If you don’t want your emails to be binding contracts, don’t sign them, or better yet, don’t write them in the first place, warns a post in the Ohio Real Estate Law Blog of Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz.

The case involved the attempted sale of a high-end residential property in Ohio. The buyers argued that the sellers had agreed by a series of email exchanges (electronically signed) to sell their home to the buyers and that the sellers breached that agreement.

An appellate court remanded the case, explaining: “Given the circumstances surrounding the parties’ email exchange and later discussions, including that other terms of the sale had yet to be agreed upon, an issue of fact exists as to whether the parties had a present intention to be bound at the time of the email exchange, or whether the parties did not intend to be bound until execution of the more formal contract.”

Read the article.

While a commitment letter in the real estate lending process fleshes out any issues or misunderstandings between the parties prior to the preparation of the ultimate loan documents, it is important to be aware of some potential pitfalls and issues that it can present, warns Benjamin Bruner in a Dickinson Mackaman Tyler & Hagen web post.

The post outlines some of the dangers that cause problems for parties to the contract and then discusses some fundamental terms  that a commitment letter should include for the protection of the bank.

Read the article.

TCPAland reports on a reversal of fortune: The Northern District of Alabama has officially been reconsidered and reversed itself on a contractual consent decision.

The court originally ruled that the plaintiff “could not unilaterally revoke her consent to receive debt-collection calls because she agreed to provide that consent as part of a bargained-for exchange.”

The court revisited some of the authorities surrounding its original ruling, and decided that it was wrong, and that a consumer may freely revoke contractual consent unless some term in the contract limits that right. explains Shane Micheil of Womble Bond Dickinson.

Read the article.

A recent post on Robinson+Cole’s Manufacturing Law Blog discusses a recent court decision that underscores the need for manufacturers to exercise caution when seeking to impose post-employment restrictions on key employees.

Author Matthew Miklave explains that manufacturers often seek to bind employees to such restrictions (non-compete, non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations) in order to protect customer lists, pricing information and other confidential or “inside” information which gives them a competitive advantage in the market-place.

The case, Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez, is an example of why these agreements must be carefully drafted to be effective when needed.

Read the article.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP announced that the Blockchain Alliance, a public-private forum to combat criminal activity involving cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, has grown to include 100 industry and government agencies in 19 countries.

Founded in October 2015 by the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center and led by Steptoe, the Alliance is comprised of a broad coalition of companies and government agencies that work to make the blockchain ecosystem more secure through education and dialogue between government and industry. In less than three years, the Alliance has grown from 17 industry members and six U.S. federal agencies to a total of 100 participants all over the world, including not only cryptocurrency and blockchain technology companies but also regulatory and enforcement agencies on six continents, as well as international entities including Interpol and Europol.

Steptoe partner Jason Weinstein (former deputy assistant attorney general in charge of cybercrime investigations at the Department of Justice and a member of the strategic advisory boards of BitFury, Coin Center and the Chamber of Digital Commerce) serves as the group’s director. Steptoe of counsel Alan Cohn (former assistant secretary for strategy at the Department of Homeland Security and a strategic advisor to several blockchain startups) serves as counsel to the Alliance.

“The growth of this Alliance – with 100 members around the world representing industry and government – is remarkable and reflects the growth of the cryptocurrency and blockchain space as a whole,” Cohn said. “Our mission is to enable industry and law enforcement to jointly protect public safety and help create an environment where innovation can thrive, and it’s working.”

“The Blockchain Alliance is an important organization that furthers vital communication between blockchain-oriented businesses and government agencies to help strengthen their understanding of enforcement objectives and cooperation,” said Amy Kim, chief policy officer of the Chamber of Digital Commerce. “The group’s work is critical in fostering the development of properly functioning markets involving virtual currency in particular and is much needed at a time when policy makers continue to have questions about this space. Its efforts have been instrumental in aiding law enforcement to detect crime and prosecute wrongdoers.”

The Blockchain Alliance serves as a resource for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to benefit from the expertise of some of the brightest minds in the blockchain industry for technical assistance in response to challenges faced during investigations. The Alliance also serves as a platform for open dialogue among law enforcement and regulatory agencies and the blockchain community about issues of concern to make blockchain technology more secure and to deter its use for unlawful purposes.

Additionally, the Alliance provides education and technical assistance regarding cryptocurrencies and other applications for blockchain technology, including through a series of webinars that have reached almost 700 participants in more than 35 countries.

“We are proud of the meteoric growth of the Alliance in just three years. The companies in the Alliance are good corporate citizens, and they deserve the credit for their commitment to working proactively with governments around the world to promote a secure blockchain ecosystem – for the benefit of government, industry, consumers, and the public,” Weinstein said.

NAVEX Global has published a new report discussing how to assess your program maturity, gain organizational buy-in and understand the value of a comprehensive third-party due diligence program.

The report can be downloaded from the NAVEX website at no charge.

“Third parties are an extension of your business and expose your organization to reputational and business risks,” NAVEX says on its website. “Help protect your organization with the latest insights, benchmarks and trends around how to manage these business partners.”

The report answers questions such as:

• What strategies do organizations use to manage third-party risks?
• How do organizations employ risk-based procedures to manage third-party risks?
• How do respondents measure the effectiveness of their program?

Download the report.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC), an invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests, has published its fourth quarter 2018 Defense Counsel Journal (DCJ) with articles on current trends in the practice of law.

The current DCJ issue’s articles explore asbestos tort reform on the state level, the growth of punitive damages in Anglo-Canadian contract law, and legal hurdles that manufacturers face when launching products in the United States.

In a release, the organization, said the DCJ is a quarterly forum for topical and scholarly writings on the law, including its development and reform, as well as on the practice of law in general. DCJ articles are written by members of the IADC, which is a 2,500-member, invitation-only, worldwide organization that serves its members and their clients, as well as the civil justice system and the legal profession.

The DCJ is available for free and without a subscription via the IADC’s website.

The current DCJ issue is the first to be overseen by new editor and former IADC board member Kenneth R. Meyer, a partner in the products liability practice group at McCarter & English, LLP, in Newark, N.J. The issue also is the first under the leadership of new IADC president Craig A. Thompson, a partner at Venable LLP.

Following are brief summaries of key articles included in the fourth quarter 2018 issue of the DCJ:

— “The More Things Change: Bankruptcy Trust Reform and the Status Quo in Asbestos Litigation” – The article debunks plaintiffs’ lawyers’ arguments that trust transparency reforms would delay litigation, deny compensation to the most sympathetic of plaintiffs, and divest plaintiffs of their traditional control over the trust and tort systems. The authors explain how trust transparency reforms have not delayed litigation and have, in fact, accelerated compensation from the asbestos trusts. The article also describes that, where reforms have been enacted, they have achieved their purpose of fostering communication within the two-tiered system of asbestos compensation so that juries can properly account for all of a plaintiff’s exposures to asbestos.

— “Moving Beyond Uberrima Fides? The General Duty of Honesty in Contractual Performance and Punitive Damage Awards in Anglo-Canadian Contract Law” – The article’s authors suggest that the characterization of punitive damages as “the bane of corporate defendants” has perhaps never been more true under Anglo-Canadian contract law. This article demonstrates that while punitive damages for pure breach of contract are undoubtedly exceptional remedies at common law, they are generally larger and more common than ever before, which marks an extraordinary development in Anglo-Canadian contract law considering that only 30 years ago punitive damages were barred for pure breach of contract.

— “Entering the U.S. Market: Legal Hurdles That Manufacturers Must Overcome” – Investigates the life cycle of a product’s development and marketing and provides insight into some of the most common legal hurdles – especially consumer protection lawsuits – faced by manufacturers entering the U.S. market.

A post on the website of Pepper Hamilton describes a North Carolina case that involved non-signatories to a construction contract attempting to avoid the contract’s arbitration claim.

When the building’s current owner asserted various claims against the original owner, architect and general and subcontractors, the general contractor moved to have the suit dismissed on the ground that they were subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clauses were not binding on them because the contracts that contained them were not assigned to plaintiffs when they purchased.

“The court held that the plaintiffs’ argument could not be squared with the language of the Contractor Warranty. On its face, the Contractor Warranty stated that [the general contractor] performed all work ‘in accord with the Contract Documents.’ This express reference to [the contractor’s] construction contract put the plaintiffs on notice of the contract’s existence,” explains the article’s author, Jane Fox Lehman.

Read the article.

A former precious-metals trader said to have worked at JPMorgan Chase & Co. admitted he engaged in a six-year spoofing scheme that defrauded investors in futures contracts with the help of his colleagues and bosses, Bloomberg Law reports.

Prosecutors said John Edmonds placed hundreds of orders he never intended to execute — orders designed to move the market, but were canceled before being matched. Edmonds and other traders sought to manipulate futures markets for gold, silver, platinum and palladium on the Nymex and Comex exchanges for their own benefit.

The Bloomberg article continues: “Edmonds, who lives in Brooklyn, New York, said he learned the spoofing strategy from more senior traders at the bank and said his immediate supervisors approved of it, according to the Justice Department.”

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Bloomberg Law reports that class counsel will take home $300 million from settlements over an alleged conspiracy among banks to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court issued the order on Thursday, Nov. 8.

The settlement, approved in August with banks that include Bank of America, JP Morgan and Citibank, is the third largest antitrust class action settlement in history, according to plaintiffs, writes Bloomberg reporter Perry Cooper.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Houston-based construction and business litigation firm West Mermis, PLLC, has earned national recognition among the Best Law Firms in the country by U.S. News & World Report and The Best Lawyers in America.

The firm was selected to the 2019 list of construction litigation firms recognized nationally, and in the Houston metro area, West Mermis is ranked in the top tier of such law firms.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers selection process involves a lawyer survey and feedback from clients on a firm’s expertise, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness along with other questions.

Read details about the award.

POWER magazine has posted the first of a two-part series examining what dealmakers need to know before making any power industry mergers and acquisitions.

The authors, Jeff M. Dobbs and Robert S. Goldberg, are partners with Mayer Brown LLP in the firm’s Houston office.

The series is designed to describe the legal due diligence process, the types of agreements, and issues that are frequently encountered in the diligence review of operating electric power generation assets. It also will outline the structure of a typical acquisition agreement for these assets, and highlight typical provisions and issues that are heavily negotiated between buyers and sellers.

Read the article.

New York State has taken steps to smooth the often rough road for resolving international contract disputes, and parties are finding the new procedures comparatively easy to follow, according to post on the website of Daniel Kron.

He explains that “when international contracts have no forum selection clause, New York can be the only — or best — place to obtain personal jurisdiction. At the same time, given the relatively broad views of personal jurisdiction found in New York, foreign individuals may find they are taken to court in New York despite their desires.”

Read the article.

In addition to representations and warranties, merger and acquisition purchase agreements generally include indemnification provisions, pursuant to which any given party agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other party or parties from specified claims or damages, according to a post on  the Goulston & Storrs website.

Daniel R. Avery explains that these typically include claims arising from a breach of the indemnitor’s representations and warranties or covenants set forth in the purchase agreement, or with respect to other specific matters.

“Indemnity caps are often one of the most intensely negotiated provisions of an M&A purchase agreement,” Avery writes. “The market amount for indemnity caps has historically been a direct reflection of the relative strength of buyers and sellers in the private company M&A market.”

Read the article.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether it should place limits on class-action settlements in which the plaintiffs’ lawyers receive millions and their clients get nothing, reports The New York Times.

“The case arose from an $8.5 million settlement between Google and class-action lawyers who said the company had violated its users’ privacy rights,” writes Times reporter Adam Liptak. “Under the settlement, the lawyers were paid more than $2 million, but members of the class received no money.”

As a part of the settlement, Google agreed to contribute to institutions concerned with privacy on the internet, including centers at Harvard, Stanford and Chicago-Kent College of Law, and AARP.

“How can you say that it makes any sense?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a lawyer for the members of the class.

Read the NY Times article.

NBC News reports that the Justice Department revealed Thursday that a federal grand jury has charged companies in China and Taiwan  and three individual Taiwanese nationals with a scheme to steal trade secrets from Micron.

China is “shamelessly bent on stealing its way up the ladder of economic development and doing so at American expense,” said John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security.

NBC reporter Pete Williams writes: “Federal prosecutors said one of the defendants served as president of a company acquired by Micron five years ago. The charges said he went to work for the Taiwan company, United Microelectronics Corporation, and orchestrated the theft of trade secrets from Micron worth nearly $9 billion.”

Read the NBC News article.

A California appellate court has given Tokai Intl. Holdings Inc. the go-ahead to proceed with cleanup cost-related malpractice claims against law firm Paul Hastings LLP, according to a Bloomberg Law report.

“The firm allegedly failed to properly advise the Delaware-based company about environmental cleanup costs taken on by a subsidiary when it bought a holding company in 2005. Paul Hastings provided advice during the acquisition,” writes Bloomberg reporter Peter Hayes.

Tokai alleges an agreement in a contract for the purchase of a holding company left it, rather than the seller, with $2 million or more in reimbursed cleanup costs related to contamination at a former manufacturing site in California.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

The ABA Journal reports that a would-be class action suit filed against President Donald Trump alleges he engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by promoting three companies that charged people to sell their products and learn about business opportunities, while failing to disclose the financial risk of the buy-in.

Reporter Debra Cassens Weiss writes that the suit alleges Trump didn’t disclose that he was “lavishly paid” for the endorsements, and instead led consumers to believe that his backing was based on due diligence, inside information and personal experience with the companies.

Defendants include Trump, the Trump Organization and children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump.

Read the ABA Journal article.

An Ohio company faces a record fine of more than $63 million after allegedly bilking a government aid program out of millions of dollars, some of which went toward funding the lavish lifestyle of the firm’s chief executive, federal regulators said Tuesday.

The Washington Post reports that the the Federal Communications Commission is taking action against American Broadband, a provider of low-income phone service whose agents allegedly created fake or duplicate customer accounts to claim extra federal funding under a program that offers disadvantaged Americans a small monthly discount on phone and Internet service.

Post reporter Brian Fung explains:

American Broadband’s chief executive, Jeffrey Ansted, was also held personally liable for the alleged misconduct Tuesday as the FCC accused him of embezzling aid money and using it to pay for luxury goods such as an $8 million private Cessna jet, a $1.3 million Florida condominium and a $250,000 Ferrari convertible. He also used the funds to buy memberships to yacht and country clubs, the FCC said.

Read the Washington Post article.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has unanimously affirmed that PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. was materially injured by unfairly traded sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, and derivative imports from China.

Barnes & Thornburg represented PMP before the commission.

Inn a release, the firm said the final USITC decision of Oct. 16 followed the U.S. Department of Commerce’s imposition of two sets of tariffs, antidumping and countervailing duties totaling over 408 percent on Chinese sodium gluconate products after it was determined they were subsidized and sold in the U.S. market at less than fair value. These tariffs were imposed to protect PMP from unfair Chinese trade and were in response to a petition prosecuted by Barnes & Thornburg.

“We’re delighted the USITC found that PMP was injured by reason of chronically low-priced Chinese imports underselling U.S. products,” said David Spooner of Barnes & Thornburg. “We expect this decision will help level the playing field for the U.S. manufacturer, PMP.”

The Barnes & Thornburg team representing PMP consisted of Spooner, Christine Sohar Henter and Nicholas Galbraith in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office, and Mari Yamamoto Regnier in Chicago.