Welcome to the Mulcahy LLP Blog.
In this section of our website we post exciting articles about legal cases and court decisions. These articles contain a wide variety of subject matter related to competition litigation. From Antitrust & Trade Regulation, to Franchise Law, to Trademark, Trade Secret & Copyright Litigation and more you can find interesting information provided by Mulcahy LLP.
-
-
-
-
The Measure Of Cost In Predatory Pricing Antitrust Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court Implicitly Confirms That The Measure Of Cost In Predatory Pricing Antitrust Claims Is Not Necessarily Determined At The Point When The Consumer’s Participation In The Transaction Comes To An End. Instead, Defendants Can Incorporate Post-Sale Rebates From The Conspiring Supplier To The Selling Dealer.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
California Court Imposes Strict Product Liability On Car Dealer
Earlier this week, in an unpublished opinion, a California appellate court imposed strict products liability on a Ventura County car dealership despite its limited role as a non-profiting, “pass-through” participant of a car sale between General Motors and the customer.
-
The Elegance of Franchising
The word “elegance” can be defined as “ingeniously simple.” Put another way elegance is combining effectiveness with simplicity. If your business depends on several retail units to reach your customers, franchising may well be the most elegant business structure available to you. Here’s what you should consider.
-
Minute Order Holding Defendant in Contempt and Awarding Attorneys' Fees
Mulcahy LLP, on behalf of client The Tutoring Centor, secured preliminary injunction enjoining defendants' unlawful business activities following the termination of the parties' franchise agreement. Defedants were later held in contempt of the preliminary injunction and sanctioned in the form of paying all of Mulcahy LLP's attorneys' fees.
-
Excessive Arbitration Fees Not Enough To Allow Franchisee To Avoid Arbitration
Last week, the California Northern District Court denied a franchisee’s request for a temporary restraining order – asking the court to enjoin the franchisor from arbitrating the parties’ dispute – because the franchisee’s anticipated injuries were limited to the substantial sums of money he would have to pay the American Arbitration Association, the arbitrator and others defending the arbitration. The court found that these expenses would not subject the franchisee to irreparable harm as is required for a TRO to issue.
-
-
-