Flexera will present a webinar titled “Risk Management & IP Value Protection for Software Suppliers” on Tuesday, July 31, at 10 a.m. Central time.

In this webinar, Christian Bartsch, partner at international law firm Bird & Bird, will give an overview of legal issues software suppliers must be aware of and the ramifications of leaving them unmanaged.

Martin Callinan, founder of Open Source Software consultancy, Source Code Control, will explain the simple and effective management principles your organization needs to adopt to manage these open source software risks appropriately.

“Whether your organization supplies software alone or embedded in devices or machinery, you need it to be robust, secure and legally compliant,” Flexera says on its website. “Security vulnerabilities or licensing loopholes stemming from open source software can result in product recalls, the loss of valuable IP and terrible damage to your reputation and bottom line.

“These risks can be successfully mitigated by understanding how they arise and the key management principles you need to put in place to manage them.”

Register for the webinar.

Reuters reports that the former chief executive of Energy XXI Ltd agreed to settle civil charges that he failed to disclose to investors more than $10 million in personal loans obtained from company vendors and a candidate for the company’s board, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said.

John D. Schiller Jr. didn’t admit or deny the charges, but he settled with the SEC by paying a $180,000 penalty and agreeing not to serve as an officer or director of a public company for five years, the SEC said.

The Reuters article explains: “The SEC alleged Schiller maintained an extravagant lifestyle using a leveraged margin account secured by his shares in the oil and gas producer. When oil prices tumbled in 2014 and he was faced with margin calls, Schiller accepted more than $7.5 million in personal loans from companies that did business with Energy XXI, the SEC claimed.”

Read the article.

Image by Yoel Ben-Avraham

The Tech & Sourcing blog of Morgan Lewis takes a look at Software as a Service (SaaS) agreements — starting with the perspective of a solution that uses a dedicated service.

The authors of the article describe this scenario: “The application is provided and hosted as a dedicated instance, with common base software (sometimes with customization or variation) but running as a separate instance in a dedicated environment.”

The discuss:

Read the article.

A post on the website of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips discusses a case in which an Ohio federal court found that, where a contract required written revocation of consent to be contacted, a consumer’s attempt to orally revoke consent failed.

As part of the cardholder agreement between Carlton Barton and Credit One Bank, Barton provided his explicit consent to be contacted on his cellphone number in any way (such as prerecorded message, autodialer or text message), explain Diana L. Eisner and Christine M. Reilly. Barton later claimed that he revoked his consent by telling a representative of Credit One not to call him anymore.

Barton sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but the court found that the plaintiff provided his cellphone number to the defendant when he filled out his application form and “‘a party who gives an invitation or permission to be called at [a certain] number’ has given ‘prior express consent’ to be contacted.”

Read the article.

A federal district court judge has affirmed a take-nothing defense verdict for the owner of an Oklahoma City-based company that unknowingly provided services in connection with a mineral royalties Ponzi scheme, finding that the company, Cianna Resources Inc., does not have to repay $21.7 million the scheme paid to Cianna for mineral interests and commissions.

“Our group of attorneys did an outstanding job and put together a powerful case,” said Sawyer Neely of Dallas-based Sayles Werbner, one of the attorneys who represented Cianna. “It certainly was a David-and-Goliath situation, and we appreciate that our hard work resonated with the jury.”

In a release, the firm described the case:

In 2008, Cianna Resources and owner Kyle Shutt entered into a sub-broker agreement with Oklahoma-based Ruthven Oil & Gas, LLC, for the purchase of mineral interests. Ruthven was working with Dallas-based Provident Royalties, Joseph Blimline and others, in what authorities described as a scheme involving nearly 7,800 investors and losses of more than $400 million.

The scheme collapsed and the company went bankrupt after natural gas prices fell. Mr. Blimline was convicted in 2012 for his role in the scheme, and a bankruptcy trustee later attempted to recover funds from investors who had profited before the collapse, including seeking $21.7 million from Cianna Resources.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle in Dallas lasted more than a week when the jury returned the defense verdict on March 28. The successful defense hinged on providing evidence that Cianna had acted in good faith and provided valuable services to an entity. On June 28, Judge Boyle entered a final judgment, denying the trustee’s motion for a new trial and rejecting requests to throw out the jury verdict.

Cianna was represented by Bill Johnson, David Elder, and Matt Brockman of Oklahoma City-based Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, in addition to Mr. Neely.

The case is Segner et al v. Ruthven Oil and Gas LLC et al, case number 3:12-cv-01318, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District.

One area of an employee agreement that can be over-looked, or perhaps misunderstood, is intellectual property, according to a post by John E. Munro on the website of Harness, Dickey & Pierce. Intellectual property, however, can be one of the most valuable assets of a company and should not be glossed over.

In the post, Munro discusses three provisions of an employee agreement that may be missing or could use a tune-up.

These are: the present invention assignment clause, the invention assignment carve-out, and a whistleblower provision.

Read the article.

One area where the distinction between written versus unwritten agreements makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations, points out Christopher G. Hill in his Construction Law Musings blog.

Virginia’s 5- year statute of limitations for written contracts — compared to the 3-year statute unwritten contracts — came into play in  M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court.

M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Hale existed. Hauling Unlimited filed a plea in bar to have the matter dismissed as being brought beyond the 3-year statute and argued that no signed or other written contract existed.

“The Court determined that Hauling Unlimited and Mr. Hale assented to M&C’s terms and did not insist on a signature to make their contract a written one,” writes Hill.

Read the article.

A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision confirmed that waiver defenses can defeat government demands for strict compliance with contract requirements, reports Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman.

Authors Maria L. Panichelli and Alissandra D. Young explain that the Board found in Appeal of American West Construction, LLC that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had effectively waived the right to enforce a construction contract specification.

“This meant that the government could not recover from the contractor the difference in the price it paid for the original specification and the lower amount spent by the contractor to perform the deviation,” they write. “In a world where the government often has the right to strictly enforce contract requirements and hold contractors financially responsible for any deviation, this decision is a big win for construction contractors.”

Read the article.

One of the key insurance policy provisions that is often included in commercial contracts to transfer risk is the requirement that one contracting party make the other contracting party an additional insured on their insurance policy, according a website post for SandRun Risk.

The authors discuss the 2013 Insurance Services Office revisions to the standard additional insured endorsement form.

The three significant changes are:

• Insurance provided to an additional insured will apply only to the extent permitted by law
• If additional insured coverage is required in a contract or agreement, the additional insured will not be provided coverage that is any broader than required in that contract or agreement with the named insured
• The limits available to an additional insured will be the lesser of the limits required by contract or available under the policy

Read the article.

Image by Mike Mozart

Barnes & Noble Inc. fired Chief Executive Officer Demos Parneros for violating company policies and said he’ll exit the post without severance, report multiple sources.

USA Today reports that the move  came on the advice of  Barnes & Noble’s law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

“Parneros will not receive any severance payments after his departure and he is no longer a member of the company’s board of directors,” writes reporter David Pan. “He will not be replaced in the interim by an individual, but rather that his duties will be shared by several executives, including Chief Financial Officer Allen Lindstrom.”

Read the USA Today article.

A lack of precision in responding to an offer can lead to confusion as to whether or not a contract has been formed, warns an article published by Burns & Levinson on JDSupra.com.

The article discusses  APB Realty, Inc. v. Geogia-Pacific LLC, a case involving a contract negotiation for the purchase of 88 rail cars. During the negotiation, Georgia-Pacific offered two options to APB, the buyer. After APB said it was leaning toward one of the options, Georgia-Pacific’s broker told APB that his client had accepted a higher offer.

APB sued for breach of contract.

The article says that “the First Circuit held that because APB might be able to prove that a contract between it and Georgia-Pacific was formed, it would be improper to throw out the lawsuit on a motion to dismiss. Thus, while APB is a long way from winning its suit, at least it is in the fight.”

Read the article.

A podcast posted by Pepper Hamilton discusses the definition of fixed-price contracts and cases in which the audit provision in the contract has been unsuccessfully used to assert claims for reimbursement and False Claims Act liability.

“Fixed-price contracts are well-known among contractors,” the firm says on its website. “These agreements seem simple — they do not allow the contract price to be modified after the award unless the parties expressly agree. But is it really that simple? In reality, there is very little case law guiding the practical approach to these types of contracts.”

In the podcast, Marion Hack, a partner in Pepper’s Construction Practice Group, discusses these types of contracts.

Listen to the podcast.

More and more cases are being submitted to arbitration as a result of pre-dispute contractual clauses, point out John P. DiBlasi and Jacqueline I. Silvey in an article for National Arbitration and Mediation.

“In other words, at the time of entering into the contract, it is wise to make sure the contract contains a clause that provides for arbitration in the event of a future dispute,” they write. “These clauses are found in all types of agreements and in a myriad of contract forms involving construction, consumer financing, employment, insurance, rendering of professional services, sale of goods, and others.”

The article covers the basics of the arbitration clause and the administration of the process in a dispute.

Read the article.

On construction projects, owners and developers often are familiar with standard contract language and provisions, but the industry is continually evolving, according to a paper published by Zetlin & De Chiara LLP.

The paper discusses 10 key contract provisions and tips to help parties avoid pitfalls.

Those areas include scope of work, compliance with schedule, meeting the owner’s target for the budget, contingency, changes in the work, indemnification, insurance, dispute resolution, general conditions, and subcontract issues.

Read the article.

A post on the Morgan Lewis Tech & Sourcing blog reviews issues related to the defense and indemnification aspects inn contracts impacting intellectual property ownership.

Authors Peter M. Watt-Morse and Michael R. Pfeuffer write that “an IP indemnity clause typically includes the obligation to defend against third party IP claims. However, the potential costs and risks associated with this obligation can be impacted by the language of the provision.”

“Like any indemnitee, the user will want indemnification for IP infringement to be as broad as possible, including any losses, costs, damages or expenses whatsoever sustained by virtue of the third-party claim,” the explain.

Read the article.

A post on the Faegre Baker Daniels website asks the question: What does a contractor do when the owner stops making progress payments?

The contractor has two options: it can either continue to perform the work or cease the work, neither of which is a perfect solution.

“The owner’s failure to pay progress payments that are ‘clearly due and owing’ generally entitles the contractor to stop work until the progress payment is made. While this rule seems clear, it is not that simple,” according to the post.

The contractor should look to its contract with the owner to find answers to two questions: Does the contract require the contractor to take a certain action? And, is payment”clearly due and owning?”

Read the article.

A recent California case may force companies doing business with foreign entities to reconsider—and maybe rewrite—their contracts, points out Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in its Corporate & Securities Law Blog.

In Rockefeller Tech. Invs. (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Tech. Co., No. B272170, the California Court of Appeal held that parties may not contract around the formal service requirements of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, commonly referred to as the Hague Service Convention.

Authors Hwan Kim and Neil Popovic write that the decision could have profound implications for international business.

“The Rockefeller decision arguably makes it impossible to require foreign companies from some of the largest economies including China, Japan, Germany, U.K., India, Korea, Russia and Mexico, to show up in a California court based on notice provided by mail, courier (FedEx), or email even if the parties agreed to such forms of notice in their contract,” the authors warn. “This will have profound consequences for companies with global supply chains such as Apple and GM, for investment funds with foreign investors, for engineering and construction companies that procure materials and handle projects around the world, such as AECOM, and potentially for any company that imports or exports goods to or from the United States.”

Read the article.

A Pennsylvania appeals court rejected a request by a natural gas production company to rehear a case whose outcome could affect drillers across the country, reports WSKG.

Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production Company involves the legal principle known as “rule of capture,” which means a property owner has the right to extract or “capture” an underground resource such as water, oil or gas, even if it flows from beneath another property owner’s land, explains reporter Susan Phillips. The case calls into question the longstanding practice as it applies to fracking, which requires subsurface rock to be deliberately broken in order to release trapped gas.

“In 2015, the Briggs family sued Southwestern Energy for trespass and conversion, arguing that the company’s fracking efforts were illegal and it should not be allowed to use wells on neighboring properties to tap gas beneath their land,” writes Phillips. “The family owns about 11 acres of land in Susquehanna County and did not lease its land for gas drilling.”

The trial court rejected their arguments, but an appellate court found that the Briggs’ arguments had legal merit.

Read the article.

Few concepts are as confusing as the “gross up” of operating expenses to those who do not regularly deal with office leases, writes William Hof in a white paper for Husch Blackwell.

“Most tenants understand that in addition to base rent, tenants often directly reimburse their landlords for a portion of the building’s operating expenses (e.g., real estate taxes, casualty insurance, maintenance, utilities, etc.),” explains Hof.

In the paper, he defines “gross up” and explains how it works, and he discusses variable vs. constant expenses and tenant protection.

Read the article.

Arbitration is a creature of contract, and an arbitrator’s powers are in effect defined by the parties’ arbitration agreement, points out a post on the Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo blog ADR: Advice From the Trenches.

“Paradoxically, although an arbitration agreement can be written (double-spaced) on one side of a cocktail napkin, in some cases it may grant greater authority to an arbitrator than a judge has,” writes Narges Kakalia.

In the post, she discusses Timegate Studios, Inc. v. Southpeak Interactive, LLC, in which the Fifth Circuit confirmed an arbitration award in which the arbitrator substantially reformed the parties’ commercial agreement by, among other things, awarding one a broad perpetual license to certain of the other’s intellectual property, despite the fact that the original agreement had granted only a more narrowly drawn ten-year license.

Read the article.