Those not used to reading statutes will probably find them really boring and might be surprised by the sometimes long and in depth sections on definitions of terms. You might assume that if a word is in a statute it should have whatever common meaning you would find in the dictionary. That’s not the case and whether a business or industry falls into the definition of a term or not could mean all the difference between heavy regulation or profitable opportunities.
The California Finance Lenders Law (CFFL) states that “finance lender” as it’s used in the statute is anyone who is “engaged in the business” of making consumer loans or making commercial loans. Cal. Fin. Code § 22009. That definition is important because the state imposes a license requirement on any party “engaged in the business” of a finance lender. Cal. Fin. Code § 22100(a). But the law, as it was written, didn’t define “engaged in the business.” The legal line between a party who might occasionally makes a loan and a party who’s main business is making loans could be difficult to determine.
Like many laws the CFFL has undergone changes over time,
A start up company may be in need of funding and see an investor as a savior for the company. But companies need to protect themselves and be wary of investors as much as they may need their money. A company needs to guard itself against the possibility of an investor stealing intellectual property and using it for its own purposes.
Data analytics company Palantir Technologies has filed a lawsuit against one of its earliest investors, Marc Abramowitz, accusing him of stealing intellectual property (new business ideas) then trying to patent them under his own name, according to Law.com. Abramowitz, invested in 2005 and had an office at the company’s Palo Alto headquarters.
The complaint, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleges he used his position to steal Palantir’s plans for applying the use of massive amounts of data in new ways for new types of customers. The situation resulted in the company’s other major investors changing Palantir’s Investor Rights’ Agreement to prevent Abramowitz from getting access to additional confidential information.
Hey, everyone on Facebook. Good afternoon, good Saturday. This week I received a number of phone calls asking whether or not a noncompeting clause is enforceable in California, and I just thought I would to take this opportunity to share some general information with you on the topic. Again, I’m providing general information so if you have a specific question about your unique circumstance, consult with your local attorney.
Now, this particular situation starts with a salesperson that is currently employed by Company A that now wants to work for Company B. There is a noncompeting agreement between the sales person and Company A, but Company B is telling this salesperson to go ahead and work with us because a noncompeting agreement is not enforceable in California. Well, I wouldn’t say that noncompeting agreements are not enforceable as a blanket statement, because there are situations where the court does uphold the noncompeting clause agreement. So, before we start, I’m going to tell you that there is a public policy in California court that states everybody in California has a right to make a living. This public policy is pretty much just a guiding principle for the judges that they go by when they are deciding on this type of issue.
The major drivers of corporate purchases are trying to grow a business at a lower cost. Often that lower cost comes when the new, larger company is able to do more with less people. That appears to be the case at Aliso Viejo-based QLogic, a computer networking and storage provider.
The company plans on laying off 69 people effective October 17, according to documents filed with the state, reports the Orange County Register. QLogic announced in June it had been purchased by San Jose-based chipmaker Cavium Inc. for $1.36 billion. The deal was finalized on August 16.
QLogic is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Cavium which makes switches, adapter cards and other networking equipment. QLogic provides a number of high tech products, including the Fibre Channel Adapters, which allow the storage and movement of large amounts of data.
I have always thought of myself as a business attorney and not too much of an author. In college, it was a fantasy of mine to be an author writing novels for a living. However, I have always brushed it off as just a fantasy.
Can someone be guilty of insider trading if that person gives no money to the source of information? If the person is just tipping off friends or family members with no money paid back in return? The answer from the Supreme Court is yes.
Illegal insider trading is generally buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security, according to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Violations can also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by those receiving the information and trading by those who misappropriate this information.
The Supreme Court issued a decision in an insider trading case for the first time in two decades earlier this month. Despite its reputation for a hard philosophical divide often resulting in split decisions, this ruling was unanimous: a Chicago man, Bassam Salman, was guilty of insider trading, reports Reuters. The precedent should make it easier to prosecute those accused of profiting from confidential investment information.
This year the culture wars burst into public bathrooms across the country with repercussions in California. If you have a single stall bathroom at your place of business a state law passed this year mandates that it doesn’t matter your sex, that bathroom has to be a place of equal opportunity. It can’t be a men’s or a women’s room. Gender can’t matter when using single-stall public bathrooms in California, reports the San Jose Mercury News. Your bathroom is just a bathroom.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September that requires single user restrooms be designated all-gender, a small move to bolster transgender rights as other states passed restrictions as to who could use which bathroom.
State Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco stated that restricting access to single-user restrooms by gender was a burden on LGBT community, parents and caretakers of dependents of the opposite sex. It’s also seen as a way to provide greater privacy and safety in public restrooms.
Those of us running businesses have a supporting cast, whether they’re contractors, suppliers, funders, banks, attorneys or employees. If a trusted cast member disappears at a critical time what do you do? Susan Jeske found herself in that situation in September. Like most of us she made due with what she had and went forward.
Jeske owns the Ms. America® Pageant. She purchased it in 1999 after winning the competition in 1997. Ms. America contestants are often well into their careers, sometimes are married and often range from 26 to 40 years old. The 2017 event was scheduled for September 3 in Brea. At the last minute Jeske got some bad news.
She learned on August 30 that Costa Mesa based BTB Event Productions, the company hired to produce the pageant, was shutting down and their equipment was being sold off. As a result Jeske was left scrambling to find a stage, runway and proper lighting. “I have 43 contestants flying in from across the country that are coming in tomorrow and I don’t have anything,” Jeske told the Orange County Register on August 31.
A recent federal court decision from Connecticut has laid down some potentially new rules when it comes to trademarks and internet marketing. The lawsuit pits two competing companies and a dispute as to whether marketing practices of one company were meant to illegally steal away potential customers of the other.
The products being sold are fruit. Plaintiff Edible Arrangements, LLC, is a seller of artfully designed fresh fruits that are sculpted in the shapes of flowers and arranged to resemble floral arrangements. Defendant Provide Commerce, Inc., is a direct competitor which sells a variety of products including flowers, chocolates, fresh fruit, gift baskets and personalized gifts under brands such as “ProFlowers” and “Shari’s Berries” which offers a variety of items through its online store.
Judge Vanessa L. Bryant’s decision on defendant’s motion for summary judgement covered trademark infringement in the world of internet keyword advertising. She denied Provide’s request for partial summary judgment against trademark owner Edible Arrangements, which sued it for trademark infringement.