Providing accurate, timely, and insightful legal commentary
Connectiuct Business Litigation Blog
Commentary on lawsuits and legal issues impacting Connecticut businesses. Authored by experienced business litigation attorney, Kane Bennett of Aeton Law Partners, LLP.
Bysiewicz, Blumethal, and Hulk Hogan …. Oh My
Some noteworthy Connecticut lawsuits, and of course, continuing coverage of Hulk Hogan…. The Bysiewicz for Connecticut Attorney General saga continues. Is she qualified or not? Is the statute that seems to preclude her from running unconstitutional? Will voters elect an Attorney General with essentially no significant experience representing regular clients? Common sense says "no", but the polls suggest otherwise and she fights on. Only time will tell as the legal community awaits the ruling of Judge Michael Sheldon. Several bloggers and columnists have been regularly covering this issue, including the original story breaker,Ryan McKeen at A Connecticut Law Blog. For the Republican take, check out Chris Healy on the Everyday Republican. The Hartford Courant’s coverage is here. Christine Stuart at CT News Junkie regularly posts on the Bysiewicz case. Richard Blumenthal, although running for Senate, continues to make headlines as our current Attorney General. His office is now suing Westport National Bank and an investment manager seeking to recover $16.2 million in losses for up to 240 investors. As of Friday, the lawsuit was served but not yet returned to Court. Blumenthal issued a statement saying the Bank collected $2.4 million in fees…but actually did little…" The Bank President, Richard Cummings, fired back stating that Blumenthal’s comments were "inflammatory" and contained "numerous inaccuracies." ctwatchdog reported on the CT Department of Consumer Protection charging Wal-Mart Stores in two locations with pricing violations. A hearing will take place in May to determine fines against Wal-Mart for allegations of unit price violations with consumer products.
Understanding Risks and Avoiding Lawsuits – Negotiation of the Master Services Agreement
Recently, I received a call from an attorney trying to figure a way out of a Master Services Agreement for his client. His client, the purchaser, was stuck owing a lot of money to a technology vendor under a Master Services Agreement that was not working for the client. The problem – – there was no protection under the contract for the purchaser and no clear way out without owing money to the vendor. The problem is not unique to technology purchasers. Bad contracts also can hurt technology providers. Take for example a recent case involving a technology company in a lawsuit over installation of new software for a small business. The business claimed loss of profits due to extended down time as a result of a claimed breach of warranty. The problem for the technology vendor – – no protection in the contract with a limitation of remedy provision or disclaimer of warranty. This opened up a claim for consequential damages that neither party contemplated. In these cases, whether you are the attorney for the customer or the vendor, many times you are left saying "I wish you called me when you negotiated this contract." In most instances, when a large or significant service and technology purchase is involved, the relationship between customer and vendor is set forth in a Master Services Agreement. Master Services Agreements are typically contracts in information technology or professional services that govern a long term vendor-client relationship. The contract includes general provisions on price, payment terms, and project scope. The contracts usually include a Statement of Work. The Statement of Work will
Business Blog Round Up: YouTube, Coffee Cups, Anna Nicole and Identify Theft
Ashby Jones of Wall Street Journal blog writes an intriguing post about the Google and Viacom lawsuit concerning Viacom’s claims of copyright infringement against YouTube (Google subsidiary). The post recites how Viacom employees were uploading copyrighted copies of their own videos to YouTube to help prove that YouTube was not promptly removing videos that infringe copyrights. At stake: immunity under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Google says its protected from suit under the Act because YouTube removes content upon request of a copyright holder. Viacom says otherwise and points to some of its own videos that were not removed. I do not know the particulars of the lawsuit, but if Viacom hopes to prevail, you would expect that they have more to proceed on than there own employee videos. PatentlyO, the nations leading patent law blog, has a humorous post indicating Starbucks may soon be subject to a false marketing claim if it keeps a patent number on its corrugated cardboard cups for much longer. Professor Dennis Crouch looked up the patent on the cup and its set to expire in a month. Maybe Starbucks will settle out of court like the coffee house did with Kramer on Seinfeld for lifetime free coffee! (if you are wondering, this happened in the Maestro episode) Brendon Tavelli of The Privacy Law Blog writes about the Federal Trade Commissions settlement against LifeLock,Inc. for misrepresentation concerning its identity theft services and protections. 35 states joined in the settlement. According the the settlement, LifeLock was not providing the comprehensive identify theft coverage
Fraud Lawsuits In Connecticut – Is A Promise of Happiness Fraud or Puffery?
Debra Cassens Weiss yesterday posted on article on the ABA’s website about the psychic Sean Morton who is being sued for fraud for taking 6 million dollars from investors on the promise of piles of money and spiritual happiness. The Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing the suit and the main theory is that Morton is a fraud. No kidding. For this post, I review what constitutes fraud in Connecticut under the common law and grounds for Connecticut attorneys to bring a lawsuit for fraud. In Connecticut, fraud is committed when: a person makes a false representation as a statement of true fact the person knows the statement is not true the person makes the statement to induce another person to act upon the statement the person who acts upon the statement sustains damages When an attorney brings a lawsuit for fraud in Connecticut, an attorney must allege more than simple facts stating these elements. Attorneys bringing a fraud case must make specific allegations describing the actual fraud. In general the false statements must relate to an existing fact, past fact, or a promise to do something in the future with no intent to do so. Although generally affirmative statements must be made to support fraud, there are circumstances where a failure to speak can be fraud if there is a duty to speak. When you bring a lawsuit for fraud in Connecticut, there is also a higher standard of proof. Ordinarily, in civil cases, an attorney must prove the fraud elements of the
Thank You to Hartford Business Journal and Advanced Copy
Thank you to Advanced Copy for nominating me for Best Use of Blogs for the Hartford Business Journal’s Strateg E Awards for 2010. Thank you to the Hartford Business Journal for selecting this Blog as a finalist and putting on a great event yesterday. Congratulations to Thomas Clifford who won for his Blog, Bringing Brands to Life. Tom is a big fan of Daniel Pink who has some revolutionary ideas for business management. I just read Pink’s latest book "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us." Great read.
You Must Preserve Evidence If A Lawsuit Is Likely
In the recent federal district court decision of Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities (download here) , Judge Shira Scheindlin clearly explained and amplified the obligations to preserve and produce electronically stored evidence in litigation cases. The case was brought by a group of investors seeking to recover 550 million dollars in losses from a hedge fund liquidation. The defendants in the case alleged that the plaintiffs failed to preserve electronically stored documents and filed misleading statements regarding discovery. In deciding against the plaintiff’s on discovery issues, Judge Scheindlin summarized discovery obligations and stated: the courts have a right to expect that litigants and counsel will take necessary steps to ensure that relevant records are preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that such records, are collected, reviewed, and produced to the opposing party….when this does not happen, the integrity of the judicial process is harmed and the courts are required to fashion a remedy…By now, it should be abundantly clear that the duty to preserve means what is says and that a failure to preserve records – paper or electronic – and to search in the right places for those records, will inevitably result in the spoliation of evidence. Judge Scheindlin’s decision is very lengthy and detailed. You might ask, why should a company doing business in Connecticut care about what Judge Scheindlin says in a New York federal district court case? Well, for starters, Judge Scheindlin is perhaps the most quoted and cited trial judge in the United States concerning
About CTBL
Connecticut Business Litigation is the most well-read litigation blog in the state of Connecticut. Founded by Attorney Kane Bennett in 2009, a pioneer in Attorney Marketing in the state of connecticut