July 23, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Retaining Legal Counsel is Critical When a Business Wants to Raise Capital

Business owners work diligently to build value in their company and to attract consumers and investors. Many plan for the day when they can go public and have an initial public offering (IPO). With recent technology companies raising some serious cash, it’s no wonder that many businesses are contemplating if they can mimic LinkedIn and Pandora’s IPO successes. To that end, whether your company is in the tech sector or a different industry, you’ll want to get a qualified business attorney on your side.

When a company files for SEC registration, the information becomes public record. As such, a knowledgeable business attorney will ensure that the registration and documents meet SEC requirements and protect your corporate image. Preparing for an IPO is tedious work, and unless your company can get an SEC exemption, the paperwork is best drafted and reviewed by counsel.

For those companies who want to pursue other methods of raising capital and are eligible for one of the SEC exemptions, legal counsel remains critical. For example, the Rule 504 exemption of Regulation D allows a company to avoid SEC registration if they: sell up to $1 million in securities in any given year timeframe privately; do not have to file reports per the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and, it is not a blank check company. The Rule 504 exemption lets a company avoid SEC registration and some report filing, but a company will still need to file Form D after the first securities are sold in a private sale. An experienced business attorney will help a client make sure the documents for the private sale and Form D are completed thoroughly without erroneous statements and violations of antifraud provisions.

This also applies to Rule 505, Regulation D of the SEC exemptions. Rule 505 allows up to $5 million in securities offerings and has different investor requirements, but Form D is still mandated. A business attorney will give a company peace of mind that they are completing investor disclosure documents and Form D efficiently.

Rule 506 exemptions allow a company to raise unlimited monies but all non-accredited investors must be sophisticated investors, unlike the guidelines of Rule 505’s non-accredited investors. Form D is still required.

Overall, a business attorney is well worth the investment to ensure that all the steps are completed with precision. The SEC is not a governmental body anyone wants knocking at the door for failing to comply with their rules and regulations. Retaining legal counsel, whether to raise capital through an IPO or privately, helps a company move forward in the best way possible. Business owners can therefore focus on the aspects they are best at and lessen their stress and potential liability during this critical time.

In California, Los Angeles business attorney Anthony Spotora counsels businesses from sole proprietorships to major international corporations on raising capital and SEC requirements and exemptions. The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, P.C., has decades of experience with businesses throughout California, the U.S., and abroad.

For more information:
www.spotoralaw.com
Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2302

P (310) 556.9641
F (310) 556.9642
Toll Free: (877) 4U-EZ-LEGAL

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

July 22, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Trademark Registration and Infringement Concerns Across State Lines

Before federal trademarks were enacted, most individuals and companies registered their marks with the state. State registration for trademarks is still available and less expensive, but with most companies and products wanting to be national, federal trademarks are worth the expense and added protection. In fact, unless a company plans on only selling their goods or services in the state – which is particularly rare with so many companies selling over the Internet – federal registration makes more sense for most businesses.

A business’ name is vital to its branding and sales tactics. Recently, the IP Watchdog magazine commented that trademark infringement is one of the top five mistakes that a startup company makes. As a company gets busy with all the other tasks to get sales and operations going, it can brush off critical steps that will protect the business’ identity, efforts, and assets. Every business can benefit from speaking with a qualified intellectual property attorney to do a full clearance search, to register, acquire, and enforce its trademark.

The current lawsuit of iCloud Communications v. Apple demonstrates the importance of far-reaching trademark protection. iCloud Communications is a Phoenix, Arizona based company that sells cloud computing telecommunication services, hardware, and software. They have used their trademark since 2005 and expended a lot of effort and money to establish, “goodwill and valuable rights in and ownership to the iCloud Marks in connection with computer telephony and electronic data transmission and storage services.” So it was to their surprise when Apple’s Steve Jobs unveiled a new telecommunications and data storage platform called iCloud on June 6 at the Worldwide Developer Conference.

IP and trademark cases usually favor the company that used the registered trademark first and are backed by evidence of how the trademarks were used in the state versus federal context. Already the Phoenix company says it is getting calls “from both existing and prospective customers regarding whether it is now owned or affiliated with Apple” and because of Apple’s extensive marketing machine, more people will associate iCloud with Apple than anything else. If true, it seems clear then that iCloud Communications can prove that there is not only a likelihood of confusion but, there is already actual confusion.

Trademark confusion, dilution, and disputes are serious matters and when a company must stop using its mark, all collateral, customer relations, and years of effort with that particular name must cease. Moreover, in federal courts, an infringer can be liable for three times the owner’s damages plus attorney fees and court costs.

In California, Los Angeles intellectual property attorney Anthony Spotora counsels many diverse businesses to set up, purchase, and maintain their trademark rights. The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates can help a company with basic trademark registrations and more complex matters involving a large portfolio of registrations both in the United States and abroad. Their accomplished trademark attorneys can protect and enforce your trademark and ensure it’s renewed within federal guidelines to strengthen your protection.

For more information:
www.spotoralaw.com
Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2302

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

July 7, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

The Latest in Texas Food Truck Legal and Operational News

El Paso, Texas recently eased regulations against mobile food vendors after four food truck owners represented by litigators at the Institute of Justice filed a lawsuit against the city challenging the constitutionality of the city’s mobile vending restrictions. El Paso ordinances had previously made it illegal for food trucks to be within 1,000 feet of a restaurant or convenience store.

The federal lawsuit of Castaneda v. the City of El Paso asserted that food truck vendors’ constitutional right to “earn an honest living free from unreasonable and arbitrary government interference” was violated. The City of El Paso was stifling competition, a basic principle of capitalism, they said. The Institute of Justice initiated this lawsuit as part of their National Street Vending Initiative to uphold the rights of street vendors everywhere to run their businesses.

“Using government power to place burdensome restrictions on street vendors in order to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition is not a valid use of the government’s police power,” said Arif Panju, an attorney at the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter.

El Paso’s food truck vendors can now sell almost anywhere and are now permitted to park curbside during breakfast, lunch, or dinner rush times. Beforehand, they were only allowed to park if customers were already present and had to drive away when no one was flagging them down. “All I want to do is work,” said Maria Robledo, one of the plaintiffs, who has had her food truck business for 13 years in the city. “I am happy that the city is not going to stop me from running my business.”

In most cities, food trucks must pay sales tax, pay fees and obtain permits to be a street vendor, and pass fire department inspections as well as health department inspections. In Austin, Texas, where a thriving food truck scene exists, the city recently tightened its rules, requiring food trucks to even file their truck routes. Food trucks are a booming industry in Austin, with an estimated 1,620 mobile food vendors expected by the end of 2011. The Economist Magazine states the sentiment of consumers is that, “…trucks offer cheap, often innovative dining. They also permit a degree of whimsy that may seem cloying in a restaurant. Trucks will never supplant restaurants. But so long as money remains tight, they will provide a welcome and increasingly prevalent alternative.”

Food trucks dotted throughout the city sell sandwiches, tacos, barbecue, desserts, and even gourmet and rare foods. Nationally, a food truck chef was named one of the best chefs in the U.S. and even food trucks have earned Zagat ratings. Thus, it is no wonder that these businesses are now more likely to seek legal representation to assert their rights.

Austin restaurant attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience working on behalf of individuals and businesses in the restaurant industry. He represents clients when disputes arise due to financing and loans, equipment leasing, franchise agreements, supply and distribution agreements, intellectual property rights, noncompete agreements, partnership and joint venture agreements, as well as claims against insurers. To learn more, please contact Austin restaurant attorney, Austin business lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

July 6, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Breach of Contract and Unpaid Work at Center of Beaumont Business and Construction Lawsuits

A Texas steel fabricating company alleges breach of contract, misapplication of trust funds, and failure to pay a government bond claim as it tries to collect the money it is owed for work on two Beaumont, Texas elementary schools. Steel Masters worked as the subcontractor under the general contractor Allco. Allco allegedly owes the subcontractor more than $50,000 for the steel erection work it did during construction of the Amelia Elementary and Blanchette Elementary Schools.

The lawsuits in Jefferson County District Court are currently underway. The plaintiff argues that Allco was paid by Beaumont Independent School District (BISD) but Allco never paid Steel Masters. The steel work for Amelia Elementary encompassed the new 93,500 square feet facility. Overall, the total budget from the school district for construction reportedly equaled close to $21 million and it took a little less than two years to complete the entire project.

Separately, at Blanchette Elementary, the facility totals 85,593 square feet and was said to involve a little over $17 million in final construction costs. The Steel Masters lawsuits state that Allco’s owner, T.W. Harrison, misapplied funds. When construction finished, Travelers Insurance issued a payment bond to BISD. This payment is earmarked to protect unpaid subcontractors, but when Steel Masters requested Travelers to pay the $91,745.40 it was owed, the suit alleges Travelers refused to pay it.

Construction payment disputes like Steel Masters’ can be complex. It is critical that a business get expert legal counsel early on to protect their interests. Sometimes a matter must go to litigation like the Steel Masters cases; at other times, legal representation will encourage the opposing party to resolve the matter by mediation and faster financial settlements. Austin business litigation attorney and Austin construction litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan knows the importance of resolving business disputes quickly and efficiently.

Construction contracts are often lengthy documents with many potential traps for the unwary. Unfortunately, large construction projects often end with disputes or litigation. Likewise, insurance claims related to such projects can be difficult to collect on. Businesses often find they obtain better results when they hire an experienced and qualified business lawyer to pursue these matters for them. At the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business litigation attorney and Austin construction litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience representing businesses and individuals in construction and other business-related disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin business litigation attorney, Austin construction litigation lawyer and Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

July 4, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Franchise Businesses Need Legal Representation for US and Global Success

Entrepreneurs and business-savvy individuals are looking at franchises as a way to kick-start their incomes and livelihood. Many U.S.-based franchises are generating interest globally in places such as China, India, the United Arab Emirates and Brazil as their markets crave American products and their investors still have money to dole out on business ventures. A recent survey by the International Franchise Association noted that more than 75 percent of franchises are planning to begin international projects in the next year.

Basic economics are attracting everyone from the stay-at-home mom to the experienced business investor to try franchising. Inc. Magazine listed the following franchises as the most lucrative and in-demand in the U.S. and abroad:

• Healthy eating
• After school education
• Spas
• Edible arrangements
• In home elderly care
• Cleaning services
• Junk haulers
• Fitness

Inc. Magazine shows how some franchises can be run out of your home with only a smartphone and laptop, or for those individuals wanting to have a storefront, signing retail or office space leases. Many franchises have low barriers of entry and consumers waiting in the wings to buy products and services. For the best chances of success, an individual looking to start, buy, and even sell a franchise should get a qualified business attorney to make sure the rules, restrictions, and fees are reasonable and understood.

Franchise agreements can be complex and for new franchise ventures, it is key to secure trademarks and intellectual property rights to protect the brand. A business attorney can help ensure that when a business goes global, the franchise’s core concepts are followed, employee agreements are well thought out, and every step of the business plan analyzed for legal protection. Legal counsel is priceless to a franchise business and will save the business owner time and money in the long run. Successful businesses are oftentimes vulnerable to copycats, so legal representation will go a long way to squash others who are looking to feed off the business’ success.

In California, Los Angeles business attorney Anthony Spotora helps franchisors and franchisees with all their legal matters. The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates is accomplished at reviewing and negotiating franchises for prospective franchisees and is additionally accustomed to establishing the corporation or limited liability company for them. They are well-versed in reviewing leases too and should a dispute arise, taking the steps necessary to resolve it.

For more information:

www.spotoralaw.com

Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, P.C.

1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2302

P (310) 556.9641

F (310) 556.9642

Toll Free: (877) 4U-EZ-LEGAL

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

July 3, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Four cast members of the popular “Happy Days” TV show are suing CBS in Los Angeles County Superior Court after tons of merchandise began being sold with their images, without pay. Anson Williams, Don Most, Marion Ross, Erin Moran, and the estate of Tom Bosley, all have contracts stating that they are to be paid five percent from merchandising net proceeds if their image is used solely and two and a half percent if in a group image. CBS does subtract 50 percent off the top as a handling fee.

The actors, who shot to stardom during the show’s original run from 1974 to 1984, recently were amazed by all the products with their images on them, including “Happy Days” slot machines. Comic books, trading cards, scrapbooks, greeting cards, t-shirts, games, lunch boxes, dolls, toy cars, magnets, and DVDs with their images kept popping up. There is even a licensing deal in the works for a suite of “Happy Days” lotto games.

“When these slot machines came out, it was like Barnum and Bailey came to town,” said Anson Williams, who played ‘Potsie’ in the show. “We were bombarded with, oh look at these pictures, they’d be all over the country.”

CBS claims it only owes the actors between $8,500 and $9,000 each for products with their images sold during the last four years. The actors in their breach of contract lawsuit show they are due millions of dollars for the products. The parties tried mediation earlier in the year to resolve the dispute with no luck. Ron Howard, known on the show as “Richie Cunningham”, and Henry Winkler, the iconic “Fonzie”, are not involved in the lawsuit and had separate contracts with the studio.

“’Happy Days’ is the type of show that represents the best we can be,” Williams said. “It’s something warm, something tactile when life was good and life was simple. When friends were there and neighbors were neighbors… I think it’s going to ring in peoples’ hearts because it’s going beyond this show.”

“There’s a huge juxtaposition for ‘Happy Days’ to represent the coldness of big business, the wrongdoing of big business and the greed of big business,” Williams continued. “And the idea that they don’t have to abide by contracts, and they can get away with anything as long as they are not caught. And they picked the wrong show.”

In the fast-paced world of Hollywood and television, it benefits to have legal counsel review an actor’s contract, merchandising and licensing agreements, and represent your interests to the big studios. The right Hollywood entertainment lawyer can save actors a lot of headaches and financial pain.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has a wealth of experience representing actors, writers, producers, agencies, and studios. Their Los Angeles entertainment attorneys have counseled many individuals from hit television shows in negotiations, drafting contracts, securing intellectual property rights, and litigating when their client’s rights needed to be upheld. Anthony J. Spotora, Esq., is the managing attorney at Spotora & Associates, and is known for a hands-on approach, giving clients individualized attention, and for his experience from working for the big studios in their legal departments.

For more information:

www.spotoralaw.com

Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, P.C.

1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2302

P (310) 556.9641

F (310) 556.9642

Toll Free: (877) 4U-EZ-LEGAL

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

July 2, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Drinking And Fighting In The Wrong Place Results In Fatality

Just when you think you may have heard it all and nothing is a surprise, along comes this story. It is a bizarre tale; but true nonetheless.

This is a tale of two men on a moving bus who decided to get into a fight on their way back from a beer-tasting tour. The odd thing about this story is that the two men were fighting in the bathroom on the bus, and as they were hammering on one another, both fell out of the window onto a major highway. The police found the men in the breakdown lane of the highway. One was dead at the scene, and the other was rushed to hospital and was listed in serious, but stable condition.

Quite the story, and the legal ramifications of something like this would be quite complex. For instance, who started the fight? What were they fighting about? Did anyone else witness it? Can the man in hospital recover compensation for his injuries? Can the family of the dead man file a wrongful death lawsuit?

These questions aside, either man may well be eligible to apply for pre-settlement funding through the auspices of a legal finance company. They only need to fill out an application online, or call the litigation funding company directly, and find out how it works. It does not take a long time to apply, nor does it take a long time for the money to arrive for an eligible plaintiff.

If the plaintiff’s case is deemed to have a chance at winning in court, the lawsuit loan company will approve it and send out their lawsuit cash advance; typically within 48 hours or less. They don’t waste any time, largely because they know that when a plaintiff applies for pre-settlement funding, they desperately need the financial assistance to get back on their feet and out of debt.

The whole idea behind lawsuit funding is that the plaintiff makes an application for lawsuit financing, and once they are approved and the money arrives, they use the litigation funding to pay their medical expenses, and any other outstanding bills they may have. This allows them strategic control over their case, and gives them the peace of mind of being able to wait for justice, and a fair and equitable verdict through the courts.

If an insurance company happens to come along and makes them an offer to settle, the plaintiffs are under no obligation to take the offer, as they have lawsuit funding in the bank backing them up. The only thing the plaintiff is expected to do is take the time to heal, and just wait for their case to be resolved. If by chance they do lose their case in court, and that does happen now and again, any litigation financing they received would still be theirs to keep, with no strings attached.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about <a href=”http://www.litigationfundingcorp.com”>lawsuit &ufding</A> and <a href=”http:/www.litigationfundingcorp.com”>litigation funding</a>, visit Litigationfundingcorp.com.