Search results
7 results
Sort by:
May 1, 2019Savannah M. Warner
Contract Ambiguity Yields Summary Judgment Denial
Ticer v. Reed Migraine Ctrs. of Tex., PLLC, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 9927 (Tex. App.--Dallas Dec. 4, 2018)
June 1, 2016Joseph Ty Vessels
Libel and Slander—Privilege in Reports Regarding Possible Criminal Activity
Shell Oil Co. v. Writt, No. 13-0552, 2015 WL 2328678 (Tex. May 15, 2015)
November 1, 2020Gina Brown
No Assumption By Buyer Entity of Seller Entity’s Implied Warranty of Merchantability Liability––Whether an Entity That Purchases a Manufacturer’s Assets Assumes or Agrees to Assume an Implied Warranty of Merchantability That Attached and Was Not Disclaimed When the Manufacturer Sold the Good.
The Court in Northland Industries v Kouba held that that the Buyer only assumed liabilities expressed in the Agreement. The record reflects no evidence to support that the Buyer agreed to assume the Seller’s implied warranty of merchantability. Thus, the Buyer will not be liable for beach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Agreement failed to show that the Buyer agreed to take on such liability.
April 1, 2020Joseph T. McClure
A New Trend in Securities Fraud: Punishing People Who Do Bad Things
This article seeks to articulate a distinct view of federal securities law as it is increasingly used in non-traditional enforcement actions commenced to punish corporate bad behavior. This paper argues that these non-traditional enforcement mechanisms should be viewed with skepticism. This skepticism should not be misinterpreted as cynicism, as the author believes that these non-traditional enforcement actions are beneficial vehicles to accomplish the admirable governmental objective of “punishing people who do bad things.” However, the author recognizes that such use of securities law does not fall into a category of clearly defined criminal law and carries a significant risk of abuse. The author also recognizes the “admirable governmental objective” may be thwarted when it comes to private companies. Finally, the author is uneasy with the societal values conveyed when the government sanctions corporate misbehavior in the name of protecting shareholders from deception.
April 1, 2020Sharrissa Stratton
Liability of Parent Corporation -- Whether the parent is liable for the actions of its subsidiary when the parent does not perpetrate fraud
In R&M Mixed Beverage Consultants, Inc. v Safe Harbor Benefits, Inc. 578 S.W.3d 218 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2019, no pet.), the Court of Appeals cites the Texas Supreme Court for the proposition that there must be evidence that one of the corporations was using the other for purpose of perpetrating actual fraud for the defendant's direct personal benefit. The Court found that the record showed no evidence of actual fraud and therefore the parent would not be liable for the subsidiary's action.
November 7, 2014Micah E. Skidmore
Insurance Recovery for Cybersecurity Disasters - Negotiating Coverage & Pursuing Claims Under Cybersecurity & Privacy Insurance
During an investor conference call on February 26, 2014, Target CFO John Mulligan reported that the highest profile data breach of 2013 cost the retailer $61 million in out-of-pocket expenses during the fourth quarter, of which $44 million was covered by insurance.1 In August 2014, Target revealed the total cost to the company currently is approximately $148 million. This number includes costs related to privacy notification, credit monitoring, card reissuance, card merchant penalties, forensic consultants, consumer losses, legal fees, regulatory penalties and public relations, may ultimately total hundreds of millions of dollars.
October 23, 2009John M. Farrell, Dean J. Schaner
2009: A Layoff Odyssey Layoffs and Reductions in Force
The current economic climate has forced many employers to take a hard look at their workforce. Does every job classification contribute value? Can separate positions be combined into one? Are there underperforming employees? Are there areas where reducing force will lead to real cost savings? The answers to these questions often point to a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) which, if implemented, has the potential to save an employer significant labor costs or sink the employer in a mountain of legal fees and liability. Savvy employers will engage experienced labor and employment counsel to examine and analyze the host of legal issues that accompany RIFs, and carefully plan the RIF to avoid claims arising from the various federal and state laws whose acronyms an employer would prefer to see in a bowl of alphabet soup and not in a lawsuit filed against the company.