Calendar
<September 2010
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

Categories

RSS Feeds

Weblog List

Our Newsletters
Sign up for all of our newletters.
Subscribe Here

Thought Food
Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value. - Albert Einstein

Amazon Links

Welcome to the weblog for Commercial Law.
Thu Jun 29, 2006

New Hollander article on Legal Risks of Blogs

I've posted a new article on the website relating to the legal risks of publishing blogs.
You can check it out at

http://www.hollanderco.com/articles/blog-intro.php

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Thu Nov 17, 2005

"A Sigh is Just a Sigh..."

For every lawyer that has counseled his client or her client on how to behave in a Courtroom, the following is a lesson in how litigants and judges should act.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JUDGE_ADMONISHED?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Sun Nov 13, 2005

Fame No License to Defame

New York Supreme Court Justice Rosalind Richter denied a dismissal motion by Gene Simmons, famed leader of rock band KISS, brought by a woman claiming to be a former girlfriend of the singer in a "monogamous" relationship.

The suit stems from a special shown on VH-1 in which Simmons reminisces on his more sexually active days. As the the Court found, :

"juxtaposition of plaintiff's photographs alongside commentary by Simmons and others recounting Simmons's repeated casual sexual encounters with various female strangers is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning"
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1131640457086


Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Sun Oct 30, 2005

NY Court Denies Gripe Web Site Based Defamation Claim

In what the losing Plaintiff's attorneys have called a case of first impression in New York, Penn Warranty Insurance has lost a defamation claim against one of its disgruntled former customers, based upon continued statements made in a gripe site, established by the customer after an unsatisfactory experience with the insurer.

In The Penn Warranty Corporation v. Ronald DiGiovanni, a case decided in NY State Supreme Court on October 28th, the Court granted the Defendant summary judgment, deciding against the carrier on free speech grounds.


Read more »

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Fri Oct 07, 2005

Preview of New Electronic Discovery Rules

The U.S. Judicial Conference has approved far reaching proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to the rapidly evolving issues concerning electronic discovery.

Such discovery, plagued by inconsistent court rules and case law decisions, will, at least at the federal level, have facial uniformity, that is, until there is litigation about the meaning of any particular provision.

While the amendments still require U.S. Supreme Court and legislative approval, it is assumed that these last hurdles will be overcome without difficulty. If so, the new rules will take effect December, 2006.

A summary of the new rules is contained in a larger summary of other recommended changes to various civil and appellate procedure rules, which can be found at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/ST09-2005.pdf



Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Wed Sep 21, 2005

Court Prohibits Cell Spam

Applying provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, an Arizona appellate court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that found against Acacia Mortgage Corp. which had sent unsolicited emails to cell phones by using the recipient's cell phone email service to contact them rather than dialing their cell number.

The appellate court found that: "(e)ven though Acacia used an attenuated method to dial a cell phone telephone number, it nevertheless did so..."


Read more »

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Tue Apr 12, 2005

A Bankruptcy Case of Interest to LLCs

There's an interesting NY bankruptcy case that any Limited Liability Company would do well to read, In re: Die Fliedermaus LLC, particularly any LLC considering filing for bankruptcy.

In 1995, the defendants, in the restaurant business, formed the debtor limited liability company, which operated between 1996 and 2001. It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on Oct. 4, 2001. An examiner's report suggested potential causes of action against the defendants arising from the debtor's payment of distributions while operating at an alleged loss between 1997 and 2001, and pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §544(b) and New York's Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), the trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover the debtor's distributions as fraudulent conveyances.

Seeking dismissal, the defendants argued, among other things, that the three-year limitation period of New York's Limited Liability Company Law (LLCL) barred the trustee from reaching distributions prior to Oct. 4, 1998. The court dismissed the trustee's §544(b) claims insofar as they sought to avoid transfers made prior to Oct. 3, 1998. However, it determined that LLCL §506 did not raise the defendants to the status of creditors taking for value, who would have shielded them from liability under the DCL.

In the decision on a motion to dismiss by defendants, the US District Court judge for the Southern District, Judge Gropper, also ruled that an LLC's members, if no manager has been designated in the Organization Agreement, are insiders with at least a prima facie fiduciary duty according to bankruptcy law. Here's a bit of what the judge wrote:

"Under New York law, '[u]nless the articles of organization provides for management of the limited company by a manager . . . management of the limited liability company shall be vested in its members,' and any such members 'exercising such management powers or responsibilities shall be deemed to be a manager for purposes of applying the provisions of this chapter . . . and any such member shall have and be subjected to all the duties and liabilities of a manager provided in this chapter.' LLCL §401. The LLCL further provides that a 'manager shall perform his or her duties as a manager . . . in good faith and with that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.' LLCL §409. This 'is the same fiduciary standard applied to corporate directors.' 16 N.Y. Jur Business Relationships §2107. Thus, absent any language in the Organization Agreement to the contrary, and none is alluded to, the . . . Defendants had the right to manage and control the Debtor and therefore were in a prima facie fiduciary relationship with the Debtor. . . .

"As stated above, the LLCL presumptively puts members in control of the LLC, and as such they are in a position to exert influence over the LLC. This sufficiently places then with the parameters of the Bankruptcy Code's definition of insider."

New York Law Journal: http://tinyurl.com/3ogrp [sub req'd]
Read more »

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Sun Apr 03, 2005

AntiTrust Lawsuit Filed Against REBNY

Klickads, Inc. (d/b/a BrokersNYC), has filed suit in the Southern District Court of New York against the oldest and most influential real estate trade association in New York City, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), REBNY’s Board Members and realtor Brown Harris Stevens, for violation of Federal and State antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have engaged in illegal tying and monopolization of the market for exclusive property listings in Manhattan. Specifically the suit claims that REBNY misused its monopoly power to regulate access to its exclusive real estate listings in Manhattan.

Access to REBNY's listings requires members to purchase database services from the trade association. The complaint alleges REBNY refused to approve BrokersNYC as an integrator to the database service. On that basis, BrokersNYC claims REBNY is blocking them from being able to offer their customers a competitive service.

http://tinyurl.com/5dwfe

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Sat Apr 02, 2005

Microsoft Goes After Phishers

Identity theives beware. Microsoft has decided to do something about phishers, filing 117 federal lawsuits against alleged Internet identity stealers in US District Court for the Western District of Washington. Filed as John Doe lawsuits, Microsoft says it hopes to unmask the identities of the largest-volume phishers, who use popups or email solicitation to trick consumers into visiting legitimate-looking websites and providing personal financial information under the false impression they are in communication with legitimate businesses they know or have a relationship with.

The same day, the company joined the Federal Trade Commission and the National Consumers League in telling consumers that the power to stop phishers lies in their hands, advising consumers not to respond to any email or popup that asks for any personal information. They estimate that 3 to 5% are currentlyl being fooled by phishers. The FTC says identity theft is now the number one complaint they receive.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=631102
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160400610&tid=13692

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
Thu Mar 31, 2005

Sup. Ct. Makes Proving Age Discrimination Easier

The US Supreme Court has made a major ruling on age discrimination, deciding that employers can be held liable for age bias even if it is unintentional. However, on the other side of the spectrum, the decision held that there can be legitimate reasons for treating employees differently because of their age.

The question presented by the case, Smith v. City of Jackson, was: Can a disparate impact claim - a claim alleging unintentional discrimination - be made under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)?

The decision makes it easier to file disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, without having a "smoking gun". The justices noted Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act already bans discrimination based on sex, religion or race, and said it should be no different for age discrimination, although the justices noted the scope of liability is narrower. Some 70 million Americans are over 40 years of age, and the aging trend will continue, giving employers an apparent incentive to discriminate, because older workers tend to get higher salaries, as longtime employees, and have higher medical expenses and benefit agreements.

Ironically, the police officers who brought the lawsuit in 2001, in reaction to the city of Jackson raising salaries only for those with 5 or less years on the force, lost their particular claim, the decision finding that while they did indeed have the right to bring the claim under ADEA, they had failed to prove their case.

"Petitioners have done little more than point out that the pay plan at issue is relatively less generous to older workers than to younger workers," the ruling found. "They have not identified any specific test, requirement, or practice within the pay plan that has an adverse impact on older workers." In the specific case, the city of Jackson was found to have had a reasonable purpose, namely to bring pay scales for younger workers to a competitive level for the region.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/30/scotus.age.ap/index.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0331/p02s02-usju.html
http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/a1older.html

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1747/
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2004/smivjac.html

Supreme Court Decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1160

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks  
  NEXT page

Disclaimer. The material provided on this site is for information purposes only and its availability to you does not establish an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice. If you are interested in becoming a client of Hollander and Company LLC, please contact Jay Hollander, Esq. at jh@hollanderco.com.

Contact Information
Hollander and Company LLC
386 Park Avenue South
Suite 1618
New York, NY 10016-8804
Telephone: (212) 576-1061
Facsimile: (212) 576-1078
info@hollanderco.com
Directions to our Office.

Home   |   About Us   |   Contact    |   Sitemap   |   Search   |   Legal   |   Clients Rights
© Hollander and Company LLC 2003. All rights reserved