Brought to you free by Planet Data.
David L. Yohai and David Yolkut of Weil, Gotshal & Manges analyze some of the key legal questions surrounding the channel bundling debate, including the requirements of an antitrust tying claim; compares and contrasts ‘Cablevision’ and ‘Brantley’; and assesses the challenges that lay ahead for Cablevision and others that hope to ultimately undo the bundle.
Jonathan Stoler, Dana Dunwoody and Carren B. Shulman of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton write: Franchisors should heed the message of recent court decisions and take a close look at the level of control over franchise employees indicated by their global policies—because such control can lead to liability under an agency or joint employer theory.
Daniel A. Fliman and Michele L. Angell of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman write that the automatic stay poses extensive obstacles and challenges; discuss the scope and limits of the automatic stay from the perspective of a commercial litigator; and provide suggestions for navigating the stay to minimize disruption on pending litigation.
William J. Sushon, Samantha A. Brutlag and Edward N. Moss of O’Melveny & Myers write: In ‘ATP Tour’, the court upheld a non-stock corporation’s bylaw requiring unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees in intra-corporate litigation. Because this decision fundamentally alters the playing field for Delaware shareholder litigation, the Delaware General Assembly is considering an amendment to the DGCL that would limit the case’s applicability to non-stock corporations only.