In California, corporate directors are protected by the so-called Business Judgment Rule (“BJR“): They are not responsible for honest mistakes of business judgment. A recent case revealed that in California the BJR does not protect corporate officers.
During 2007, Indymac Bank bought more than $10 billion in risky residential loans, ultimately generating losses of more than $600 million. Indymac closed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver.
Read more…
I’m not a big fan of mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts: Although arbitration is likely to proceed more quickly than litigation (other than small-claims cases), it is not necessarily less expensive. However, I recently saw an arbitration clause that I like quite a bit.
Linden Research, Inc., developer of the Second Life multi-user online service, includes the following in its Terms of Service (emphasis added):
Read more…
I recently realized that I have referred to copyright infringement in quite a few posts, but I neglected to define that term. It is time to correct that oversight.
Generally, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner – i.e., in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Read more…
In How to Defeat a Cybersquatter, I wrote about ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The UDRP provides a quick, inexpensive way to recover a domain name from a cybersquatter (someone who has obtained a domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, a trademark or service mark that you own). However, if you want to recover money, you will have to go to court.
Before proceeding further, let me be clear: I think lawsuits should be avoided whenever possible. As a trial lawyer told me many years ago, “Litigation is a terrible way to run a business.” Unfortunately, litigation sometimes is necessary.
Read more…
In “Inspection of Employee Text Messages – Be Careful“, I described provisions concerning company-provided technology that every employer should include in its employee handbook. A recent California Court of Appeal case, Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., shows that such provisions are strong enough to defeat a claim of attorney-client confidentiality!
Gina Holmes brought suit against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination and other causes of action. The employer presented as evidence e-mails between Holmes and her attorney – e-mails sent from her employer’s computer – that supported the employer’s case.
Read more…
This post is based on an OnStartups.com question (edited here) that I answered a few minutes ago. Q. I am drafting a website-development agreement with a firm in India. I am in Australia. I prefer that the agreement be governed by Australian law, but the developer prefers Indian law. What is normally done in similar circumstances?
A. Several thoughts based on my experience in similar matters:
- While governing law is important, venue – i.e., where a lawsuit must be filed – is even more important tactically if a dispute arises.
- If there is a great disparity in negotiating power between the parties, the one with the greater power is likely to prevail on this issue (and many others).
- If a compromise is desired, choose a neutral country (with an appropriate legal system) for governing law and venue. In your part of the world, Singapore could be a good choice.
- An approach that will reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed: If one party initiates a legal action, it must be filed in the other party’s country, and that country’s law will govern.
Dana H. Shultz, Attorney at Law +1 510 547-0545 dana [at] danashultz [dot] com
This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact a lawyer directly.
From defendant Nahum's website at the hijacked domain
Just over a year ago (Who is the Master of Your Domain? [or, How to Prevent Domain Name Hijacking]), I wrote about recovering a client’s domain name from a disgruntled former employee via ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. A recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DSPT International v. Nahum) shows that under federal trademark law, an aggrieved domain name owner may be able to recover monetary damages, too.
Defendant Lucky Nahum worked for plaintiff DSPT International and worked with an outside supplier to set up DSPT’s website. Without telling DSPT’s owner, Nahum registered the website’s domain name in his own name.
Read more…
BusyBox Logo
Erik Anderson developed certain software that he contributed to BusyBox, a compact set of embedded Linux utilities licensed under the GNU General Public License, Version 2 (the “GPL”). In October 2008, Anderson registered a copyright on the code that he contributed.
On September 2, 2009, Anderson’s counsel notified Westinghouse that it was infringing Anderson’s copyright because it was distributing BusyBox – both integrated into Westinghouse televisions and separately with other software – on terms that are more restrictive than the GPL. Westinghouse continued infringing Anderson’s copyright.
Anderson and the Software Freedom Conservancy brought suit against Westinghouse and 13 other defendants on December 14, 2009. Westinghouse initially mounted a defense, but stopped participating in the suit when it filed for bankruptcy.
Read more…
Developers of proprietary software typically rely copyright and trade secret protection of their works. A recent California case (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corporation) illustrates how far trade secret protection does, and does not, go.
Silvaco develops and markets electronic circuit design software. Silvaco won a suit against Circuit Semantics, Inc., claiming that CSI, with the help of two former Silvaco employees, misappropriated Silvaco trade secrets, in the form of source code, by incorporating them into CSI’s software. Silvaco obtained an injunction against continued use of the technology incorporating its trade secrets.
Read more…
I have helped dozens of foreign companies establish subsidiaries here. Sometimes, the foreign company asks, “Do we really need to form a separate company in the U.S.? Can’t we just hire some people in the U.S. to work for our existing overseas entity?”
In responding, I make the following points:
- There is no requirement that a separate U.S. entity be formed.
- However, starting a new U.S. business is risky. There certainly will be financial obligations, and unexpected legal liabilities can arise. (Regrettably, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at any time – and even if you win, there is a substantial likelihood you will have to pay your own legal fees.) So long as the U.S. entity complies with applicable formalities (please see Beware Your Alter Ego), it will act as a legal firewall to separate those obligations and liabilities from the foreign parent.
Related posts:
Photo credit: Sharon Austin via stock.xchng
Dana H. Shultz, Attorney at Law +1 510 547-0545 dana [at] danashultz [dot] com
This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact a lawyer directly.
Dana Shultz is a business-savvy lawyer located in Northern California's San Francisco Bay Area (in the East Bay, near Oakland) who has in-depth knowledge of law, business, technology, and the needs of startup and early-stage companies.