West Virginia Over Louisville, Really?

We are back to blogging! And to bring excitement to it, it is time to discuss the error made by the Big 12 Conference.

Apple & ATT Might Have Some Big Problems Out in California...

A federal judge has allowed a lawsuit against Apple and AT&T to go forward as a class action.

Women Fight Over Gary Coleman's Estate--Watchu Talkin Bout?

Child-hood actor Gary Coleman died last month.  Most people know/assume Coleman was broke when he died. And perhaps he was.  Coleman was picked up as the sponsor for Cash Call (a questionable loan company), after he called them to get a loan.

But here's what's happening now.  Coleman's original will was written in 1999, about eight years before he married Shannon Price.  Coleman met  Price on the set of the movie "Church Ball." The couple married in 2007 and divorced in 2008, according to Coleman's attorney, Randy Kester. Kester says the two had an on-again, off-again relationship. Price was still living in the marital home when Coleman suffered his fatal fall and asked asked the Utah courts to determine the two had a common law marriage.

Coleman's Utah lawyer probated the 1999 will; however, a second will dated February 2, 2005 was discoverd andwas filed in a Provo, Utah court; the second will names Anna Gray as the executor and beneficiary of his entire estate.  Gray was the CEO of an undisclosed company formed by Coleman several years ago and reportedly lived with Coleman until his marriage to Price.

But not so fast, Price has come forward will a third hand-written 2007will that Price claims leaves his estate solely to her

So, if Coleman was broke, why are two women fighting over who will control his estate?

The simple and morbid truth is that Coleman's identity may be more valuable after his death than while he was alive. 

Shorty after Michael Jackson's passing I wrote about why his earning power would likely increase after his death.  And I was correct.  On March 15, 2010, his estate signed the biggest record deal in history, $250 million.

Every year Forbes Magazine compiles a list of the richest dead celebrities.  Here is the 2009 list:

Who Owns March Madness and the Sweet Sixteen? Hint, Kentucky and Illinois have something to say about it!

Its that time of year again, when everyone's minds turns to March Madness and who's in and whose not. Hans explains some things you may not know about the Big Dance.

Will Advertisers Sue Tiger Woods...

So, everyone is talking about Tiger Woods, his marriage, and his relationships with other women.  But, what very few people seem to be talking about is his lucrative endorsements and whether any of them will drop him, or worse, sue him based on the tarnishment of his image.
As a business litigation attorney, I can't help but think about all of the potential claims  companies may have against Tiger (even Saturday Night Live got in on the joke this weekend).  While some endorsement contratcs may have morals clauses, others may not; however, that doesn't mean they can't still get out of those contracts.  I think a strong argument can be made that Tiger's announcement today that he is taking an "indefinite" leave from the game of golf, coupled with the image problem created by his "infidelity" makes for a strong argument that there has been a material change in the relationship that should justify a novation of the contracts at the very least.  A really smart lawyer (since even this Louisville lawyer can figure this one out) can argue that the sponsors business may actually be damaged by being associated with Tiger and, as a result, they may be entitled to a refund. 

Hans

ps At the time I am writing this, it appears Gillette is backing away from Tiger.

Judge Orders Microsoft to Stop All US Sales of Word

I handle business litigation and disputes in and around Louisville, Kentucky for small businesses--I represent the little guy and I always root for the little guy taking on the big guy.  And here is a case where you can really root for the little guy. 

In a David v Goliath showdown, it appears round one goes to David.  In what has become a very interesting intellectual property dispute, tiny software manufacturer Toronto-based i4i, which has 30 employees, claims that Microsoft violated an obscure patent related to Extensible Markup Language or XML. It's a key software component of many websites and
computer programs, including Word. 
Tuesday, Texas Federal District Court Judge Leonard Davis agreed with i4i and entered an order fining the software giant Microsoft $290 million and ordering them to stop selling Word in the United States.
Judge Davis' ruling came following a jury verdict that found that Microsoft had infringed on i4i's 1998 patent.  The jury awarded $200 million and Judge Leonard Judge Davis ruled that Microsoft should pay i4i an additional $40 million for its willful infringement of the i4i patent. Microsoft also was ordered to pay slightly more than $37 million in prejudgment interest, including an additional $21,102 per day until a final judgment is reached in the case. The court also ordered Microsoft to pay $144,060 per day until the date of final judgment for post-verdict damages.

i4i was represented by the national business litigation firm McKool Smith. 


hans

The Case of the Exorbitantly Expensive Emeralds...

As a Louisville attorney that has handled a number of high dollar breach of contract cases, I followed with interest the highly publicized case of a local Louisville jeweler that was being sued by the Brown-Forman heirs for allegedly selling
According to Jason Riley of the Courier-Journal, "Louisville jeweler Jim Jackson does not have to refund $800,000 to the family of former Brown-Forman Corp. chairman Robinson S. Brown Jr. for a necklace he sold Brown in 2005. 

Was Your Credit Card Information Stolen...

If you live in or around Louisville, Kentucky, you may have noticed a small blurb in the Courier-Journal about a local Jeffersonville, Indiana company called Heartland Payment Systems.  It appeared on inaguration day, so I don't blame you if you missed it; however, it is a BIG STORY.... regardless of how little media attention it received.
Heartland Payment Systems, based in New Jersey, processes 100 million credit card transactions per month in its processing center in Jeffersonville, Indiana.  And therein lies the problem.  Heartland President Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr said the company found evidence last week that their had been an electronic "intrusion" occuring for the last several months.  Baldwin indicated that both credit-card names and numbers were exposed.
ComputerWorld has a detailed article outlining how this data breach, which may be the largest in history by surpassing the TJX case, has sparked concerns in the industry over how to keep information safe and secure.
The Poppe Law Firm is local counsel in the Countrywide data breach litigation currently pending before an MDL in the Western District of Kentucky.  The Poppe Law Firm is also attempting to assist individuals that have received notification that their credit or debit card information was accessed by virtue of the Heartland Payment Systems security breach.  Please feel free to contact our office. 502-895-3400
hans

Louisville Based Yum! Ordered to Pay $42 Million Dollar Verdict over Taco Bell Chihuahua Dog.

"A federal appeals court Friday ruled that Taco Bell is solely liable for $42 million in breach-of-contract awards to two Michigan men who created the diminutive mascot that starred in the Irvine fast-food giant's hit $500-million advertising campaign in the 1990s."  LA Times article here.

The business litigation dispute began in 1998 when Joseph Shields and Thomas Rinks of Grand Rapids, Mich., filed suit against Taco Bell, which is owned by Louisville based Yum! brands, alleging breach of contract.

Shields and Rink were in talks with Taco Bell advertising agents to adapt a Chihuahua for TV spots when, the men claimed in their lawsuit, Taco Bell took the idea to another ad agency, TBWA\Chiat\Day.

In 2003 a Michigan federal jury ordered Taco bell to pay $30 million for breach of contract and the federal judge tacked on nearly $12 million in interest.  This prompted Taco Bell to turn around and sue TBWA claiming the ad company was responsible for using the disputed content.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of TBWA by ruling that Taco Bell, and not TBWA, was responsible for the wrongful use of the Chihuahua.

It is unclear at this point whether Taco Bell/Yum! brands will appeal.  Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP, a large Michigan law firm, represented Rinks and Shields. 
Hans
ps. Gidget was the name of the Taco Bell Chihuahua.  The popular ads stopped running in 2000 freeing Gidget for further big- and small-screen fame, with roles in "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde" and Geico insurance ads. She also appeared on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," during which she was given a choice between a Taco Bell chalupa and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Countrywide Data Breach Litigation

Last year one of the largest data breaches in history was discovered when a former Countrywide employee was arrested Aug. 1 and charged with illegally accessing the firm’s computers for more than two years.  The information was being sold to mortgage brokers to be used as sales leads, federal authorities said in August. In an attempt to appease its customers, Countrywide offered security monitoring services; however they sent the notifications in what appeared to be junk mail envelopes and many customers probably threw them awasy.  Countrywide also failed to notify its customers that it actually has an ownership interest in the security monitoring company.
The data breach led to multiple lawsuits against Countrywide and related entities in several different states and federal jurisdcitions. 
Eventually, all of the lawsuits were consolidated into an MDL  which was assigned by the head of the MDL litigation panel, Judge John Heyburn,  to the Western District of Kentucky, Judge Thomas Russell.

We are local counsel for several of the out of state law firms.  For more information, please contact us.

Hans

How Some Madoff Investors May Recover Their Losses

“Madoff did not pass due diligence for many European hedge fund companies,” Mr. Indjic said. “Experienced people know there are many ways to provide the kind of return stream offered by Madoff, almost like a bank account, and one of them is a Ponzi scheme.”  Source: NY Times December 16, 2008.

By now, anyone with even passing knowledge of the stock market has shaken their head in disbelief that Bernard Madoff, the former chairman of the NASDAQ, could have pulled off the largest Ponzi scheme of all time.

While many of his private investors will likely never recover anything, some "lucky" investors that invested through a financial institution or mutual fund may be able to seek recovery from the broker dealer or investment house that placed them in the investment.  That's because it appears that anyone doing any "due diligence" would have learned that Madoff's numbers simply didn't add up.  According to the Times,  "In early 2003, as word of Bernard L. Madoff’s apparent Midas touch spread among affluent Europeans and money managers, a team from Société Générale’s investment bank here was sent to New York to perform some routine due diligence.  BNP Paribas has nearly $500 million in exposure to the Madoff firm. Its banking unit posted a $1.4 billion loss on Tuesday. What it found that March was hardly routine: Mr. Madoff’s numbers simply did not add up. Société Générale immediately put Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities on its internal blacklist, forbidding its investment bank from doing business with him, and also strongly discouraging wealthy clients at its private bank from his investments.The red flags at Mr. Madoff’s firm were so obvious, said one banker with direct knowledge of the case, that Société Générale “didn’t hesitate. It was very strange.”
(earlier this year, Societe Generale lost $7.1 billion due to a rouge employee investing in derivatives.  I majored in finance and still don't understand derivatives...ever hear of the Black Scholes pricing model?  It's more complicated, and about as useful, as Latin.)
Anyway, the investors that bought through a fund or private client group, bank or other financial institution may be able to recover from those instutions for their failure to do the type of investigation that Societe Generale did back in 2003. 
I predict a bumpy ride for Wall Street.

Hans

Why Corporations and Small Businesses Shouldn't Pay Lawyers by the Hour...

I have to admit that in Louisville, I'm probably a rare breed.  I handle business litigation cases on a contingency fee basis (or a hybrid hourly-contingency basis depending on what the client wants).  I am a firm believer in the contingency system because it provides the most incentive for the lawyer to do the best job possible for the client without expending needless resources simply because the lawyer is paid by the hour. 
I recently ran across the following article , expressing much better than I can, several reasons why corporations and small businesses should incorporate contingency fee contracts in their cases, regardless of how large they potential recovery may be.

hans

How Bad Is Duke Football.....

Duke University football is so bad that they can breach a contract to play the University of Louisville and not have to pay damages to Louisville.  How is that?  Well, the contract contained a damage provision that entitled UofL to $150,000 for each of the three games that Duke refused to play following the 2003 season.  That was the Large Print; but the small print said Louisville was only entitled to damages if they could not find a team of equal caliber to replace Duke.  Therein lies the Devil (pardon the pun) in the details.  Duke's lawyers argued that the Blue Devils' performance on the field was so poor that any Division I team would suffice as a replacement. Duke is 6-45 over the past five years, 13-90 since 1999.

Judge Phillip J. Shepherd of the Franklin County (Ky.) Circuit Court agreed, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"At oral argument, Duke [with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty] persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower," Shepherd wrote in a summary judgment issued Thursday, according to the paper. "Duke's argument on this point cannot be reasonably disputed by Louisville."

Thanks to Dean Chen of the University of Louisville School of Law for pointing this interesting legal story out in his blog

Hans

 

Follow Up: Just How Bad is Duke Football

In a follow-up to a blog post I did earlier about the contract dispute between Duke University and the University of Louisville, my friend James Cole sent me the following video link of Duke's attorney.  Here, she explains why Duke should not be forced to pay Louisville for breaching its contract to play Louisville in football.  Enjoy and GO CARDS!

hans