Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Concludes That Dissenting Shareholders’ Post-Merger Recourse Is Limited to Judicial Appraisal

On September 26, 2012

As discussed in a previous post, the Third Circuit’s August 2012 ruling in Mitchell Partners, L.P. v. Irex Corp. predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would “permit a post-merger suit for damages based on the majority shareholders’ breach of their fiduciary duties.” As a result, the Third Circuit concluded that Pennsylvania’s appraisal statute did not preclude dissenting minority shareholders who are “squeezed out” in a merger from seeking remedies beyond the appraisal remedies provided in the statute. However, on certification, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that minority shareholders who oppose a merger have no recourse — in the absence of fraud or fundamental unfairness — other than to seek judicial appraisal of the value of their post-merger shares.

Third Circuit Deflates Run-Flat Tire Class Action Against BMW and Bridgestone

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 21, 2012

In Marcus v. BMW of N. Am, LLC, et al., the Third Circuit vacated an order certifying a class of owners and lessees of various model-year BMW vehicles equipped with run-flat tires, finding the class definition impermissibly vague, the proposed class not ascertainable, and otherwise rejecting certification on numerosity and predominance grounds. Although the Court remanded for further proceedings, it will likely be very difficult for the plaintiff to have a class certified in light of the Court’s directives for the necessary proof.

“Trust me, I know what I’m doing!” – Court Outlines Perils of Custodian Self-Collection and Inadequate Keyword Searches

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On September 21, 2012

In a recent ruling, United States Southern District Judge and e-discovery authority Shira Scheindlin, of Zubulake and Pension Committee fame, held that various government agencies had failed to adequately design searches for responsive electronically-stored information. While the case, National Day Laborer Org. Network et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97863 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012), deals largely with searches in the context of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Judge Scheindlin noted “much of the logic behind . . . e-discovery searches is instructive in the FOIA search context because it educates litigants and the courts about the types of searches that are or are not likely to uncover all responsive documents.”

Inter Partes Review Under AIA is Underway …

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On September 21, 2012

As we previously discussed, the new inter partes review (IPR) procedures went into effect September 16, 2012, along with several other significant changes. The IPR procedure replaces the previous inter partes reexamination and applies to any patent issued before, during, or after September 16, 2012. This removes one of the hurdles of the previous inter partes reexamination which applied only to applications filed after November 29, 1999. The PTO will only accept a valid IPR petition nine months after a patent issues. As in inter partes reexamination, the IPR permits the petitioner to challenge claims as being anticipated or obvious in view of published prior art references. Also, like the previous inter partes reexamination, IPR carries with it an estoppel effect barring the IPR petitioner from asserting the invalidity of any challenged claim on the same arguments and references in any district court action.

Trademark Parody? Ben & Jerry’s Doesn’t Think It’s So Funny ….

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On September 20, 2012

Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc. (“Ben & Jerry’s”), the Vermont-based ice cream maker, recently filed a lawsuit in SDNY against adult video company Rodax Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Caballero Video, et al (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged trademark and trade dress dilution and infringement, and related claims arising from Defendants’ production and distribution of a series of hardcore pornographic DVDs whose titles and packaging play upon the names and trade dress of some of Ben & Jerry’s federally registered and famous marks.

Leveling the E-Discovery Playing Field: Court Shifts Costs to Putative Class Action Plaintiffs Prior to Class Certification

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On September 19, 2012

In a case of first impression, a federal judge in Pennsylvania shifted the costs of e-discovery to the plaintiffs in a putative class action before deciding the issue of class certification. Addressing concerns of fairness to defendants in class actions, particularly given that the parties’ respective discovery burdens are “asymmetrical,” the Court held that the plaintiffs should bear the costs arising from their extensive discovery requests. The Court also considered the role of plaintiffs’ counsel as a participant in the process, noting that the plaintiffs are represented by a “very successful and well regarded” class action law firm and reasoning that if the plaintiffs “have confidence in their contention that the Court should certify the class, then plaintiffs and their lawyers should have no objection to making an investment.” Boeynaems v. LA Fitness Int’l, LLC.

Department Co-Chair, Russell Bershad, to Speak at the 11th Annual RealShare New Jersey Conference

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On September 18, 2012

Russell Bershad, Co-Chair of the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a featured panelist at the 11th Annual RealShare New Jersey Conference taking place on Wednesday, September 19, in New Brunswick, NJ. This year’s RealShare New Jersey Conference brings together industry leaders who will provide insight into the latest trends within the commercial real estate market.

Between A Rock and Hard Place: Twitter’s Back Now Against The Wall In Harris Case

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On September 17, 2012

That didn’t take long. A panel of the Appellate Division, First Department in People of the State of New York v. Harris, Index No. 080152/2011 has denied Twitter’s motion for a stay of enforcement of the Trial Court’s order requiring the production of Mr. Harris’s tweets. On Tuesday September 11, the Trial Court warned Twitter during a hearing on the District Attorney’s motion to hold Twitter in contempt that Twitter must produce the information in question by Friday September 14 or face a finding of contempt. Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Sciarrino further warned that he would review Twitter’s most recent quarterly financial statements in determining the appropriate financial penalty if Twitter does not obey the order. Denial of the stay and the Trial Court’s expected insistence on compliance puts Twitter in a difficult position as production of the tweets will effectively moot their appeal of Judge Sciarrino’s order. Twitter’s next move should be interesting. We will continue to keep you apprised.

EEOC v. United Airlines, Part II — Denying a Disabled Employee’s Request to Fill a Vacant Position as an Accommodation Because More Qualified Candidates are Available Remains Problematic Under the ADA

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Disability

On September 12, 2012

Four months ago we reported on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upholding United Airlines’ position in a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that United did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by its policy of filling vacant positions with the most qualified candidate even though another employee, unable to perform his own job because of a disability, had applied for the vacant position as a reasonable accommodation. The three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit that issued that decision has now vacated its opinion and has decided the case in favor of the EEOC. The panel’s reversal of its position is not that surprising. The panel originally ruled in favor of United because it felt bound by a Seventh Circuit ruling in a similar case decided in 2000, EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling. The panel, however, questioned that earlier decision in light of the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett and thus recommended that the issue be considered by the court en banc (i.e. by the entire membership of the Seventh Circuit). The EEOC promptly moved for reconsideration en banc. Each member of the court expressed the view that EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling should be overruled and, in lieu of formally rehearing the case en banc, simply directed the original panel to vacate its decision and issue a new opinion.

Crucial Issues in Investigations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Discrimination

On September 12, 2012

Does your company conduct internal investigations? If so, you should be asking yourself these four crucial questions: Is the right person conducting the investigation? Is the investigation thorough? Is it taking too long? Is the company following through? Click here to read more about these important internal investigation concerns in an article recently written by Kelly Ann Bird and published by The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.