been proven.

The two defendants were ordered to avoid contact with a list of 22 people.

Sam Goldstein, defense attorney for the accused, said: ‘All of these allegations are mere allegations and they need to be proven. There is a presumption of innocence and we must remember that.

The accused has been detained since last June. He is due back in court on March 4.

The woman is due to appear on February 18.

Toronto police said they plan to provide a Project Shutter update next week.

slaurie@postmedia.com

Advertisement 1

comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively yet civil discussion forum and encourages all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments can take up to an hour to be moderated before appearing on the site. We ask that you keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications. You will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, if there is an update to a comment thread you follow, or if a user follows you comments. Visit our Community Rules for more information and details on how to adjust your E-mail settings.

]]>
The common law insolvency exception for the sale of assets of a corporation without a shareholder OK https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-common-law-insolvency-exception-for-the-sale-of-assets-of-a-corporation-without-a-shareholder-ok/ Wed, 02 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-common-law-insolvency-exception-for-the-sale-of-assets-of-a-corporation-without-a-shareholder-ok/ At common law, before directors could sell all the assets of a healthy corporation, they had to obtain unanimous shareholder approval. The unanimity requirement gave rise to blocking problems, where a minority of shareholders could block a transaction. Proponents of a sale without unanimous approval justified it with several arguments: If a corporation had a […]]]>

At common law, before directors could sell all the assets of a healthy corporation, they had to obtain unanimous shareholder approval. The unanimity requirement gave rise to blocking problems, where a minority of shareholders could block a transaction. Proponents of a sale without unanimous approval justified it with several arguments: If a corporation had a provision in its charter that authorized developers to proceed without unanimous approval, the developers invoked that authority. If the company was failing or insolvent, the promoters argued that the state of the company obviated the need for unanimous shareholder approval.

Over time, the common law has distinguished between an unprofitable company and a bankrupt and insolvent company. If the company’s business was not profitable, the directors could sell its assets with the approval of the majority of shareholders. The reasoning was that the minority could not force the majority to continue operating a loss-making business that would eventually reach the point of failure. However, if the company were insolvent, the directors could sell its assets without any level of shareholder approval. Administrators could also make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or declare bankruptcy.

]]>
The fourth season of the ‘Common Law’ podcast features 4 ‘co-counsels’ https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-fourth-season-of-the-common-law-podcast-features-4-co-counsels/ Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:45:34 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-fourth-season-of-the-common-law-podcast-features-4-co-counsels/ Four professors from the University of Virginia School of Law are joining the school’s podcast, “Common Law,” as co-hosts with Dean Risa Goluboff for the fourth season. The show will return on February 3 with Goluboff and Cathy Hwang as hosts for the first episode. Professors Danielle K. Citron, John C. Harrison and Gregory Mitchell […]]]>

Four professors from the University of Virginia School of Law are joining the school’s podcast, “Common Law,” as co-hosts with Dean Risa Goluboff for the fourth season.

The show will return on February 3 with Goluboff and Cathy Hwang as hosts for the first episode. Professors Danielle K. Citron, John C. Harrison and Gregory Mitchell will also rotate in co-host duties this season, which is called “Co-Counsel”.

Goluboff co-host for the first three seasons, Professor Leslie Kendrick ’06, is taking a break from podcasting. To fill this gap, Goluboff wanted to introduce teachers with diverse backgrounds who would help choose the show’s guests and topics.

“That’s why we decided to call this season ‘Co-Counsel’,” Goluboff said. “All of our co-hosts bring their own expertise to the table and add their own flavor – and it’s so much fun to record.”

This season’s guests include UVA law professors Aditya Bamzai, Quinn Curtis, Kristen Eichensehr, Mitu Gulati, Andrew Hayashi, John T. Monahan and Megan T. Stevenson. Also featured will be graduates Doriane Nguenang ’21, partner at Baker McKenzie, and Neil Richards ’97, professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. Anita L. Allen of the Carey Law School at the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California at Irvine, Tom R. Tyler of Yale Law School, Jennifer Mascott of George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and Tara Leigh Grove from the University of Alabama.

Who will interview whom? Make your guesses now. Episodes will be released every two weeks throughout the spring and summer.

“We’ll have episodes on law and psychology, privacy, national security law, administrative law, constitutional law, taxation, sovereign debt, financial regulation and more,” Goluboff said. “There is so much variety, and it was a pleasure to meet jurists who have had an impact on our own faculty here at UVA Law.”

About new co-hosts

Citron, a MacArthur Scholar, is the Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Professor Emeritus of Law and the Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law at UVA, where she writes and teaches on privacy, free speech, and civil rights. She is the author of the books “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace” and the upcoming “The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age”.

Hwang’s research and teaching focus on business law, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate contracts, and corporate governance. She recently co-taught a January term course on corporate law topics from the Emmy-winning show “Succession.” Hwang is the Barron F. Black Research Professor of Law.

Prior to joining the faculty, Harrison worked for the United States Department of Justice, including as Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. His teaching subjects include Constitutional History, Federal Courts, Remedies, Corporations, Civil Procedure, Legislation, and Property. An alumnus of AVU’s undergraduate program, Harrison also served as an international law adviser to the Office of the Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of State. He is the James Madison Professor of Law Emeritus and the Thomas F. Bergin Professor of Law.

Mitchell, who holds a JD and Ph.D. in psychology from the University of California, Berkeley, teaches courses in civil litigation and law and psychology, and his fellowship focuses on legal judgment and the decision-making, the psychology of justice, and the application of social science to legal theory and policy. He is Joseph Weintraub-Bank of America Professor Emeritus of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr., Research Professor of Law.

About the show

“Common Law” is available at Apple podcast, embroiderer, Youtube, Spotify and other popular places where you can listen to podcasts, including Amazon Alexa devices. The show is produced by Emily Richardson-Lorente.

Listeners can follow the program on the site CommonLawPodcast.com or Twitter at @CommonLawUVA.

]]>
There is no common law right to start a vehicle in Georgia: starting a car is not the same as rounding up cattle | Smith Gambrell Russell https://prosecutebushcheney.org/there-is-no-common-law-right-to-start-a-vehicle-in-georgia-starting-a-car-is-not-the-same-as-rounding-up-cattle-smith-gambrell-russell/ Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/there-is-no-common-law-right-to-start-a-vehicle-in-georgia-starting-a-car-is-not-the-same-as-rounding-up-cattle-smith-gambrell-russell/ In the case of RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing, LLC et al. vs. Forrest Allen et al., the Georgia Supreme Court considered whether there is a common law right for a private owner to start a vehicle parked on his property without permission. Starting involves immobilizing a vehicle until the owner pays to have the immobilizer […]]]>

In the case of RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing, LLC et al. vs. Forrest Allen et al., the Georgia Supreme Court considered whether there is a common law right for a private owner to start a vehicle parked on his property without permission. Starting involves immobilizing a vehicle until the owner pays to have the immobilizer removed.

Plaintiff sued the owner-operator of a parking lot and commercial tenants of the connected mall for negligence, premises liability, unlawful confinement, conversion and violation of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The lawsuit alleged that after the plaintiff parked in the mall parking lot, his vehicle was immobilized by the placement of a trunk on one of his vehicle’s tires and he had to pay $650 for remove the trunk.

The defendants argued that under the common law — the body of law derived from court decisions rather than statutes — private owners are permitted to stop vehicles that encroach on their property. They asserted that the common law right to remove trespassing property encompasses a right to stop trespassing vehicles.

Defendants also asserted that the common law doctrine of “doer of distress damages,” which dates back hundreds of years, allows landowners to engage in the self-help remedy of forfeiting the property of another person when wrongfully on their land. The distress damage-doer doctrine recognizes a landowner’s right to seize trespassing livestock that stray onto their land and cause actual damage and hold it as collateral until the animal’s owner is identified. and compensates the landowner for his damages.

The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected these arguments. He held that neither the right to remove property from trespass nor the doctrine of distress damages doer support defendants’ vehicle starting practice.

The Court explained that the act of stopping a trespassing vehicle contrasts sharply with the common law power to remove trespassing chattels from a property because stopping the chattels perpetuates the trespass. Further, the Court noted that this common law remedy has been superseded, in part, by the Georgia Towing Act, which provides specific guidelines for the removal and seizure of vehicles, but is silent on the starting cars. To see OCGA § 44-1-13.

The Court held that the doctrine of the existence of distress damage did not apply to the facts of the case. Defendants cited no authority when a court applied the doer of distress doctrine to anything other than livestock or when a court held that a landowner had the common law right to confiscate and detain movable property, such as a vehicle, whose owner is easily identifiable. Indeed, the Court found that there is no statutory authority recognizing a common law right to immobilize unauthorized vehicles located on private property and hold them against the will of the owner until payment be received. The Court further noted that even if the plaintiff for distress damages were to apply to authorize the immobilization practice of the vehicle in issue, the defendants’ application would fail because the doctrine requires trespass and proof of actual damages and that the record did not support any damage suffered by the defendants. .

For any startup to occur on private property in Georgia, there must be a law or ordinance permitting it. Indeed, the Georgia District Court and Court of Appeals had held below that there is no right to immobilize a vehicle in the absence of an enabling statute or ordinance. . Some municipalities in Georgia have ordinances that specifically allow the starting of unauthorized vehicles, but that was not the situation presented in this case. And, as noted above, while Georgia law permits the towing and seizure of unauthorized vehicles in certain circumstances, that is not what the defendants have done here.

]]>
English Commercial court enforces DIFC court judgment under common law rules | K&L Gates LLP https://prosecutebushcheney.org/english-commercial-court-enforces-difc-court-judgment-under-common-law-rules-kl-gates-llp/ Sun, 23 Jan 2022 21:11:15 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/english-commercial-court-enforces-difc-court-judgment-under-common-law-rules-kl-gates-llp/ The Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Commercial Court) has granted a motion for summary judgment on a claim for enforcement in England of a judgment DIFC Courts (an English-language common law court in the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC), United Arab Emirates (UAE)). […]]]>

The Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Commercial Court) has granted a motion for summary judgment on a claim for enforcement in England of a judgment DIFC Courts (an English-language common law court in the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC), United Arab Emirates (UAE)). The case (Barclays Bank Plc v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm)) is a helpful reminder of the principles English courts will adopt when asked to enforce a foreign judgment at common law.

The defendant, Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (Dr. Shetty), the founder of a foreign exchange business (UAEEC), had provided a guarantee (Guarantee) by which Dr. Shetty guaranteed the performance by the UAEEC of its obligations under certain derivative contracts with Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays), which were terminated early following a default by the UAEEC. The Guarantee was governed by English law and contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of the DIFC courts. A claim for payment was made under the guarantee by Barclays, which Dr Shetty had failed to meet.

Barclays brought proceedings against Dr Shetty in the DIFC Magistrates Court (Barclays Bank PLC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2020] DIFC CFI 061), claiming the sums claimed under the Guarantee. By judgment dated April 22, 2021, Judge Martin granted Barclays’ request for immediate judgment (equivalent to summary judgment), finding that “none of the issues raised on behalf of Dr Shetty offer a realistic prospect of a successful defense of Barclays’ claim against him, nor any other compelling reason why the matter should go to trial. Judge Martin noted that following the hearing of the motion for immediate judgment, Dr Shetty had embarked on “a strategy of seizing any point, regardless of background, with the aim of delaying the delivery of [his] decision.” The judge further ordered that the worldwide freeze order Barclays had previously obtained remains in effect, amended to remove the previous exceptions for legal costs and reasonable living expenses.

By judgment dated May 4, 2021, the DIFC Magistrate’s Court issued its judgment on quantum, ordering judgment to be entered in the amount of USD 131,440,346.22 plus simple interest at the rate of 9% per year on the outstanding balance until the judgment is satisfied. full.

In July 2021, Barclays served a claim form and details of the claim to enforce the DIFC judgment in England and Wales and subsequently sought summary judgment. Dr. Shetty applied for an adjournment of summary judgment proceedings on the grounds that he was an in-person litigant and was unable to defend the claim without legal representation and advice. He said he had been unable to hire a company to act on his behalf following freezing orders obtained in separate proceedings in India and had requested an adjournment in order to seek the variation of Indian orders and then obtain legal advice and representation in these proceedings. .

Enforcement of Common Law DIFC Court Judgments

In granting summary judgment in favor of Barclays and dismissing the request for adjournment, Judge Henshaw referred to the principles relevant to the enforcement of DIFC judgments which he had previously summarized in FH Capital Limited v Haigh and Others [2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm).

These principles, summarized in the FH Capital case, are as follows:

  • There is no treaty dealing with the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and the UAE. As such, DIFC court judgments can only be enforced at common law.
  • At common law, where a competent foreign court determines that a certain sum is due from one person to another, a legal obligation arises for the debtor to pay that sum, which can be enforced in the courts of England and the Wales.
  • The DIFC Courts and Commercial Court Enforcement Guidance Memorandum includes a useful summary of the common law enforcement requirements for foreign judgments:
    • The judgment of the foreign court must be final and without appeal.
    • The commercial court will not enforce certain types of judgments, for example judgments ordering the payment of taxes, fines or penalties.
    • The foreign court must have had jurisdiction, under English conflict of law rules, to determine the subject matter of the dispute.
  • The commercial court will generally consider the foreign court to have jurisdiction only if the person against whom the judgment was rendered meets the following conditions:
    • Was, at the time of the opening of the proceedings, present in the jurisdiction; Where
    • Was the plaintiff or counterclaimant in the proceeding; Where
    • Subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign court; Where
    • Agreed, before the opening, with respect to the object of the proceedings, to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
  • A decision of a foreign court can only be challenged before the commercial court under the common law regime on limited grounds. These grounds include:
    • When the judgment was obtained by fraud;
    • Where the judgment is contrary to English public order; and
    • When the proceedings have been conducted in a manner that the commercial court considers contrary to the principles of natural justice.
  • The Commercial Court will not review a judgment of the DIFC Court on the merits. The judgment cannot be challenged on the grounds that it contains an error of fact or of law.
  • In most cases, a party will have the right to seek summary judgment without a trial under Part 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the test for granting summary judgment, the Commercial Court found that Dr Shetty had no real chance of successfully arguing that the terms of enforcement of the judgment of the UK DIFC court n had not been met and concluded that there were no other compelling grounds for a trial. As a result, the Commercial Court granted Barclays’ motion for summary judgment and denied Dr Shetty’s request for an adjournment, which the court viewed as a deliberate last-minute tactic to seek to delay proceedings.

Comment

The case is a useful reminder of the availability of summary judgment in foreign judgment enforcement proceedings, such as those in the DIFC courts, in England and Wales under common law principles and contains a summary useful of the legal criteria that the English Commercial Court will apply. adopt where required to enforce such judgments under the common law regime, including, in particular, the very limited grounds available for challenging the foreign judgment.

]]>