Philadelphia Trial Lawyer Max Kennerly : Business and Commercial Litigation : Civil Attorney : The Beasley Firm : Philadelphia Pennsylvania

In theory, Pennsylvania recognizes a duty in every contract for both parties to act with the utmost good faith and to engage only in fair dealing with one another.

In practice, these claims rarely succeed, like a week ago in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania law recognizes an independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing only in "very limited circumstances," such as insureds' dealings with insurers and franchisees' dealings with franchisees. Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 78, 91 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Creeger Brick and Building Supply, Inc. v. Mid-State Bank and Trust Co., 560 A.2d 151, 153-53 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989). In Northview Motors, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit predicted that Pennsylvania courts would limit the application of claims for breach of the covenant to situations where they were "essential" and would not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the covenant where the parties had entered into a detailed contract setting forth their obligations and rights. Id.; see also McHale v. NuEnergy Group, 2002 WL 321797 at *8 (E.D. Pa. February 27, 2002) (finding that "Pennsylvania law would not recognize a claim for breach of [the] covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent cause of action" where the allegations underlying the breach of covenant claims are "essentially the same" as those underlying the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract).

The Court similarly finds that Pennsylvania would not recognize an independent claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in this case. As in Northview Motors, the parties here entered into a detailed contract setting forth their rights and obligations with respect to the purchase of the property at issue. The facts that Sentry Paint alleges give rise to its claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing are the same as those that form the basis for its breach of contract claims. Under these circumstances, Sentry Paint's breach of covenant claims are subsumed in its breach of contract claims and cannot be maintained as a separate cause of action. Fn 20:

Fn 20: In support of its separate cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Sentry Paint cites to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Birth Center v. St. Paul Co., 787 A.2d 376 (Pa. 2001) and the decision of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas in Harlan v. Erie Ins. Group, 2006 WL 1374502 (Lawrence Co. CCP February 16, 2006). Both Birth Center and Harlan involved contractual bad faith claims by an insured against an insurer, one of the "limited circumstances" in which Pennsylvania recognizes an independent cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Neither case supports recognizing an independent cause of action here in an action involving an arms-length purchase of property.

Sentry Paint Techs. v. Topth (EDPa, October 31, 2008, McLaughlin, J.).

C'est la vie. Hard to know what their damages would be anyway in this case, if not damages arising out of a breach of the explicit terms of the contract. To me, outside of those quasi-fiduciary situations described above, the "good faith and fair dealing" seemed like a catch-all where it was hard to prove exactly what the breach was, except for a bad faith failure to perform.

But don't despair, business plaintiff trial lawyers — this case was at summary judgment, so you can even use it in support of alleging the claim in your complaint when they file a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you've ever done business or commercial litigation, you've done tortious interference with contractual / business relations. It's alleged virtually every time a party switches suppliers or customers, and virtually every time the lawsuit involves more than two parties.

But did you know you can claim non-pecuniary damages (so long as you have some economic damages) and get an injunction  before the damage occurs?

From the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

The damages element of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations (the fourth element) requires a plaintiff to prove that the alleged interference has caused an actual pecuniary loss, the benefits of which flowed from the contract itself. Although an actual pecuniary loss must be established, non-pecuniary harms are also recoverable under this tort. Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228, 1239 (Pa.Super. 1998); Perry v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22406, 2007 WL 954129, at *10 (E.D.Pa. March 27, 2007)(McLaughlin, J.).

Moreover, the actual pecuniary loss requirement does not defeat actions for tortious interference with contractual relations, such as this one, which seek to enjoin the interfering conduct before it is successful. In Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein, 482 Pa. 416, 436 n.21, 393 A.2d 1175, 1185 n.21 (1978), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania specifically held that notwithstanding the actual pecuniary loss requirement, "[i]t  is well settled that equity will act to prevent unjustified interference with contractual relations." See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, comment u.

Similarly, in affirming the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a case based upon tortious interference with contractual relations and trespass claims, the Third Circuit recognized that injunctive relief may be appropriate before an actual pecuniary loss is sustained. In this regard, the Third Circuit held that a preliminary injunction may issue where the claimant has demonstrated that there is a "presently existing actual threat of injury". Ride the Ducks of Philadelphia, LLC v. Duck Boat Tours, Inc., 138 Fed.Appx. 431, 434 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corporation, 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)).

Hospitality Assocs. of Lancaster, L.P. v. Lancaster Land Development, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76772 (September 20, 3008, Gardner, J.).

Shiner v. Moriarty, cited above, quotes Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa. Super. 71, 588 A.2d 36 (Pa.Super. 1991), for the damage element of the tort involving "the loss of the benefits of the contract or prospective relation or consequential, emotional or reputational losses resulting from the defendant's conduct."

Did you plead all that last time? If not, perhaps you should consider amending...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The plain meaning rule is to litigators what hammers are to contractors. It may be easy to use, but since you're going to use it on every job, you need to get good with it.

When interpreting a statute, rule, regulation, contract, or other legal document, courts first look to the plain meaning of the language in the document itself. If the language is unambiguous, then that plain meaning will be applied, regardless of any external factors or policy interpretations.

The bailout bill added the following to Section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)) [the bolded language is the most relevant here]:

(11) UNENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS. No provision contained in any existing or future standstill, confidentiality, or other agreement that, directly or indirectly

"(A) affects, restricts, or limits the ability of any person to offer to acquire or acquire,

"(B) prohibits any person from offering to acquire or acquiring, or

"(C) prohibits any person from using any previously disclosed information in connection with any such offer to acquire or acquisition of,

all or part of any insured depository institution, including any liabilities, assets, or interest therein, in connection with any transaction in which the Corporation exercises its authority under section 11 or 13, shall be enforceable against or impose any liability on such person, as such enforcement or liability shall be contrary to public policy.

Assume Citigroup has an "agreement"  with Wachovia, an "insured depository instutition," that contains a "provision" that "directly... limits the ability of any person to offer to acquire or acquire" Wachovia. Then Wells Fargo comes in and acquires Wachovia.

Citigroup sues for damages. What result?

There is no law whatsoever interpreting the above language. Thus, Wachovia offered a restrained 15 pages explaining how the above is so unambiguous it needs no further argument, while Citigroup filed a downright svelte 7 pages of argument as to how the statute reflectled a precisely contrary unambiguous meaning. (Both briefs are available at the WSJ Law Blog).

I believe Congress did not mean what it wrote, and that the Court will ignore the "plain meaning" rule to get at what Congress probably did mean.

Citigroup has a very strong argument that 126(c) limits enforceability and liability only of the "person" described immediately above, which would be the acquirer (Wells Fargo), and not the institution (Wachovia). If Congress, say, wanted to void the provision entirely, they could have do so by writing:

Any provision in an agreement that purports to limit the ability of a person to acquire, or to offer to acquire, all or part of any insured depository institution is hereby declared void.

In that case, the provision would have been blown up, eliminating all liability. It's not like Congress didn't know how to "void" an agreement. Here's what happens if a shifty promoter tries to skirt securities exchange regulations protecting investors, as per 15 USCS § 78cc:

(a) Waiver provisions. Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this title [15 USCS §§ 78a et seq.] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of an exchange required thereby shall be void.

Blammo! The "provision ... shall be void."

And here's what happens when a Member of Congress tries to make a deal with the United States or its agencies, as per 18 USCS § 431:

Whoever, being a Member of or Delegate to Congress, or a Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any other person in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertakes, executes, holds, or enjoys, in whole or in part, any contract or agreement, made or entered into in behalf of the United States or any agency thereof, by any officer or person authorized to make contracts on its behalf, shall be fined under this title.
 
All contracts or agreements made in violation of this section shall be void; and whenever any sum of money is advanced by the United States or any agency thereof, in consideration of any such contract or agreement, it shall forthwith be repaid; and in case of failure or refusal to repay the same when demanded by the proper officer of the department or agency under whose authority such contract or agreement shall have been made or entered into, suit shall at once be brought against the person so failing or refusing and his sureties for the recovery of the money so advanced.

Wham! "All ... agreements ... shall be void."

Here, however, in 126(c), Congress didn't do that. They gave us a long, detailed description of a "provision" they thought should not "be enforceable against or impose liability on such person," a "person" they specifically described above as one who was attempting to acquire or actually acquiring an institution.

Congress knew how to "void" an unwanted provision of an agreement and chose not to do so here. That weighs heavily in Citigroup's favor.

But there's a problem: how would an agreement between Citigroup and Wachovia ever "be enforceable" or "impose [ ] liability" on Wells Fargo? 

Wells Fargo is a third-party to the agreement between Citigroup and Wachovia. The agreement creates much that can be enforced against, and which imposes liability on, Wachovia, because it is a party to the agreement. Wells Fargo, though, is not bound at all by the agreement.

That's not to say Wells Fargo is without liability. The claim here is simple: Citigroup is suing Wachovia for breach of contract and Wells Fargo for tortious interference with contractual relations. That's it; Citigroup's claim against Wells Fargo arises as a matter of tort, not as a matter of contract.

Citigroup thus has not and cannot allege that Wells Fargo somehow breached an agreement with Citigroup, since there isn't one.

So here's our problem: if you read the the statute literally, the plain meaning destroys a type of "enforceability" and "liability" that rarely, if ever, exists. Not unless the acquirer had some type of non-competition agreement with a second company not to attempt to acquire a third-party institution, which is not the case here. Frankly, such an agreement — e.g., Wells Fargo agreeing with Citigroup not to acquire Wachovia — would likely invite an antitrust inquiry, not to mention a very upset Hank Paulson asking why they're trying to deep freeze an already frozen market.

So 126(c) is like a law excusing me from enforcement or liability arising from the agreement you have with your phone company. I was never obligated to follow that agreement in the first place.

So, now what? Here is where I suspect the plain meaning rule will fail, and the court will disregard an unambiguous meaning to reach the result it believes Congress intended.

As described above, I think the "plain meaning" interpretation of the section is clear: any agreement in which a potential acquiring company has agreed not to acquire an FDIC-institution is unenforceable. That's not the situation in the Citigroup versus Wells Fargo case (since Wells Fargo was not party to any such agreement), and so the statute is wholly inapplicable. Period. The suit goes forward against both Wells Fargo and Wachovia.

But that is probably not what will happen. 126(c) was obviously intended to apply to this deal specifically, hence the "in connection with any transaction in which the Corporation exercises its authority under section 11 or 13," which describes the FDIC-approved Citigroup/Wachovia deal. As such, I predict the court will read this statute as an attempt by Congress to protect Wells Fargo from liability arising from that agreement, even if the "plain meaning" would seem only to apply if Wells Fargo itself signed on to that agreement.

Wachovia, however, has a much longer road ahead. I think it's fatal to their defense that Congress didn't just up and void the whole agreement.

Given how Congress works, maybe the above really is what they intended: Wells Fargo gets Wachovia, but in the process they have to pay Citigroup's damages. Indeed, Citigroup's "negotiated" agreement to withdraw the request for injunctive relief suggests to me that's precisely the compromise, likely entered into with Federal, shall we say, persuasion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you've been following the multi-billion-dollar fight going on for Wachovia (Scribd copy of the Exclusivity Agreement at issue here, courtesy of Dealbook), you may have noticed the following:

In the Sunday night ruling, the Appellate Division of [New York] State Supreme Court threw out an order by Justice Charles Ramos issued late Saturday at the request of Citigroup; the order would have extended the time under which Wachovia and Citigroup had to complete their deal.

Citigroup, which announced on Sept. 29 that it had received federal government backing to acquire the banking assets of Wachovia Corp. for $2.1 billion, or the equivalent of about $1 a share, said it would appeal the decision.

The fight was also waged in federal court, where Wachovia asked U.S. District Judge John Koeltl to declare invalid part of the Citigroup deal that would have restricted Wachovia from considering competing bids.

Citigroup sued Wachovia and Wells Fargo in state court to enjoin them and order specific performance of the agreement, while Wachovia filed in federal court for a declaratory judgment affirming the enforceability of the Wells Fargo deal. The claims are analytically distinct, but factually exactly opposite: C wants to blow up WF's deal and enforce C's deal, while W & WF want to blow up C's deal and enforce W & WF's deal.

Now what?

Of course, the issue could have been partly resolved back when C and W reached their agreement by choosing a single court in which the agreement and its enforceability would be interpreted, but instead they went for the same boilerplate language you will find on almost all business contracts:

This agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York. The parties hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any state or federal courts sitting in New York City, Borough of Manhattan, over any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this letter agreement.

Why do businesses always consent to "state or federal" jurisdiction? Presumably, the advanages of one over the other are apparent at the time of the signing, so it would make sense to pick one or the other. "Flexibility" doesn't make sense as an explanation — you just end up with the situation we have here.

One would think the problem of simultaneous federal and state suits would have been addressed by the Constitution itself, but it's wholly silent on the issue. The answer arises from the Anti-Injunction Act of 1793, which in its current form reads:

A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.

The Act has teeth: unless one of the statutory exceptions applies, a federal injunction restraining prosecution of a lawsuit in state court is absolutely prohibited. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 228-29, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705, 92 S. Ct. 2151 (1972). Moreover, "The mere existence of a parallel action in state court does not rise to the level of interference with federal jurisdiction necessary to permit injunctive relief under the 'necessary in aid of' exception." Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir., 1987).

Thus, the federal court cannot stop the state court even if it wanted to, nor can the state court stop the federal court.

So what happens? Usually, one of them voluntarily bows out.

In Pennsylvania, the challenge of a "prior pending action" falls under the general rubric of lis pendens, requiring the challenger establish the following three prongs:

A plea of former suit pending must allege that the case is the same, the parties the same, and the rights asserted and the relief prayed for the same...

Hillgartner v. Port Auth., 936 A.2d 131 (Pa. Commw. Ct., 2007). In Hillgartner, the state court pulled out in light of a parallel federal court action "because the first action in federal court includes and therefore adequately protects all Plaintiffs' state claims for compensatory and punitive damages. Thus, Plaintiffs seek the same amount of money damages measured in the same way in both federal and state courts ..."

On the flip side, Federal courts will frequently decline to exercise jurisdiction over primarily state law questions (like the interpretation of contracts), which is what everyone expects to happen here, hence Wachovia's novel "federal" argument:

Wells and Wachovia went to federal court to argue that a provision in the new $700 billion Economic Stabilization Act, signed into law on Friday, made the dispute a federal matter. Last night, U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koetl gave lawyers until tomorrow to file briefs. According to Tulane law prof Elizabeth Nowicki, who reached out to us yesterday, Wachovia is arguing that, under federal law, Section 126(c) of the bailout bill voids the exclusivity agreement between itself and Citi, meaning that that Wachovia is free to negotiate with any entity it pleases. While Judge Koetl is apparently willing to entertain that argument, Professor Nowicki tells us she thinks the argument is a non-starter.

You can read more about Section 126(c) at the link above, then you can pause to marvel how the Senate passed a bill specifically addressing this exclusivity deal fewer than 48 hours after it was reached, in spite of Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Constituion, which prohibits laws impairing the obligations of contracts. Now that's what I call lobbying power.

At the end of the day, there's more than enough leeway in the law for both courts to keep going simultaneously, engaging in the dreaded and unseemly 'race to judgment.' My bet is that the Federal court will either bow out or drag its feet as a lesson to those who would try to make a federal case out of their humdrum multibillion-dollar contracts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

This isn't a political post, at least not intentionally.

The Wall Street Journal on Saturday carried a story about the legal troubles of the Wasilla sports complex which was built under Sarah Palin's watch (the story isn't new, see these links). It gives us a good window into the two main types of "legal advice" a lawyer can give to an organization or business -- i.e., advice for avoiding certain legal risks and advice that weighs different possible legal outcomes -- and how organizations and businesses should respond to that advice. The story's been picked up as an example of poor executive judgment by Sarah Palin; it may be, but it's not that simple.

Short story: in the late 1990s Wasilla reached an agreement to buy a 145-acre lot for $126,000. The seller then went with another buyer, Wasilla sued, won initially, began construction, was reversed, and had to eminent domain the most important 80 acres. At the end of the day, Wasilla paid $250,000 in legal fees and was ordered by an arbitrator to pay $836,378, plus $336,000 in interest, for the land.

Since all land is unique, failed-and-repurchased real estate deals rarely fail for a fraction of the original price. They fail for a multiple of the original price. So it's not surprising that, once the deal failed the first time, Wasilla ended up getting a little over half of what they "bought" for ten times the price they negotiated. Lawyers and real estate brokers know that happens.

In essence, two things went wrong for Wasilla:

• Wasilla never finalized the initial deal;
• Wasilla relied on a federal district judge's order in 2001 in their favor, which was later reversed.

The former is a classic example of an avoidable legal risk. When lawyers study for the bar exam, few things are pounded in their heads so forcefully as the need to follow precisely the requirements for the transfer of real estate. For example, the failure to 'record' a real estate purchase typically voids the putative buyer's title. It's that serious.

So it's a bit surprising to see this paragraph:

City officials negotiated a price of $126,000. Months passed without the city's securing a signed purchase agreement, according to the city's attorney, Tom Klinkner of Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot.

An oral agreement to purchase real estate is unenforceable, barred by the statute of frauds every state, including Alaska. Little wonder the seller (the Nature Conservancy) thought it could sell it to another buyer, and the buyer thought they could buy it.

The real question is: who let a fully negotiated real estate deal sit around? Did their lawyer fail to tell them they had to get moving if they wanted to make it enforceable? Did the city sit on its hands, perhaps fretting about tendering the cash? Someone dropped the ball; it's that simple.

After Wasilla sued to enforce their unenforceable deal, I haven't the foggiest clue how they convinced the Federal District Court Judge to rule anything in their favor, but apparently they did.

Which brings us to the latter, which was likely either a failure of the lawyer to weigh the legal risks appropriately or a failure of the executive to appreciate the consequences of those legal risks once presented to her. After the order in Wasilla's favor,

Ms. Palin marched ahead, making the public case for a sales-tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center, which was to feature a running track, basketball courts and a hockey rink. At the time, the city's annual budget was about $20 million. In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build.

Not necessarily the wrong decision. They had an order in hand, plus unlimited eminent domain power if something went wrong. If they wanted the land, they were going to be able to get it, the question was just how much they would pay (including legal fees) and how long until the ordeal was over.

But recall the circumstance -- a failed real estate deal -- in which the eventual price may need to be many multiples of the original deal. Those numbers aren't insignificant in this context, and they had the capability to explode into a significant fraction of the city's budget. Order or not, both the lawyer and the city should have been concerned.

"[T]he city believed it would prevail ..." I haven't seen the briefs or the order, so I have to speculate. Wasilla had prevailed in the first instance, which itself makes it reasonable to think it could hold up on appeal.

But a lawyer is held to a higher standard than what could be reasonable; they're hired not to make plausible judgments, but to make sound ones. Did the lawyer not advise the city of the high odds of reversal of their enforcement of an oral real estate agreement? Did the city ignore that advice and then not bother with less risky/costly solutions, like settling with the other buyer before committing $14 million to that lot?

Maybe the City was advised of, and considered, the risk of reversal followed by an expensive eminent domain process, and charged through anyway, firing up the bond issue, construction, et cetera. That's not necessarily a bad decision, though it may be rash given the numbers involved.

At the end of the day, I just can't help but think that at least one, and possibly two or more major mistakes in judgment were made in this whole endeavor.

Someone let the initial purchase agreement lapse, as simple and plain an error as ever was. It wasn't even a bad judgment call; it was a failure to minimize an obvious legal risk.

Then someone didn't properly weigh the risks of the litigation, a more subtle, but here more costly, error.

There's a distinction between "weighing the risk of litigation" and "predicting the outcome." No one can do the latter, nor should they try. The former, though, must be done, and it involves two separate exercises of judgment: the legal judgment of the lawyer in determining the possible outcomes and their likelihood, and the business / administrative judgment of the city in assessing the effect of those outcomes on the city and the best course in context.

One of those two was missing here. Which one?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An interesting aside from Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 533 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2008), a complex business dispute discussed in my prior post.

Here's the deposition testimony given by a Visa corporate representative, on which the Third Circuit relied in reversing summary judgment in favor of the Acquirer:

Q: [by Acquirer's counsel] Is it fair to say that the operating regulations are not intended to benefit a single group of participants, but the Visa payment system as a whole?

Objection. Leading.

A: [by Visa rep] It's fair to say that the core purpose of the operating regulations is to set up the conditions for participation in the system, to set up rules and standards that apply to that ultimately for the benefit of the Visa payment system, the members that participate in it and other stakeholders such as cardholders, merchants and others who may participate in the system as well. (emphasis added).

Q: They may have some incidental benefit; is that correct?

Objection

Leading, and calls for a legal conclusion.

A: The bylaws and operating regulations, by their terms, apply only to members. So to the extent you mean they might have benefits beyond the rules that apply to other stakeholders, that's correct. They're not directly parties to these rules. (emphasis added)

Stop for one second and consider: these questions were asked by the Acquirer's counsel. They were blatantly leading ("is it fair to say") and tried to get legal conclusions ("incidental benefit"), resulting in the Visa corporate representative rejecting their argument, providing fodder for the Third Circuit to overturn their summary judgment.

I don't mean to question the tactical decisions of the Acquirer's lawyers. Indeed, given the absence of other deposition excerpts in support of the Issuer's argument, there seems to have been a reasonable basis for the Acquirer's lawyer to think the Visa corporate representative was going to give them exactly what they wanted to hear.

But the representative did not, and instead gave the appellate court grounds to overturn summary judgment when, as mentioned above, it appears there was little other testimony favorable to the Issuer.

Just something to keep in mind: as tempting as the coup de grace may be, it rarely works as planned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Courtesy of the complicated mess that is Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 533 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2008), in which credit card "Issuers" sued credit card "Acquirers" and "Merchants" (Acquirers are the companies that process transactions for the Merchants) after a bunch of credit card numbers were stolen from the Merchant.

The big issue is: are Issuers intended beneficiaries of the Merchant and Acquirer's agreement with the Visa network, which includes a number of anti-fraud regulations that the Merchant and Acquirer allegedly didn't follow?

Historically, under Pennsylvania law, "in order for a third party beneficiary to have standing to recover on a contract, both contracting parties must have expressed an intention that the third-party be a beneficiary, and that intention must have affirmatively appeared in the contract itself." Scarpitti v. Weborg, 530 Pa. 366, 609 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa. 1992) (citation omitted). Sovereign appropriately concedes that it is not an express third-party beneficiary of the Visa-Fifth Third Member Agreement. However, in Scarpitti, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted § 302 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Id. That provision allows an "intended beneficiary" to recover for breach of contract even though the actual parties to the contract did not express an intent to benefit the third party. Section 302 provides as follows:

Intended and Incidental Beneficiaries

 (1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the intentions of the parties and either

(a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or

(b) the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.

(2) An incidental beneficiary is a beneficiary who is not an intended beneficiary.

Got all that? Summary judgment reversed, based upon a memorandum and deposition testimony indicating that the regulations were for the benefit of all the members, as discussed in the next post.

Update: for some reason, movable type ate most of my post, which has been corrected.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As mentioned yesterday, a jury awarded Mattel $100 million* for the Bratz infringement, one-twentieth of the $2 billion requested in their closing argument, just over three times the $30 million suggested by MGA (and which may be reduced to $40 million, discussed below).

* see end of post, damages are apparently only $20 million due to duplication on verdict sheet

What happened? Mattel misjudged the jury's outrage and overshot.

Here's the jury's breakdown:

The jury awarded damages of $20 million against MGA and $10 million against [MGA CEO] Larian in each of three causes of action, intentional interference with contractual relations, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of the duty of loyalty.

They also found that MGA owed Mattel $6 million for copyright infringement, while Larian owed $3 million in distributions he'd received from Bratz-related sales, and MGA Hong Kong owed $1 million.

Here is what each side claimed:

Quinn said MGA owed Mattel for the entire Bratz empire, amounting to at least $1 billion in Bratz profits and interest. Quinn argued that Larian, too, personally gained nearly $800 million in stock value and distributions flowing from the success of the dolls.

...

MGA attorneys countered that the jury should award Mattel as little as $30 million because the company had built the doll line's value with smart additions, branding and packaging.

(emphasis added) And here's a critical fact:

The four original dolls made just $4 million in profit their first year and comprised only 2.5% of MGA's entire Bratz revenue, said Raoul Kennedy, one of MGA's attorneys.

In the past seven years, MGA has built the popular brand to include more than 40 characters and expanded it with spin-offs such as Bratz Babyz, Bratz Petz, Bratz Boyz and items like helmets, backpacks and bedsheets.

(emphasis added) Recall that excellent Learned Hand quote unearthed by the Eleventh Circuit (and discussed in my post on the Watchmen lawsuit:

It must be obvious to every one familiar with equitable principles that it is inequitable for the owner of a copyright, with full notice of an intended infringement, to stand inactive while the proposed infringer spends large sums of money in its exploitation, and to intervene only when his speculation has proved a success. Delay under such circumstances allows the owner to speculate without risk with the other's money; he cannot possibly lose, and he may win.

I don't believe the Bratz trial addressed laches and the suit was somewhat timely filed from what I can tell, perhaps two years after the infringement was discovered. I doubt any of the jurors were familiar with Learned Hand, but the core idea is well-accepted in America: expanding upon others' ideas is a legitimate enterprize.

The jury essentially found that MGA was entitled to 95% of the Bratz empire's profits, despite accepting that:

• the original idea was wrongfully lifted from Mattel;
• MGA willfully interfered with Mattel's business;
• MGA aided and abetting in breaches of fiduciary duties;
• MGA aided and abetting in breaches of the duty of loyalty duties.

Despite that, the jury accepted MGA's proposed $30 million and then, perhaps as a deliberations compromise or perhaps in confusion, awarded it thrice. That alone presents a big problem for Mattel, as it's possible the judge will strike two of the three $30 million awards as duplicative, resulting in a $40 million final verdict.

After, say, a 40% gross contingency fee (which is probably on the high end, given the massive damages both Mattel and Quinn thought they could get, but which is common in commercial and business litigation) and costs, that would leave Mattel with about $20-24 million, or less than 5% of their annual profit. Yikes.

For MGA's greedy, unjustified, wrongful conduct, the jury awarded $0 in punitive damages and a fraction of the plaintiff's proposed compensatory damages. What the heck happened?

I'm not in a position to question the tactical decisions of Mattel's counsel, so I won't. With the benefit of hindsight, though, I believe Mattel dramatically overshot. It's indisputable that MGA did virtually all of the work and invested virtually all of the funds that made Bratz the success it is today. They didn't start the fire, but they gathered all the wood, they sheltered it from the rain, and they used it to kindle others. Yet, Mattel claimed it was entitled to everything, that for MGA's risk it should be granted all the reward.

There were three elements missing, at least two of which are essential for a large verdict:

1. fairness,
2. the absence of a windfall, and
3. outrage.

First, jurors try very hard to be fair. What Mattel proposed was not fair. Sure, Mattel may be entitled to it under the law, and it was unfair that their design was stolen. But it's just as unfair to all the people at MGA who didn't know they were working with stolen goods, and, indeed, it's unfair to the infringing parties themselves, since it denies their own contribution to the final work.

Second, jurors don't like to give money for nothing. Mattel proposed a windfall. Why should they get all the profits? Mattel did almost nothing to earn those profits, it just had some design sketchs stolen. Big whoop -- for that you get an entire empire that someone else built?

Third, If the jury had been outraged by MGA's conduct, "fairness" would have already been decided in the plaintiff's favor, and the windfall would have mattered less. But they weren't outraged; they thought it was an unjustified way to do business, but obviously not enough to warrant punishment.

And here's where I think Mattel made its biggest mistake: Mattel only asked for a number, while MGA gave them the tools to reach their own decision in a way that was favorable to MGA. How do I know the jury used MGA's tools? Look at the numbers they used, right out of MGA's closing: $30 million, around 2.5% of $1 billion in Bratz profit.

It can't be said enough: in closing arguments, arm your jurors with the arguments they need to prevail over the others in liability and the tools they need to reach your proposed award.

Either way, MGA is breathing a deep sign of relief today. And Mattel is digging deeply through the transcript to find something warranting a retrial.

UPDATE: MGA has been pushing heavily in the press that it's apparently undisputed the damages were overlapping, so the final sum really is just $20 million. Which means the jury took Mattel's damages instructions almost verbatim. I have cleaned up slightly (typo) and moved the old discussion of that issue below the fold, to keep around for posterity, and pasted the MGA press release.

OLD DISCUSSION

Indeed, it looks like the jury entered deliberations with barely any tools to work with, considering that the meaning of the verdict slip is already in dispute. The jury awarded exactly $30 million thrice on parallel claims. That doesn't make any sense: if the jury thought the damages were really $30 million, which they clearly did, but wanted to punish MGA, they had a punitive damages element readily available. If the jury thought $90 million was the damage, they likely would have apportioned it across the entites in relation to their involvement.

MGA PRESS RELEASE

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In light of the verdict in MGA Entertainment’s trial against Mattel, MGA today said that certain media reports regarding the damages awarded in the trial are inaccurate.

The jury awarded $20 million to Mattel in damages. Some media reports have incorrectly reported that Mattel was awarded $100 million.

MGA said that the jury made its award pursuant to a variety of legal claims, each based on the same damages theory, and subject to the Court's instruction not to be concerned about duplicative damages. MGA pointed out that during the trial Mattel even conceded that the damages it sought were overlapping and duplicative.

MGA further stated that it intends to appeal any amount of awarded damages at the end of the case.

“We are pleased to have this trial behind us,” said Isaac Larian, CEO of MGA Entertainment. “We can now concentrate all of our energies on what we do best - providing dolls and other toys that are the consumers’ first choice.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Interesting:

A federal jury in Riverside, Calif., just returned a $100 million verdict for Mattel, according to an early Reuters report, about $1.9 billion less than the company asked for. Quinn Emanuel’s John Quinn, who repped Mattel, asked the jury for $2 billion for stealing the conceptual drawings of the Bratz doll — at least $1 billion in Bratz profit and interest, and another nearly $800 million for the complicity of MGA’s CEO, Isaac Larian.

I say "interesting" because I doubt the $2 billion was pulled out of thin air. If you win liability, and get a real shot at serious damages, you try very hard not to overshoot and have the jury turn on you.

Maybe Quinn didn't follow the "don't kill the defendant" advice in asking for punitive damages, i.e. that juries will rarely award enough to destroy the defendant's business.

I wonder what drove that figure. Compromise on liability? Respect for the underdog, even where underhanded?

From what I know the infringement wasn't a complete and total slam dunk -- Bratz appeared to have substantially improved the design on its own. Maybe that was part of it.

We'll learn more over the next few days.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Victoria Pynchon at Settle It Now says she has spotted a settlement unicorn out in the wild. Indeed, she says she actually caught it and fully and finally released its to become the certified check it always wanted to be.

I dispute the taxonomy. What she caught was nice, but it was at most a narwhal. The case, a medical malpractice action, had already progressed through substantial discovery, including the plaintiff's deposition and, I presume, the written discovery, which usually happens before the major depositions. Moreover, there seems to be an element of res ipsa, too, as it was not just an unwanted scar after surgery but after plastic surgery, and the substantial focus paid to it by the lawyers and insurance adjuster suggests to me that the scar represented not only the damages but much of the breach of the standard of care as well.

Most importantly, the damages and ultimate settlement value did not appear to be substantially greater than the cost to the insurer of defending the case through trial.

Given how it was a scar case, with the plaintiff initially demanding $500,000 (and the insurer initially offering nuisance value), I would presume the case settled for $150-250,000 in an urban jurisdiction or $75-150,000 elsewhere. That's more than the cost of defending the case at trial, but not much more. Defending a simple plastic surgery malpractice case is probably between $75-125,000, including attorneys' fees and experts and costs. Could be less if they're lucky, could certainly be more.

Which brings me to the biggest question here: why did they agree to mediation? I think I know the answer. Given where they were in the litigation, the parties had not yet spent substantial sums on expert fees. The plaintiff's lawyer had had probably spent less than $5,000 on experts, depending on their relationship with the experts (some get the experts heavily involved from day one to help guide them, others are comfortable with their own knowledge up until discovery has been substantially completed). The defense expert fees were minimal, as the insurance company has a much larger roster of experts and did not yet need to select them and fully brief them.

Thus, when the parties agreed to mediate, there was likely $40-60,000 "on the table," which could either be used to help settle the case or could be thrown away on experts. As noted above, that sum alone -- putting aside attorneys' fees and all the other costs and issues -- likely represented between one quarter and one half of the eventual settlement value, and the lawyers, whom I am guessing were experienced in medical malpractice, both deserve credit for recognizing this economic waste.

But that's why I just can't verify this as an actual sighting of the mighty unicorn. To me, it's analytically similar to my initial example of two businesses who resolve their dispute not because they really reach an agreement, but because the cost of the dispute is less than the value of their continuing relationship. The equation above doesn't work in a wrongful death or birth injury case. It frequently doesn't apply in cases worth more than $250,000 and virtually never applies to cases worth more than $500,000.

Frankly, in those cases, I can't blame defendants and insurance companies from making me work for it. As a purely economic analysis, why not spend $50-100,000 just to see if I get a crummy expert or if I bungle a deposition or are unable to pry those incriminating e-mails out of their servers?

I know, it sounds like I'm changing the definition of the unicorn by taking these smaller cases off the table and by discounting settlements reached after substantial discovery. I'm not trying to create a moving target, I'm trying to figure something out. At the end of the day, I just can't see how to bring parties to the table without an external factor narrowing the issues, whether that factor be an ongoing business relationship, the "money on the table" that exists before expert and other fees, or, most commonly, the discovery and litigation that reveals in detail the strengths and weaknesses of each other's position.

To put it another way, I can't see, as a matter of game theory, how to convince a defendant to settle a large case prior to them exhausting all their options in litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

We're aiming for new heights of nerdom here at Litigation & Trial, combining comic books, movies, old law school contract cases, equitable principles, permanent injunctions, and recent circuit splits in one post. The Watchmen lawsuit -- which is less copyright infringement and more commercial litigation, since the dispute is largely over contract terms -- gives us license (har har) to do so.

Graphic novels (née "comic books") are serious money these days, at least when adapted for the big screen. In addition to the normal superhero adaptations, like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (which have generally done quite well), particular attention has been paid to noir comics like Sin City and 300. (The Nolans' Batman adaptations are a hybrid, drawing from noir variations on Batman, like The Dark Knight Returns.)

Watchmen, published in 1986-87, is perhaps the most heralded of the noir comics, a complex and character-driven drama set in a alternative-history 1980s United States in which superheroes (the bulk of which have no obvious superpower) have been suppressed as unaccountable vigilantes, while Nixon is on his fifth term as president.

Such a complicated tale obviously presents numerous visual, thematic and temporal problems for moviemakers, in addition to normal stress of taking a work revered by a subculture and making it widely appealing without offending the subculture or alienating the masses. Multiple attempts to make the movie since the story was published have fizzled out; even Terry Gilliam, who has no trouble bringing madness to the big screen, deemed it unfilmable.

But Zack Snyder, who directed the enormously successful 300 (which made $450 million on a $60 million budget), has apparently done it and done it well.

Since he's appearing on this blog, you can guess what happened next: the production company, Warner Brothers, was sued.

The movie buzz is that the case has substantial merit and could turn the movie into a loss for WB, and the original documents are available online for your perusal. In essence, Fox bought the complete rights to Watchmen, tried to begin production, gave up, quitclaimed the rights to the producer (with the terms of that quitclaim disputed), then entered into multiple disputed subsequent agreements. Here's the Court's outline (as formatted by Deadline Hollywood):

1986-90: Fox acquires motion picture rights in The Watchmen.

1990: Fox enters into a domestic distribution agreement with Largo Entertainment, a joint venture of JVC Entertainment Inc., Golar (Larry Gordon), and BOH, Inc. The “Largo Agreement” established Fox’s domestic distribution rights, through a license from Largo, in “subject pictures” as defined in the agreement.

June 1991: Fox enters into a “Quitclaim Agreement” with Largo International, through which Fox “quitclaims to Purchaser all of Fox’s right, title and interest in and to the Motion Picture project presently entitled Watchmen, which included specifically described literary materials. Notably, the agreement provides that, “if Purchaser elects to proceed to production, the Picture shall be produced by Purchaser and shall be distributed by Fox as a Subject Picture pursuant to the terms of the Largo Agreement ...” In consideration for the rights to Watchmen, Fox was to be reimbursed for its development costs ($435,600) plus interest plus a profit participation in the worldwide net proceeds of any Watchmen picture.

Nov. 1991: The Largo Agreement was amended; Watchmen was listed as a project quitclaimed to Largo.

Nov. 1993: Larry Gordon, through Golar, withdraws from the Largo Entertainment joint venture; Largo conveys any rights it has in Watchmen to Gordon/Golar. Based on the 1991 quitclaim, the Court may infer that Gordon now stood in the shoes of Largo with respect to Watchmen and held whatever rights it acquired through the 1991 Quitclaim, which left Fox with the distribution rights it retained through that agreement.

1994: Fox negotiated a “Settlement and Release” agreement with Gordon which contemplated that the Watchmen project would be put in “perpetual turnaround” to Lawrence Gordon Productions, Inc. The “turnaround notice” gave Lawrence Gordon Productions “the perpetual right . . . to acquire all of the right, title and interest of Fox [Watchmen] pursuant to the terms and conditions herein provided.” The turnaround notice then described the formula for determining the buy-out price in the event that Gordon elected to acquire Fox’s interest. Thus, the document suggests that Gordon acquired an option to acquire Fox’s interest in Watchmen for a price. In fact, the notice obligated Gordon to pay the buy-out price on the commencement of any production of a Watchmen film. The notice also provided that the agreement was personal to Gordon and that, “prior to payment of the Buy-Out Price,” he could not assign rights or authorize any person to take any action with respect to the project.

(emphasis mine) WB now argues the full rights were quitclaimed multiple times; Fox claims they granted an option the producer failed to exercise, so the rights are still their's. A court last week denied WB's motion to dismiss. Variety summarizes:

At the heart of Fox’s suit, filed in February, is the contention that it never ceded rights to the property. And according to the federal Judge Gary Allen Feess, Fox retained distribution rights to the graphic novel penned by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons through a 1991 claim. Furthermore, Feess appears to agree that under a 1994 turnaround deal with producer Larry Gordon, Gordon acquired an option to acquire Fox’s remaining interest in "Watchmen," which was never exercised, thereby leaving Fox with its rights under the 1994 agreement.

Frankly, I agree with the Court's ruling (denying the motion to dismiss) but not the reasoning, which I'll get to below. For now, it's a motion to dismiss: all disputed facts and ambiguities are resolved in the plaintiff's favor and all reasonable inferences are  made in the plaintiff's favor. The meaning could be as Fox alleges, but that'll require some testimony and extrinsic evidence.

But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the remedy requested in paragraph 30 of Fox's complaint:

Fox is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining and preventing Defendants, their agents' and employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants, from having, copying, distributing, displaying or making any other unauthorized use of The Watchmen in a manner inconsistent with Fox's rights as detailed herein.

As a practical matter, I can assure all graphic novel fans that no one wants to stop or even delay this movie. Fox doesn't want to scrap the picture, they want as big a piece as they can get, and they want the injunction for leverage. We're watching a negotiation-by-litigation.

Yet, as a legal matter, if they prevail, they can halt distribution entirely.

But, you say, recalling first year contract law, wouldn't that be a tremendous waste of money, the type of economic destruction generally discouraged by a long line of post-formalist, legal realism cases, like Jacob & Youngs v Kent, 230 NY 239; 129 NE 889 (N.Y. 1921, Cardozo, J.)(denying specific performance where home contractor used wrong brand of plumbing pipes)? Yes, but that's the choice you made through your elected representatives and the copyright laws they have enacted.

So how can the law allow Fox to sit by while WB (and their producers, directors, actors, etc) pours their sweat, tears and money into a work, just to later bring a lawsuit requesting not a cut of the profits but total destruction of the work?

It may not sit by. The doctrine of laches was created to thwart people to squat on their rights, lie in wait, and choose not to sue until it will most damage and prejudice the other party.

The doctrine of laches is a judicial escape hatch enabling courts to dismiss or limit lawsuits that, though brought within the statute of limitations, would be inequitable to permit because of the conduct of the party bringing the lawsuit. It's closely related to the doctrine of unclean hands, a similar tool courts use to deny equitable remedies to those who have behaved badly in the context of the dispute.

Since the doctrine of laches has its roots back in the English common law, the elements in all 50 states are roughly the same, so we might as well look to Pennsylvania:

Laches bars relief when the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in failing to timely institute an action results in prejudice to another. Because it is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant or respondent to demonstrate unreasonable delay and prejudice. See Weinberg v. State Bd. of Exam'rs. of Pub. Accountants, 509 Pa. 143, 147, 501 A.2d 239, 242 (1985). Thus, "[t]he party asserting laches as a defense must present evidence demonstrating prejudice from a lapse of time . . . [such as] that a witness has died or become unavailable, that substantiating records were lost, or that the defendant has changed [her] position in anticipation the opposing party has waived his claims." Richard, 561 Pa. at 496, 751 A.2d at 651. Furthermore, "[t]he question of laches is factual and is determined by examining the circumstances of each case." Weinberg, 509 Pa. at 148, 501 A.2d at 242 (quoting Leedom v. Thomas, 473 Pa. 193, 200-01, 373 A.2d 1329, 1332 (1977)).

Commonwealth ex rel. Corbett v. Griffin, 946 A.2d 668, 676-677 (Pa. 2008). Like most equitable doctrines, it has essentially no elements: the court finds it or it does not.

Obviously, such equitable powers apply to common law claims. Can it apply to statutory claims like copyright infringement?

In most circuits, yes. The Eleventh Circuit just grappled with that in Peter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Inst. of Scientology Enterprises et al, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14496; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29,589 (July 8, 2008). They unearthed a fantastic Learned Hand quote:

It must be obvious to every one familiar with equitable principles that it is inequitable for the owner of a copyright, with full notice of an intended infringement, to stand inactive while the proposed infringer spends large sums of money in its exploitation, and to intervene only when his speculation has proved a success. Delay under such circumstances allows the owner to speculate without risk with the other's money; he cannot possibly lose, and he may win.

That describes Fox's conduct precisely: they couldn't make it, so they waited for someone else to get it together then filed suit after WB tests Synder and crew out on 300, figures out a plausible script, puts together a cast and crew, films it, and makes its way through a good deal of post-production. But that was before there was an explicit 3-year federal statute of limitations for copyright claims. What now? The Eleventh Circuit sums up other responses:

In answering the question of whether the defense of laches may be interposed in a copyright infringement suit, therefore, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the Fourth Circuit, which is an unqualified "no." See Lyons P'ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 798 (4th Cir. 2001). Prather recognized the applicability of general equitable doctrines, and like tolling, laches falls into that category. Cf. Teamsters & Employers Welfare Trust of Ill. v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix, 283 F.3d 877, 882 (7th Cir. 2002) ("What is sauce for the goose (the plaintiff seeking to extend the statute of limitations) is sauce for the gander (the defendant seeking to contract it)."). However, we remain mindful of the Fourth Circuit's invocation of separation of powers principles which counsel against the use of "the judicially created doctrine of laches to bar a federal statutory claim that has been timely filed under an express statute of limitations." Lyons P'ship, 243 F.3d at 798. We therefore answer this question with a presumptive "no"; there is a strong presumption that a plaintiff's suit is timely if it is filed before the statute of limitations has run. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances will laches be recognized as a defense. Cf. Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227, 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting the limited applicability of laches to copyright cases in "what can best be described as unusual circumstances"); Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 951 (10th Cir. 2002) ("Although it is possible, in rare cases, that a statute of limitations can be cut short by the doctrine of laches, we see no reason to supplant the statute of limitations in this case." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

But we're not yet done:

Even where such extraordinary circumstances exist, however, laches serves as a bar only to the recovery of retrospective damages, not to prospective relief. As the former Fifth Circuit explained in a patent infringement action:

Although laches and estoppel are related concepts, there is a clear distinction between the two. The defense of laches may be invoked where the plaintiff has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in prosecuting its rights and where that delay has resulted in material prejudice to the defendant. The effect of laches is merely to withhold damages for infringement which occurred prior to the filing of the suit.

Estoppel, on the other hand, "arises only when one has so acted as to mislead another and the one thus misled has relied upon the action of the inducing party to his prejudice." Estoppel forecloses the patentee from enforcing his patent prospectively through an injunction or through damages for continuing infringement.

Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315, 1325 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations omitted).

Arguably, the big damages here have yet to occur, and will occur when the film is distributed for hundreds of millions of dollars. But I still don't understand why WB didn't raise laches as an affirmative defense in their Answer to Fox's Complaint. There's a legitimate argument that the real infringement damages occured during scripting, casting, filming, and post-production, where Fox was shut out of the creative process it presumably wanted to control.

Moreover, the quitclaim agreement itself (the source of most of Fox's claimed rights) includes a clause where, if the movie is ever made, Fox is entitled to the money it initially spent (at least half a million, circa 1990) plus interest. That's serious money by now, at least enough to warrant adding one line about laches to your Answer and briefing the issue.

THE POINT (other than to learn):

There's been a lot of hoopla about this sentence in the judge's order:

It is particularly noteworthy that nothing on the face of the complaint or the documents supplied to the Court establishes that Gordon, the claimed source of Warner Brothers' interest in 'Watchmen,' ever acquired any rights in 'Watchmen.'

That's a problem, but it's not the end of the road. Let's presume Fox still legally has the rights to Watchmen. Now what? Do they get an injunction?

As the Eleventh Circuit continued,

Rather, under "well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief," and a court's decision to grant or deny such relief is within the exercise of its discretion.  [eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006)]

A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Id.

Even if laches doesn't directly apply, and even though "irreparable injury" is presumed in copyright cases, Fox may have waived its "irreparable injury" by allowing virtually all of Watchmen to be completed (excepting some post-production) before filing suit in February 2008. Fox did exactly what Learned Hand complained about: waiting for WB to finish what Fox could not, then suing when they got wind that it was good.

They're no longer in it for protection of their creative endeavor; they're in it just for the money. That won't do. WB's goal is to show that to the judge.

But I think Fox has a bigger problem: the 1994 agreement. Under that, the last of all agreements with Fox, Gordon (the producer) has a perpetual right to exercise his option to make the film. Fox's complaint mentions the 1994 agreement but does not claim breach of it, just breach of the 1991 quitclaim, which means Gordon (now WB) can still exercise the option, buying out the rights.

And that raises yet another problem for Fox when they then try to claim their due under the 1994 option: laches, which can completely bar a contract claim, not just pre-suit damages. When did Fox first know Gordon was trying to make the movie? Recall from the Court's outline, "The notice also provided that the agreement was personal to Gordon and that, “prior to payment of the Buy-Out Price,” he could not "assign rights or authorize any person to take any action with respect to the project."

Here's a 2001 article about an attempt, long after the relevant agreements with Fox. Did Fox move to protect its rights then? Did it tell Gordon not to "authorize any person to take any action with respect to the project?" Here's a rumor:

[P]rivately, Warner Bros execs are decrying to me what they say is Fox's "opportunistic claim," noting that "Fox sat on its so-called rights for years while other studios in town developed this property. In fact, Paramount greenlit the movie for production and Fox never said a word! Fox even had an opportunity to re-acquire the project at some point and it passed on it!"

Did Fox try to "speculate without risk with the other's money?"

I'd say "we shall see," but we probably won't. Once the injunction and the option are decided, the case will likely be sufficiently narrowed to be settled easily; the spread won't be worth the risk anymore.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Carolyn Elefant picks up Dan Hull discussing the tendency of lawyers to be risk-averse. She asks:

Not sure about the answer to Hull's questions, but Los Angeles-based Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver and Hedges is one firm that doesn't sit on the sidelines, at least as it's described in this Fast Company profile. (For more background, see The American Lawyer's 2006 profile of the firm.)  As the article reports:

Quinn Emmanuel has adopted the strategy, attitude, and accoutrements of a Red Bull-fueled startup. It focuses only on business litigation: no tax, real estate, or other common corporate practices. Even more galling to the tradition-bound large full-service firms that are its competitors, the firm takes some cases on contingency, meaning that it doesn't get paid if it doesn't win. That forces Quinn Emanuel to cast the wary eye of an investor on potential cases, in search of the ones that can strike gold, and it's unafraid to use litigation's nuclear option -- a jury trial -- to get outsize results.

So why aren't more firms adopting the Quinn Emanuel model?  Is the answer -- as Hull suggests -- that they've become too risk averse?  Or is it that the Quinn model is unique to business litigation and more traditional types of law demands traditional lawyers who are willing to remain behind the scenes?

Quinn Emanuel isn't a swashbuckling contingent-fee firm by my standards: Fast Company says "Quinn Emanuel's contingency business makes up less than 10% of total hours."

I'd call that "risk-averse." More importantly, their own website says half of their litigation work is intellectual property litigation, an area ripe for contingent fees because it combines big verdicts with extraordinary costs that can frequently exceed $1 million pre-trial.

So, primarily working in an area ripe for contingent fees, Quinn Emanuel devotes at most 20% of its time even in that area to contingent fee work.

Contingent-fee makes up >90% of my hours. It's a specialized economic proposition that requires a situation involving substantial risks, substantial costs, and the potential for substantial recovery. Take out any of those, and either the client or the lawyer won't go for it (or, if they do, they did so in ignorance).

Fact is, the vast majority of legal work fails one of those criteria, and the swings in capital inherent in the business would inevitably destroy a "contingent-fee" firm the size of the AmLaw 100 players, just like how the swings in financial markets routinely crush investors who don't hedge properly. A 200-person contingent-fee business litigation could easily find itself more than $50 million in the red during the normal course of business; it wouldn't be that hard to double or triple that amount in rough times.

Let's run a really generalized calculation, using a random equity curve simulator. Assume that the cases you win earn 3 times the cost of the cases you lose, and that you win half of the time.

Odds are, after 200 cases, you'll likely have three times the capital you started with, not including salaries, rent, taxes, or any other cost not reimbursed by the cases.

Ouch -- how long would it take to finish 200 cases? Long enough not to be eaten alive by the salaries, rent, and taxes?

Plenty of lawyers take risks, look at all the fine solo and small firms out there, just not with their money.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Vault's annual survey has been 'updated,' at least with new numbers, if not any new rankings.

Corporate counsel has updated its annual survey of who represents the Fortune 100, and in what fields.

Shall we cross-reference Vault ranking by corporate clients?

1    Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz   

Corporate Transactions for Altria; Bank of America; Cardinal Health; Home Depot; Sears Holdings; Walgreen's;

Labor Litigation for Citigroup; Travelers;

2    Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Corporate Transactions for Citigroup; IBM; JP Morgan Chase; Kraft; Pfizer;

Commercial Litigation for Alcoa;

3    Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Corporate Transactions for Goldman Sachs; Medco Health; United Technologies; Wachovia; AT&T; AIG;

Torts / Negligence for Goldman Sachs;

IP / Patent Litigation for Morgan Stanley;

4    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates

Corporate Transactions for AT&T; Abbott Laboratories; Alcoa; American Express; Bank of America; Citigroup; Coca-Cola; Delphi; Ford; Merrill Lynch; News Corp; PepsiCo; Travelers; Disney;

Commercial Litigation for Merrill Lynch; Washington Mutual;

Torts / Negligence for Chevron;

Employment / Labor Law for Citigroup;

IP / Patent Litigation for Morgan Stanley;

5     Davis Polk & Wardwell

Corporate Transactions for Aetna; Altria; American Express; CVS Caremark; Comcast; Hartford Financial Services; Honeywell; IBM; Kraft; Morgan Stanley;

Torts / Negligence for Altria;

Employment / Labor Law for Bank of America;

Commercial Litigation for Comcast;

IP / Patent Litigation for Comcast;

So there you go. All the cool firms represent banks in corporate transactions, notwithstanding the late labor law talk.

Probably the most intriguing chart is this one, tabulating overall mentions of firms in particular areas. Wachtell is mentioned once, at the bottom of corporate transactions. Cravath doesn't appear at all.

That says a lot about the role of prestige in legal business. Based on Vault alone, you'd think Wachtell and Cravath would have a lock on certain segments of the market, or at least would keep up contacts amongst all the largest corporations.

In fact, they both have the same mix of clients -- some blockbusters, some low-profile repeat customers, some one-time-only (e.g., Walgreen's for Wachtell) -- rolling through like the rest of us. Indeed, the most profitable company in America has most of its connections well down the "prestige" list, and Wachtell actively focuses on single-transaction representation.

There's a lot to be said on this score, in due time. For now, the key point is: these firms don't make their money and prestige off of "position" alone.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GCs and in-house counsel are clamping down, driven by a weak economy, bringing litigation cost containment back into the spotlight (as well as general counsel peevishness).

Stewart Weltman, who wrote that second linked article, was generous enough to chime in on my post on a few suggestions for cutting costs (if you get a chance, see his blog -- inspiring stuff for lean and mean plaintiff's lawyers):

It is one thing to say the words but it is another thing to put it in practice. For instance, while unnecessary depositions are one of the biggest black holes of discovery costs, suggesting that depositions be replaced by witness statements reflects a naivety and superficiality about the actual process of preparing for trial.

Of course you try to obtain witness statements if you can, but anyone who has handled complex litigation matters knows that obtaining (1) witness statements from hostile witnesses is an impossibility, (2) witness statements from neutral witnesses can be beneficial but because most lawyer up usually provides little benefits and (3) witness statements from friendly witnesses is rarely a good tack.

All true, though in my experience there's plenty of room for fat to be trimmed from the typical business / commercial litigation deposition. I can't count how many times I've seen:

• multiple lawyers defending a deposition;
• lawyers flying out to meet with clients the day before a brief phone deposition;
• depositions of employees / corporate representatives who only know facts that could have been or already have been answered by written discovery;
• day-long depositions of witness' spouses, siblings, parents;
• depositions where I make a witness read in a handwritten text, because opposing counsel refused to stipulate anything; and,
• depositions where I make a witness read through extensive materials in order to answer questions, because opposing counsel instructed them not to review any materials, in spite of my notice of deposition.

All of those tactics can have a place, particularly if you're playing hardball. Ordinarily, they're a complete waste of everyone's time, which is a big problem if you're paying the lawyers by the hour.

It's true, I rarely get useful "signed witness statements," but I frequently get useful interrogatory answer in lieu of whole depositions. If defendants were willing to stipulate to more (and defense is usually what businesses are complaining about), they'd save a lot of time and money.

The biggest problem with that is how a good deal of "defenses" are stupid and so the "defense" is predicated on confusing the issues as much as possible, which encourages forcing the plaintiff to prove even the most basic facts. Can't help GCs there -- consider paying up.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rees Morrison sees the value of "Three litigation cost controls: motions, depositions, and attendees at court conferences and depositions:"

As published in Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 16, July 2008 at 39, the steps are (1) permit no motions to be made without your approval; ...

Among the several other cost-control measures they advocate is to try to get signed witness statements. Those statements are “easier, better, more effective and often achieved at a fraction of the cost” of a deposition. According to them, “Only truly material witnesses should be deposed.”

As a third method to pare litigation costs, “Rarely is there a need for more than one attorney to be present at court conferences or depositions.” ...

All good ideas. As a plaintiffs' attorney, who is rarely paid by the hour (and thus for whom time is money), I can tell you that we watch our budgets by not filing too many motions, by trying to have written discovery answer the basics, and by generally using one attorney.

That said, my goals are not just the opposite of defense counsel's but are substantially different in character. I'm trying to build a coherent trial record and case theory that supports my claims and smokes out potential problems. Defense counsel, in contrast, is either trying to poke holes in my theories or is trying to drive me into the ground (or both).

The former can be done on a lean budget; the latter is a bit harder. Note: the latter works far, far, far less frequently than defense lawyers and defendants believe it will. You can bet that, if I took a case, I already judged it as having some inherent strength, which means you likely can't bury it even if I screw it up.

My biggest recommendation would be for general counsel / in-house counsel and their litigators to sit down, early in a case, and figure out their goals. That does not mean choosing between "giving in" and "fighting it." "Fight it" means diddley-squat in litigation, yet I hear that all the time; of course it can be "fought."

The questions are much more complicated than that; if your litigator can't explain why it's more complicated, then you should start demanding they explain how they're looking out for your strategic interests and not just churning the hours.