Category: Business Law

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Maker of “Fireball” Liquor Drops Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

A federal lawsuit filed by the maker of the popular liquor Fireball Cinnamon Whisky (“Fireball”) against Jack Daniels for trademark infringement was dropped just before the New Year after an agreement was reportedly made between the two parties. Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey, which is owned by Brown-Forman, has seen large increases in sales since their cinnamon-flavored Tennessee Fire hit the shelves. In their November lawsuit, the owners of Fireball, Sazerac, accused Brown-Forman of violating their trademark by using the term “Fireball” in their Google advertisements.

According to Sazerac, when potential customers searched for their Fireball product on Google they were directed to advertisements for Brown-Forman’s Tennessee Fire product instead of Sazerac’s Fireball. The lawsuit accused Brown-Forman of using the term “Fireball” in their advertisements to create confusion amongst consumers in the market and to use the success of Sazerac’s product for their own financial gain.

The day before Brown-Forman was required to respond to the lawsuit, Sazerac filed a motion in a Kentucky federal court to drop their claims. Sazerac’s motion did not hint as to why the company was dropping the lawsuit, but a spokeswoman for the company said that the parties had come to an agreement regarding the dispute. Neither companies agreed to comment about the specific details of the reconciliation.

Sazerac’s lawsuit had asked the federal court to stop Brown-Forman from using their trademarked term “Fireball” as keywords in their online marketing campaigns and generally. Brown-Forman’s marketing campaign for Tennessee Fire, which the Louisville-based company expanded across the country in 2014 and 2015, has been largely successful. Brown-Forman’s second-quarter earnings report for 2015 indicated that a seven percent increase in sales for the Jack Daniel’s family of whiskey was made possible by the success of Tennessee Fire. The report also held Tennessee Fire responsible for a three percent expansion in total net sales for the first six months of 2015.

Since entering the whiskey market in the late 1990’s, Sazerac has caused concern and disruption to Brown-Forman. When it comes to cinnamon-flavored whiskey, Fireball dominates Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Fire and Jim Beam’s Kentucky Fire in sales. In 2014, Sazerac sold $130.7 million worth of Fireball while Jack Daniels and Jim Beam only sold $43.7 million and $22.5 million respectively of their cinnamon-flavored whiskey. Although Brown-Forman is still the market leader with 12 percent of all whiskey sales in the United States, Sazerac has caused the company to increase their marketing campaigns and compete for sales.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Regularly Represent Companies Whose Trademark Has Been Infringed Upon

The experienced Philadelphia trademark infringement lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green serve clients in complex trademark infringement cases. Our seasoned Philadelphia business lawyers have served as counsel for thousands of companies in every kind of business matter. This broad range of experience in all types of business matters has given our team of lawyers the opportunity to fine-tune their knowledge of specific legal areas such as trademark infringement. Call us at 215-574-0600 for a consultation or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Outcome of JP Morgan Shareholder Dispute

By ,

SPG

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase & Chief Executive Officer, Jamie Dimon, clearing him and other bank officials of conducting a poorly run investigation into the 2012 trading scandal known as “London Whale.” The court said that the plaintiff, Ernesto Espinoza, did not show sufficient evidence to prove that JPMorgan acted negligently, or that bank officials publicly downplayed the company’s losses of $6.2 billion.

Bruno Iksil, the man responsible for JPMorgan’s losses in its chief investment office, made such enormous bets that he became known as the “London Whale” in financial circles.

According to Chief Judge Robert Katzman, JPMorgan conducted an extensive investigation into Iksil’s questionable wagers and took steps to make some of the changes requested by Espinoza, including pay cuts and improved controls. Katzman also said that it is not the court’s place to question board decisions, nor is JPMorgan under any obligation to provide Espinoza with any further details about their decisions surrounding the “London Whale” investigation.

The appeals court revisited the case after consulting the Delaware Supreme Court on how to evaluate cases like this in the future.

In an effort to settle U.S. and British probes into Iksil’s misconduct, JPMorgan admitted wrongdoing and has paid over one billion dollars. Two former traders from the company have been charged with covering up losses that were linked to Iksil. Iksil, a French national, is cooperating with officials.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Shareholder Disputes

 If you are involved in a shareholder dispute, our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the experience and resources to provide you with top-notch legal representation. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online for a confidential consultation. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Pittsburgh Paid Sick Leave Act Ruled Invalid

By ,

SPG

Less than six months after being signed into law, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County has ruled that the Paid Sick Leave Act is invalid and unenforceable. The law required employers to provide employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time per thirty-five hours worked, with the minimum accrual dependent upon the number of employees.

Plaintiffs claimed that the city does not have the authority to enact the ordinance under what is known as the “Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law”. This law states that a “home rule municipality, such as Pittsburgh, ‘shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers’ unless expressly provided by statutes”.  The Court determined that the Act did just that, in violation of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. As a result of this case, companies with operations in Pittsburgh need not update their sick and paid leave policies.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: “Cadillac Tax” Delayed until 2020

By ,

SPG

On December 18, 2015, President Obama approved a spending and tax package that includes a two-year delay of the so-called “Cadillac Tax”. This tax will impose a forty percent excise tax group health plans to the extent their total annual premium costs exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is intended to motivate employers and carriers to find a way to reduce the costs of employee health coverage.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Elements of Defamation in Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

Defamation is a tort that holds individuals liable for false statements, spoken or written, which harm the reputation of another.  In general, a defamation complaint must be sufficient to identify the accused defamer and outline the circumstances of the publication of the false statements.  The tort protects public figures as well as private individuals and is interpreted under state law.  The statute of limitations is one year for bringing an action for defamation.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of the tort are outlined in the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA).  The burden is initially on the Plaintiff to prove each element: 1. The defamatory character of the communication, 2. Its publication by the Defendant, 3. Its application to the Plaintiff, 4. The recipient’s understanding of its defamatory meaning, 5. The recipient’s understanding of it as intended to be applied to the Plaintiff, 6. Special harm resulting to the Plaintiff from the publication (actual damages that are economic or pecuniary). 7. Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion (the publication was not reasonably necessary due to common interests).

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Aetna Kickback Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

EDPA Denies Defendant BlueWave Healthcare Consultants’ Motion to Dismiss, Allowing Aetna’s Doctor Kickback Suit to Continue

On December 29, 2015, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied BlueWave Healthcare Consultants, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Aetna alleging Defendants paid doctors kickbacks to order unnecessary blood tests. Aetna alleges that BlueWave referred physicians in the Aetna network and told them they would be paid to refer blood samples to Defendant Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. According to Aetna, BlueWave received approximately $200 million in commissions after entering into a sales agreement with Health Diagnostics Laboratory.

BlueWave argued in its Motion that Aetna failed to allege that BlueWave said anything false, one of the elements of fraud, as well as arguing that it was not liable for fraud because it was Health Diagnostics Laboratory that submitted the false bills to Aetna. However, Judge Kelly stated that under Pennsylvania common law, a person may be liable for fraud by merely participating in the scheme.  “Thus, the current Pennsylvania law places no requirement on plaintiff to prove that BlueWave defendants directly sent the false claims to Aetna,” Kelly said. “Rather, plaintiff has the burden to prove, amongst the other requirements required for fraud, that BlueWave defendants ‘participated in’ the perpetration of a fraudulent act.”

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Pending Legislation to Attract Corporations to Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

A bill was recently passed in the House of Representatives that proposes giving Pennsylvania’s Superior Court and county courts the authority to establish commerce court divisions in Pennsylvania. The commerce division would utilize two of the court’s fifteen judges and three senior judges with jurisdiction over business cases – including corporate acquisitions, mergers, dissolution, liquidations or other matters concerning corporations, as well as limited liability companies, trusts, sole proprietorships and corporate partnerships.

Pennsylvania court officials have agreed to institute a pilot program if the bill, sponsored by State Representative Seth M. Grove, R-York, passes in the Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stuart Greenleaf said that he plans to propose his own more expansive legislation, which proposes an entirely new independent business court. He has stated that the costs of this new court would be offset by the benefit to the state’s economy. Greenleaf reports that his legislation has been in the works for several months and he plans to introduce it soon.

These proposals are aimed at making Pennsylvania more hospitable for businesses. Representative Grove’s bill seeks to imitate the model of Delaware’s Chancery Court, which has helped make Delaware the nation’s business capital. More than one million businesses and half of all publicly traded U.S. companies are registered in Delaware. Businesses are drawn to Delaware because its Chancery Court offers quick resolution of conflicts and certainty of outcomes.

Delaware’s Chancery Court handles shareholder lawsuits, disputes between board members, challenges to mergers and acquisitions and other civil matters. Cases in the Chancery Court are decided by judges, not juries, and a written opinion is issued for each case. These opinions provide a body of case law that can aid litigants in resolving their cases.

Critics of Pennsylvania’s plan argue that the bill is unnecessary because Pennsylvania courts already have the power to create specialized court programs, such as a commerce division. For example, we have seen programs spring up to address criminal charges against veterans and the mentally ill. Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, where most of the state’s business disputes occur, already have divisions dedicated to addressing these types of cases.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Business Transactions and Contract Disputes

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green provide traditional trial work, contract work, as well as counseling, planning and advice to all forms of businesses. Our attorneys keep up with fast paced developments in the law to provide your business with effective legal representation. With offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients in Philadelphia and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Bucks County Court Allows Plaintiff to Pierce Corporate Veil

By ,

SPG

A Bucks County Court of Common Pleas judge awarded a packaging company more than $138,000 in compensation against a limited liability company, and allowed the plaintiffs to pierce the corporate veil to recoup the money. Plaintiff, Power Line Packaging Inc., is a small, family-owned manufacturing and repackaging company focusing on personal care products. Judge Gary Gilman awarded plaintiff money after finding that Defendnats Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition LLC and its principals intentionally made misrepresentations to plaintiff and were unjustly enriched.

Hermes Calgon was formed as a limited liability company by previous executives of a company that owned several personal care product brands. Hermes Calgon approached Power Line to develop a line of products for Shoppers Drug Mart, which is a large retailer in Canada. The defendants claimed that Shoppers Drug Mart had already placed orders with the company. Based on the representations, Power Line bought materials to create the product line, and developed product line formulas at the defendants’ request.

Power Line was never told payment was contingent on the placement of purchase orders or payments from Shoppers. Shoppers advised the defendants that the company needed to review the product pricing strategy, but defendants did not notify Power Line of Shoppers’ position. In June 2009, the defendants were told that Shoppers would not purchase the products. Power Line sued the defendants, arguing that the defendants repeatedly reassured Power Line they would pay for the purchase and storage of materials related to developing the product line.

“The court held that if you’re going to form an LLC, you need to follow the formalities of that company, and if those formalities are not followed, the individuals forming the LLC may be subject to liability[.]”

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Lawsuits against Limited Liability Companies

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients is all areas of business law, including commercial litigation and employment law.  Contact us online, or call us at 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Anticipatory Repudiation of Contracts

By ,

SPG

Normally, contractual remedies flow from a breach of contract. However, remedies can also be available when anticipatory repudiation occurs. Anticipatory repudiation is when one party to a contract declares that they will not, or are unable to, perform their obligation under the contract prior to the obligation becoming due. In Pennsylvania, the declaration must be “an absolute and unequivocal refusal to perform or a distinct and positive statement of an inability to do so.”

When anticipatory repudiation occurs, the law provides the aggrieved party, the party that is not refusing to or unable to perform, remedies.   The aggrieved party can choose to wait and see if the other party will indeed perform under the contract. However, the aggrieved party could also seek remedies which are available for breach of contract, including damages or specific performance. Either way, the aggrieved party can also suspend his performance under the contract.’

The Philadelphia Business Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are Experienced in All Areas of Contract Law

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent clients in contract disputes.  If you need a qualified Philadelphia Contract Lawyer, contact us online, or call us at 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Conditional Class Certification for Collective Actions

By ,

SPG

Getting a conditional class certified in court requires the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rest of the opt-in plaintiffs were “similarly situated.” In Jarosz v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., PICS Case No. 14-1560 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2014), an employee claimed she was never properly compensated for performing work during her meal break, and that this was a policy throughout her work. The court decertified the potential class because the circumstances showed this meal break policy was not centralized. Factors such as employees from other departments and positions, as well as the fact that meal breaks were scheduled differently depending on the department, aided the court in reaching its decision.

This court’s decision is important to show that just being employed by the same employer is not enough for additional plaintiffs to opt-in to a class action (collective action) suit. The “similarly situated” standard is focus in this court’s holding. The certification of a class action becomes inappropriate when individual issues would overcome issues that the class as a whole would have.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green are Experienced in All Areas of Business Litigation including Class Action Lawsuits

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent clients in all areas of Employment Law, and handle class action lawsuits.  For more information contact us online, or call 215-574-0600.