Shumaker

DIVIDENDS

BUSINESS INFORMATION FOR CLIENTS AND FRIENDS OF
 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

Volume 5, Number 2

"That's Not Me": Trademark Identity Theft

By:  Jack Santaniello

 

So you've spent years creating, designing and using the perfect words, designs and symbols to represent your business.  While Googling, Facebooking, E-Baying, or doing something else in front of a computer or television screen, you happen to notice your business logo on the screen.  As you look closer, you realize it's not your mark, but something that looks like it.  What do you do? 

Businesses are identified by their brand - the words and symbols linking certain products or services back to a business.  Many business owners gloss over the true value of their marks and, therefore, do not pay much attention to protecting them.  According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), intellectual property theft causes losses to businesses estimated to be in excess of $250 billion dollars per year and 750,000 lost jobs annually. Trademark protection prevents others from profiting off of the brands and goodwill businesses have developed for themselves. 

>Read More 

Jack Santaniello is a partner in the corporate, franchising and intellectual property law practice groups in the firm's
Charlotte Office.

 

______________________________

Chapter 11: A Primer on Preference Claims

By:  David H. Conaway

 

This article was published in the Spring 2011
edition of Eurofenix.

  

A consequence of the global recession is the increase of Chapter 11 filings by United States based companies.  For non-U.S. vendors of such Chapter 11 debtors, it is important to understand the key provisions of Chapter 11 to mitigate risks and potential losses.  A prominent feature of Chapter 11 cases in the United States is the debtor's ability to recover "preference payments," essentially payments made to vendors 90 days prior to the Chapter 11 filing.  For vendors, this is a particularly unpopular aspect of Chapter 11 cases, since the vendor has likely already sustained a write-off of accounts receivable existing at the time of the Chapter 11 filing.  After imposing that loss on a vendor, the debtor has two years after the Chapter 11 filing to sue the vendor to recover payments that were made by the debtor in the 90 day period prior to the Chapter 11 filing.  As a result of this, vendors must evaluate potential preference exposure to understand the full potential loss arising from a U.S. customer's Chapter 11 filing.  

 

Under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, a preference is a transfer of property of a bankruptcy debtor that (1) was to or for the benefit of a vendor; (2) was on account of an antecedent debt; (3) was made while the debtor was insolvent; (4) was made within 90 days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition; and (5) allowed the vendor to receive more than the vendor would receive in a hypothetical liquidation of the debtor. 

 

>Read More

David Conaway is a partner in the bankruptcy, workouts, commercial
transactions, and international transactions
law practice
groups in the firm's Charlotte Office.
 

 

________                                               __

 

Santaniello

Joseph (Jack) Santaniello
First Citizens Bank Building

128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1800
Charlotte, NC 28202-5013
Phone 704-375-0057 Ext. 2141
Fax  704-332-1197

[email protected]
www.slk-law.com 
Jack's Biography
  
 View my profile on LinkedIn
"Yes Virginia, You Must Prove The Note...
and the Mortgage Too":
Proof Problems in the Foreclosure Setting
 

As the tidal wave of foreclosure actions surges through the courts of the land, it seems like every couple of months we are met with panicked headlines in the Press citing a crucial appellate case that threatens with a single judicial pronouncement to stop the surge of foreclosures dead in its tracks.  One such case is U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Antonio Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011) ("Ibanez") decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  Another case which garnered less publicity but dealt with similar issues is In Re Adams, N.C. App. __, 693 S.E.2d 705 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals ("Adams").

The Ibanez case actually is two cases which were consolidated for review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  In each case a lender had foreclosed on real property. 

>Read More

 Moses Luski is a partner in the commercial real estate law practice group in the firm's Charlotte office.

 

______________________________

 
ARCHIVE ARTICLES   
The contents of this Dividends newsletter are offered as general information only and are not intended for use as legal advice on specific matters.  IRS Circular 230 Notice: We are required to advise you no person or entity may use any tax advice in this communication or any attachment to (i) avoid any penalty under federal tax law or (ii) promote, market or recommend any purchase, investment or other action.