Emergency Business Litigation : Chicago Business Crisis Lawyer & Attorney : Tom Patterson Law Firm : IL Emergency Business Litigation, Temporary Restraining Orders

 This is Part II of a post on the Amylin v. Eil Lilly Litigation.  For background on the case and to read about the original TRO see Part I of the post.

Denial of Preliminary Injunction

After granting the temporary restraining order, the parties further briefed the matter and a preliminary injunction hearing was held on June 2, 2011.  As a result, the Court vacated the TRO and denied the preliminary injunction.

The main thrust of the Court’s reversal comes from a more careful analysis of the irreparable harm factor. The Court did not address the remaining elements of the preliminary injunction after determining that Amylin failed to show irreparable harm: 

Under Winter, Amylin “must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “‘Irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. . . . Accordingly, the moving party must first demonstrate that such injury is likely before other requirements for the issuance of an injunction will be considered.’” Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 408 F.3d 112, 114 (2d Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 233–34 (2d Cir. 1999)).

In footnote 2 of its order, the Court repudiated the presumption of irreparable harm from the original TRO.  Instead, the Court examined Amylin’s injury claims: (1) harm attributable to Defendant’s misuse of Amylin’s confidential information and (2) loss of prospective customer and goodwill. 

The Court found Amylin’s claim of harm—misuse of confidential information— was too speculative.  “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Carribean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).  The Court does not do a great job explaining this finding.  Instead, it passes the buck to the two points below.

Secondly, the Court points to Food and Drug Administration’s regulations that prohibit Lilly’s sales representatives from making any potentially misleading statement regarding Amylin’s product without adequate supporting data, including statements comparing the attributes of the other product.  Amylin’s argument that the Defendant’s sales representatives would intentionally mislead consumers to the detriment of Amylin is clearly specious.  The Court concluded that the sales representatives would not risk FDA sanctions to maximize sales of a competing product.

Finally, in order to prevail in a preliminary injunction, damages cannot be monetarily compensable: “[E]conomic injury alone does not support a finding of irreparable harm, because such injury can be remedied by a damage award.” Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).  The Court relied on Defendant’s economic expert who asserted money damages were sufficient to cover any harm arising from Defendant’s actions:

To the extent that Amylin would suffer from the alleged actions, the resulting loss would take the form of profits on lost exenatide sales. Losses of this nature are generally calculable through the use of standard economic analyses undertaken in the calculation of economic harm generally and, specifically, in antitrust actions.  Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No. 11-CV-1061 JLS (NLS) (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2011)

The courts do not enjoin actions that would result in a calculable economic injury. Accordingly, misappropriation of a trade secret can be remedied with money damages.

Finding no irreparable harm, the Court ended its analysis.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Worldcare Limited Corporation v. World Insurance Company, Case No. 8:11CV99 (D. Neb. May 9, 2011).

Written by Jay Lewis

On May 9, 2011, WorldCare Limited Corporation (“WorldCare”) was granted a preliminary injunction against World Insurance Corporation (“Defendant”) preventing further use of the “WORLDCARE” mark or name.

WorldCare is a provider of second-opinion telemedicine services.  The service allows individuals and insureds to request second opinions through WorldCare’s consortium of specialized physicians at highly regarded hospitals and universities.  WorldCare sells its services through insurance policies as an additional benefit.  WorldCare registered its trademark, “WORLDCARE,” in June of 1996.

Defendant provides health insurance products and services including basic medical, major medical, comprehensive major medical, short-term medical, and dental insurance.  Defendant began using WORLDCARE in February 2003 as a brand name on its insurance products.  Defendant applied for a registration of the WORLDCARE mark on March 28, 2005, but the application was rejected.  Defendant continued to use the mark creating customer confusion in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a), 1125(a). WorldCare filed for a preliminary injunction against Defendant on September 21, 2010.

Defendant argued that WorldCare failed to renew its ownership in the WORLDCARE mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1059(a). The Court stated: “Nevertheless, ownership of registration is not determinative of ownership of trademark rights, and ‘the absence of federal registration does not unleash the mark to public use.’" quoting, Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985, 992 (8th Cir. 1993).

The Court cited Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Systems Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8^th Cir. 1981) for the four factors of a preliminary injunction: “(1) The threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase at 114.

Balance of Harms

The Court first reviewed the ‘balance of harms’ between the parties and found in favor of WorldCare.  Defendant’s executive testified that the company had already started to phase out the use of the WORLDCARE mark from its products.  The executive explained, however, the phase-out was only temporary.  Defendant was not willing to consent to a complete termination of the mark’s use.  The executive believed the company was not legally obligated to terminate the use and it could be harmed by a negative public perception if did so voluntarily.  The Court found that due to Defendant’s own actions in phasing out the use of the mark, the burden of an injunction had been significantly minimized.  An injunction reinforcing the phase-out would not cause significant additional harm.

Part II of this post will examine the Probability of Success on the Merits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Written by Jay Lewis

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Jason Hope, et al., CV11-0432-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. 2011)

In the United Stated District Court for the District of Arizona, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against Jason Hope, Wayne Destefano, and Eye Level Holdings, LLC, d/b/a JAWA (“Defendants”) to prevent ongoing deceptive practices. The court granted Verizon’s motion.  The facts are as follows:

Verizon operates a wireless telephone network.  Defendants market and sell premium short message service (“PSMS”) on Verizon’s network.  PSMS sends content to the user’s wireless device such as ring tones, horoscopes, recipes, celebrity gossip and news alerts for a standard monthly fee.  The fee appears on the customer’s Verizon bill.

Verizon requires that companies who seek access to Verizon’s customers comply with guidelines for marketing practices developed by the Mobile Marketing Association (“MMA Best Practices”).  Under the guidelines, content providers like the Defendants, must submit details of their marketing and sales programs to Verizon through a third-party, known as an aggregator.  Once approved, the content provider can begin to provide services like PSMS on the Verizon network.  After the services begin, Verizon uses a third-party auditor, Aegis, to ensure that the provider is not violating the MMA Best Practices.

Previous to this lawsuit, the Defendants had been suspended from the Verizon network for violating the MMA Best Practices.  As a result of the suspension, Verizon required Defendants to identify themselves as Hope and Destefano when submitting a marketing and sales plan to the aggregator.  Instead, the Defendants set up separate limited liability companies in the names of other employees with principal places of business at various UPS stores throughout the country. This was a ploy to prevent Verizon from associating the LLCs and their applications for network access with the named Defendants.  The Defendants were successful in regaining access to the Verizon network and its customers.

Defendants sell their services through their websites.  A customer will visit one of Defendants’ websites and enter information to sign up for the premium services.  Verizon requires these websites to be MMA Best Practices compliant.  This includes details on price, terms, conditions, cancellation policy, as well as requirements for font size and font color.  The MMA Best Practices also requires that certain disclosures appear on the first page of the site.  The third-party auditor, Aegis, monitors the sites for compliance.

At first, the Defendants operated websites that were MMA Best Practices compliant. However, they soon began dropping prices from the site, reducing font size, failing to provide termination information, and removing terms and conditions from the first page.  In order to avoid detection, Defendants used either a firewall or cloaking software to prevent Aegis from viewing the non-compliant landing pages.  When an Aegis auditor attempted to review the Defendants non-compliant website, the software would detect the auditor’s Internet Protocol address and redirect that auditor to a compliant site.

Aegis and Verizon eventually caught on to Defendants’ actions and barred them from the Verizon network.  Verizon also took remedial steps in satisfying customer complaints by refunding subscription fees and increasing the costs of monitoring the Defendants’ actions.

PART II will discuss the legal aspects of this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court’s begins hearing January arguments today. Of interest to shareholders, however, is not a case argued today but rather a case heard in November 2009. Before the end of the current term, the Court will issue an opinion in Merck v. Richard Reynolds. Merck focuses on whether the statute of limitations on a federal securities fraud action begins to run when an investor obtains evidence of scienter of fraud or when any evidence of fraud is uncovered.

The distinction is real and would impact many securities fraud cases. Federal law requires securities fraud cases to be brought within the earlier of two years of knowledge or five years of the violation. Generally speaking, the two year period relating to knowledge does not run until all elements of a violation are discovered. The issue is important in security fraud cases because there is often evidence of fraud before there is evidence of the requisite intent. The evidence of fraud, however, is only recognizable in hindsight based on newer evidence demonstrating the intent to defraud. For example, in Merck, an internal study reached a suspicious but supportable conclusion. It was not until an independent study was published two years later that Merck’s original position demonstrated its intent to defraud.

If the statute of limitations is applied to the first instance of possible fraud, shareholders are put in a position whereby they need to take aggressive action to protect their rights. Such action is expensive, such as instituting preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order actions to preserve possible evidence of intent, and may not uncover any fraud on the part of the corporation. Corporations would also incur an added expense as they are forced to defend preliminary litigation. Waiting until all of the evidence necessary to bring a case is available will not harm corporations that are engaged in ethical practices. 

Merck will be an important case to watch not only for its impact on the discovery rule in securities fraud cases. As the Wall Street Journal Law Blog points out today, it may also demonstrate whether the Obama Administration can affect a change in the Court’s pro-business stance under President Bush.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Illinois is supposed to be more shareholder friendly than Delaware. Its Business Corporation Act provides minority shareholders protections if the majority shareholders are

1. committing waste;
2. practicing fraud;
3. acting illegally; or
4. oppressing minority shareholders. 

There was an article in Business Law Today a while ago that contended that minority shares of stock are worthless apart from whatever rights were provided in a shareholders’ agreement, but I disagree: minority shareholders in Illinois--without any shareholders’ agreement-- have the rights given them by the Illinois Business Corporation Act (and this Act influenced the drafting of the Model Business Corporation Act). If they sue to vindicate these rights, the majority shareholders can elect to buy them out, and their buy out price is the fair value (not the fair market value) of their shares. 

Listing the rights given by statute begins to answer the question posed. If you are a minority shareholder, you need a preliminary injunction if the majority shareholders are doing one or more of the above acts and you or the corporation is going to be immediately irreparably harmed as a result. Waste of corporate assets might not be recoverable absent immediate action; an illegal act may cause the corporation to be sanctioned by law enforcement officials. Oppression is an elastic concept, but the standard is the reasonable expectation of the shareholders.   Most of these defalcations will diminish the goodwill of the corporation, a harm that is difficult to quantify, justifying a preliminary injunction.

In the midst of the ill-will that accompanies actions that necessitate shareholder actions, actual or threatened improper withdrawals from the corporation may require a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Minority shareholders need to be vigilant in guarding the corporate purse. A preliminary injunction can be justified on a constructive trust theory (corporate money is a res that is the subject of dispute over whether the payment is proper). The Illinois Business Corporation Act codifies the court’s power to issue injunctions as well. And the Act provides panoply of remedies available to the court: appointment of a receiver or director, for example, and, more broadly, any order necessary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link