Tortious Interference

News & Analysis as of

Competitor’s Privilege a Competitive Advantage? Only if there’s not improper means!

Tennessee recognizes the tort of interference with prospective business relations. But there’s an exception for competitors. One who intentionally causes a third person not to enter into a prospective contractual...more

Business Law Newsletter - July 2014

In This Issue: - Redskins Trademark Cancelled - Q&A with Bean, Kinney & Korman - Knowing When and Why to Maintain Your Trademarks - Tortious Interference in Virginia - Improper Methods...more

Tortious Interference in Virginia – Improper Methods Requirement

The U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia says a company that hired away a competitor’s employees may be liable for tortious interference. This can occur with an at-will business contract without the need...more

It is Not Tortious to Interfere if You Are Exercising a Legitimate Interest or Right

In many commercial disputes, one or more of the parties will assert a tortious interference claim against the other. While there are several variations of tortious interference claims (e.g., interference with existing...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Deciding Stern Claims in Bankruptcy Courts, But Leaves Big Questions Unresolved

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however,...more

Anti-Kickback and Stark Law Violations Form Basis for Unfair Competition Claims

On June 16, 2014, a federal district court jury in Florida awarded $14.755 million to plaintiff Ameritox, Ltd., a Maryland-based clinical lab, for state law claims alleging tortious interference with business relationships...more

Stern Revisited: Big Questions Remain Unresolved

In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v. Marshall and made clear that a...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction (Somewhat)

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several...more

Supreme Court Ruling in Bellingham Offers Comfort but Little Clarity

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and...more

Anna Nicole Smith Revisited: Supreme Court Closes Gap on "Stern claims;" Declines to Clarify Jurisdiction for Certain Bankruptcy...

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called "Stern claims," they can try or...more

The “Law’s” Limits On The Bankruptcy Court’s Ability To Impose Sanctions For Debtor Misconduct

In the first six months of 2014 the Supreme Court has already issued two opinions concerning the authority of the bankruptcy courts. The first opinion, Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), was issued in March. In Law,...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Procedure for Unconstitutional “Core” Matters Under Stern v. Marshall in Executive Benefits...

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594. In Stern, the Court was faced with the question of whether the Bankruptcy Court had statutory and Constitutional authority to decide a counterclaim...more

"Supreme Court Holds That Bankruptcy Courts May Report and Recommend on Stern Claims"

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.). The Bellingham decision clarifies one of the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Ruling in In re Bellingham

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding...more

Rule of Reason and Market Power

DSM Desotech Inc. v. 3D Systems, Inc. - Applying the laws of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an appeal that no longer contained a patent claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction but Leaves Some Questions Unanswered in Executive Benefits Insurance...

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely followed case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Bellingham) this...more

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction Over Defendants in Fraudulent Transfer Actions; Leaves an Open Door to...

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain...more

Supreme Court Decides Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison

In Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200, the Supreme Court ruled that when Article III does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a core bankruptcy claim, the bankruptcy court may issue...more

CalPERS Allowed To Continue Rating Agency Suit

In 2009, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System filed a lawsuit alleging negligent misrepresentation and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage against Moody’s Investors Services, Inc., Moody’s...more

Focused on Franchise Law - May 2014

FRANCHISOR 101: When is Unreasonable, Reasonable? Crown Imports, LLC (Crown) imports Corona beer from Mexico. In 2008, two of Crown's Southern California distributors, Classic and HBC, agreed that Classic would buy...more

Legitimate Interests Provide No Immunity For Intentional Interference Claims

In law school we study contract law and we study torts. We don’t study contracts and torts as a single subject (e.g., “contorts”). Why? Because they are generally regarded as fundamentally different areas of the law. They...more

Bad Blood Makes Good Law: Minnesota Supreme Court Recognizes Tortious Interference Claim

In Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc., et al., No. A12-0713 (March 26, 2014), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that “tortious interference with prospective economic advantage” is a viable claim under Minnesota law. In so holding, the...more

Queen v. Schultz

Queen v. Schultz - USCA, D.C. Circuit, April 4, 2014 - Defendant Ed Schultz is a radio and television personality currently hosting “The Ed Show” on the MSNBC network. Plaintiff Michael Queen is an NBC employee who...more

T-12 Entertainment Speaks Up in Trademark Complaint Over Use of "I Plead the 5th" Mark

On March 24, 2014, T-12 Entertainment, LLC and Kareem Hawthorne, both of Georgia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Young Kings Enterprises, Inc., Ego Entertainment, LLC., Troy Williams, Anthony Adighibe,...more

Employer Failed to Establish Tortious Interference by Current Employees Who Were Secretly Operating a Competing Business

An employer failed to show that its former employees tortiously interfered with its current and prospective customers, even though they had been secretly operating a competing business while working for the employer. In...more

54 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3