Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Institutions are rules (1.permanent change but slow, 2. Institutions provide stability
Rules are more reactive and not proactive (not the way how it should be) as a result of people’s
actions.
Non market stategy: law regulations , governmental regulations, you can use them as enablers
because it protects patents and provides an opportunity that might otherwise not be there.
Help with market strategy to create en try barriers to other firms (through regulation)
• Players:
○ Chevron (Chevron petitioned to take over the set of points the government was
fighting)
○ Congress
• Authority:
○ Congress
○ Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address states that had failed to
attain the air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) (Defendant). "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'nonattainment'
States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary
sources' of air pollution." 467 U.S. at 840. During the Carter administration, the EPA
defined a source as any device in a plant that produced pollution. In 1981, after
Ronald Reagan's election, the EPA adopted a new definition that allowed an existing
plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the
total emissions from the plant itself did not increase. The Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), an environmental protection group, challenged the EPA regulation
in federal court. Chevron, an affected party, appealed the lower court's decision.
○ The Court of Appeals reversed the agency, primarily on grounds that while the
language of the act was ambiguous, the pollution reducing purpose of the non-
attainment provisions made the bubble policy "inappropriate" for those areas.
• Step by Step
○ Then they looked at the Clean Air Act which said congresses duty to
protect the air
○ Then they looked at their own decisions and the precedent that the
court of appeals set for themselves
○ Court of Appeals found on precedent that it should strike down the current appeal if:
○ Appeals case was NRDC v US: EPA lost, Chevron comes in as an interest group Court
of Appeals – Congress finds Clean Air Act & Amendments were in conflict w/ main
purpose – to protect clean air
○ If Congress left a gap then Administrative Agency, EPA had the right to fill in the
gaps, EPA’s definition of “source” is permissible
• Key Learnings:
○ Definitive rule on how courts are supposed to make decisions involving agencies
○ The courts can’t made a definitions (such as defining the bubble) but they can make
sure the definition is consistent with the statute
○ Side note: agencies are required to give notice and ask for comments
○ Bribes
• Can executive order be challenged in court system? No, because they only effect the
executive branch and are limited to this area
• Where do executive branch and judicial branches overlap? (when Nixon didn’t want to turn
over tapes)
SUMMARY:
• Article Summary- Perhaps the most frequently cited decision in modern American
Administrative Law is Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S.
837 (1984). At issue in Chevron was the Environmental Protection Agency's
decision to allow "bubble" definitions of pollution sources in Clean Air Act non-
attainment areas. (A non-attainment area is one in which the concentration over time of
a major regulated pollutant exceeds the regulatory maximum.) The bubble policy allows
polluters to treat entire plants as if they exist under a large bubble. The focus of regulation
is not on the emissions of individual smokestacks or pieces of equipment within the plant,
but rather on the total amount of pollution coming out of the bubble. Polluters are free
(within limits that need not be discussed here) to change processes and equipment within
the bubbled plant so long as the total amount of pollution coming out of the bubble does
not increase.
The bubble policy was adopted in an informal rulemaking proceeding by the recently
installed Reagan administration (although it had been seriously considered in the Carter
administration and it was already applicable in attainment areas). The Natural Resources
Defense Council immediately and vigorously challenged it. NRDC's concern was that
the policy would allow polluters to modify equipment within aging plants
without making the upgrades to meet the higher standards applicable to new
sources and major modifications. The NRDC found this particularly troubling in light of
the Clean Air Act's expressed goal of bringing non-attainment areas into attainment. The
EPA defended the policy on grounds that it would result in no more pollution over time
than a stricter policy -- since many existing polluters had long been avoiding all
modifications that might subject them to higher standards, that it would reduce the
confusion of having different rules applicable in attainment and non-attainment areas [the
same area can be attainment for some pollutants and non-attainment for others], and that
it was in fact consistent with the Clean Air Act.
The Court of Appeals reversed the agency, primarily on grounds that while the
language
of the act was ambiguous, the pollution reducing purpose of the non-attainment
The Supreme Court treated the problem as one of statutory interpretation. The
question was whether the bubble definition of "source" was consistent with the Clean Air
Act. After carefully reviewing the (somewhat Delphic) definitions of source in the Act (e.g.,
"building, structure, facility, or installation") the court concluded that the statute did not
make a clear choice on the question. Justice Stevens' opinion went on to lay down the
following guidelines:
Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of
the Government. Courts must, in some cases, reconcile competing political
interests, but not on the basis of the judges' personal policy preferences. In
contrast, an agency to which Congress has delegated policymaking
responsibilities may, within the limits of that delegation, properly rely upon the
incumbent administration's views of wise policy to inform its judgments. While
agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and
it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make
such policy choices -- resolving the competing interests which Congress itself
either inadvertently did not resolve, or intentionally left to be resolved by the
agency charged with the administration of the statute in light of everyday
realities.
Wiki definition: A major stationary source is a source that emits more than a certain amount of
a pollutant as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The amount of pollutants
allowed for certain new sources is defined by the EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
A stationary source in air quality terminology is any fixed emitter of air pollutants, such as fossil
fuel burning power plants, petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, food processing plants and other
heavy industrial sources.
A mobile source in air quality terminology is a non-stationary source of air pollutants, such as
automobiles, buses, trucks, ships, trains, aircraft and various other vehicles.
Court said there was not corporations because they did not have any assets and he was
personally liable (he would have been protected if he had assets, and keep records—in this case
if he lost his assets they won’t go after you.. but if you start with no money and comingled
personal money they can go after you)
Torts system case: because the company was undercapitalize and this was unfair to the
customers to not be protected.
Into
Summary:
Plaintiff’s daughter drowned in swimming pool run by Seminole Hot Springs Corporation. Present
action to hold defendant Cavaney personally liable for the judgment against Seminole. Cavaney
is shareholder, secretary, and treasurer, Board member, and also the corporation’s
lawyer. Cavaney kept the records in his office.
The trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs for $10,000. Defendant appeals.
Judge Trainer says limited liability doesn’t apply to Caveney comingled personal funds with
corporate funds and there were no assets in the corporation
Leasing the Pool: Is a lease an asset? Not if the market value is less than lease
Traynor says there are 3 situations in which we pierce the corporate veil:
• Stockholders treat the corporate assets as their own and add and withdraw at will
• Stockholders hold themselves out as personally liable for the debts of the corporation
○ Why? Because the managers are the ones who should be buying the insurance.
Passive shareholders do not buy insurance. Passive shareholders do not decide to
open the pool to the public.
○ The active direction/management of the business should deal with the costs of
doing business and should be held liable for failure to insure against foreseeable
risks of the business.
how important is the active involvement part of the test? Ans: not very. The
undercapitalization, for Traynor, is the important part of this test because it’s
really easy to find active involvement.
"Piercing the Corporate Veil" = disregarding the corporate entity; it defeats limited
• treating the corporate assets as one’s own, adding or withdrawing capital at will
• holding one’s self out as being personally liable for the corporation
• providing inadequate capitalization to run business affairs, and take active part in
managing
In New York, “piercing the corporate veil” may be possible in cases of:
• undercapitalization
wiki definition: The corporate law concept of piercing (lifting) the corporate veil describes a legal
decision where a shareholder or director of a corporation is held liable for the debts or liabilities of the
corporation despite the general principle that shareholders are immune from suits in contract or tort that
otherwise would hold only the corporation liable. This doctrine is also known as "disregarding the
corporate entity". The phrase relies on a metaphor of a "veil" that represents the veneer of formalities and
dignities that protect a corporation, which can be disregarded at will when the situation warrants looking
beyond the "legal fiction" of a corporate person to the reality of other persons or entities who would
otherwise be protected by the corporate fiction.
Piercing the corporate veil is not the only means by which a director or officer of a corporation can be held
liable for the actions of the corporation. Liability can be established through conventional theories of
contract, agency, or tort law. For example, in situations where a director or officer acting on behalf of a
corporation personally commits a tort, he and the corporation are jointly liable and it is unnecessary to
discuss the issue of piercing the corporate veil.
Walkovsky v. Carlton (New York, 1966)
Carlton (cab owner) was solvent (have enough money) whenstarted the business, because he
was insolved at the time when he was incorporated. But he runs out of money afterwards.
Summary:
• Walkovsky is run down by a cab, sues the company, total assets of corp = 2 cabs
Generally, some fraud (like undercapitalization) must occur, plus the shareholder whose
personal assets are at risk must be involved in corporate decisions (active participation).
Wiki: Walkovszky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (NY 1966)[1], is a leading decision on the conditions under
which Courts may pierce the corporate veil. A cab company had shielded themselves from liabilityby
incorporating each cab as its own corporation. The New York Court of Appeals refused to pierce the veil on
account of undercapitalization alone.
Justice Keating, in dissent, said that Carlton should be liable. The corporation was intentionally
undercapitalized in order to avoid liability, which is a clear abuse of the corporate entity. The interests of
the state in protection of victims of negligence is a sufficient basis to pierce the corporate veil. He held
that "a participating shareholder of a corporation vested with a public interest, organized with capital
insufficient to meet liabilities which are certain to arise in the ordinary course of the corporation's business,
may be held personally responsible for such liabilities." This "insufficient capitalization" rationale has not
been widely persuasive with courts, perhaps due to a fear that it would chill entrepreneurial activity.
Summary:
• Background: Pillsbury wanted access to shareholders list and corporate records regarding
munitions manufacture
• Shareholder seeks from corporation access to original and current s/h ledgers and records
related to munitions manufacturing. Loses at trial.
• Purpose? Communicate with other shareholders, attempt to change Board and policy.
• What is the rule for inspecting corporate records in Delaware? Shareholder must show a
“proper purpose, germane to his interest as a shareholder.”
• Trial court found that Pillsbury did not have an interest in either Honeywell’s or in his own
financial well-being
As long as director is acting in good faith and is reasonable and believes in what he does
(even if he is wrong) he has the right to not put the lights.
Summary:
This is an appeal from [a dismissal by the trial court of the original suit, the original
suit being a shareholder action filed against the company's board of directors for
negligence and mismanagement. The corporation was also made a defendant.
Plaintiff sought damages and an order that defendants cause the installation of
lights in Wrigley Field and the scheduling of night baseball games. Defendant Philip
K. Wrigley is also president of the corporation and owner of approximately 80% of
the stock
• Majority shareholder and inside board of directors make corporate policy. Minority
shareholders sue, claiming that shareholder value is being squandered.
○ But…Court looks to the logic of Wheeler v. Pullman Iron and Steel Company
'It is, however, fundamental in the law of corporations, that the majority of its
stockholders shall control the policy of the corporation, and govern the lawful
exercise of its franchise and business.
The majority of shares of its stock, or the agents by the holders thereof
lawfully chosen, must be permitted to control the business of the corporation
in their discretion, when not in violation of its charter or some public law, or
corruptly and fraudulently subversive interests of the corporation or of a
shareholder.'
"Courts will not step in and interfere with honest business judgment of the directors unless there is a showing of fraud,
illegality or conflict of interest."
MCI
Worldcom had a lots of problems and hired Breeden to fix them. He writes a letter and
specify the types of boards
Summary:
Richard Breeden (former chairmen. Monitor) proposed corporate governance reforms for MCI.
Breeden is a former chairman of the SEC who was a court-appointed "corporate monitor" for the
troubled company (formerly WorldCom). The company must adhere to the proposals unless
excused by a court order.
• Corporate Liability
• Failings at WorldCom:
○ Officers
Ethical failures
Inadequate controls
○ Board
Inadequate controls
Ethical failures
Limited exposure
○ Shareholders
Lack of transparency
• “entire country has a stake in finding ways to improve what is already a very good
system”
Types of Boards
• Intervening Board
• Operating Board
Breeden Letter
• Limits on compensation
• Transparency requirements
Per se violations:
• Always illegal
• Horizontal Market Acquisition-market share leader acquires another firm in the same
market, presumed price increases. In order to avoid this issue parties may divest lines,
plants or patents to deal with concerns.
• Make sure tactics are legal (laws not black and white)
• Determine costs to lawsuit (direct and indirect – including uncertainty, time and effort, and
bad publicity)
○ Price Fixing
○ Market Division
3 Types of Violations:
Summary:
Department of Justice sues Oracle during 2004 to prevent the acquisition of Peoplesoft under the
Clayton Act on grounds that it would substantially lessen competition.
Clayton Act, Section 7 Prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be
substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." Determining whether
a merger will have that effect requires a thorough economic evaluation or market study.
"market definition" analysis Section 7A of the Clayton Act, called the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Act, requires the prior notification of large mergers to both the FTC and the Justice
Department.
Requirement
"Market definition" requires the identification of the "relevant market"
Government argument:
• Relevant product market was in "high-function" enterprise software, in which only Oracle,
SAP, and Peoplesoft competed.
• Relevant geography = US, because prices overseas do not affect domestic prices and visa
versa.
Oracle argument:
○ DOJ: these only offer routine HR and financial functionality, unlike the high-function
products.
○ Oracle: No, this geographic market is too narrow, should include Europe at least.
Background on Treasury Bond Scandal: Set in June 1991, two months prior to Salomon Brothers'
announcement that thefirm had violated the Treasury Department's rules governing the auctions of new
Treasury securities. Salomon Vice Chairman John Meriwether must decide how to address problems that
continue to appear in the management of the firm's government bond trading activities. In April 1991,
one of his managers admitted that he had submitted an illegal auction bid in February 1991. Now, one
month later, there is mounting speculation in the press that Salomon tried to corner the market
Summary:
• Salomon Brothers – founded in 1910 – (82 years old); eventually ranked 4th in US
• Arbitrage – buying securities at a low price in one market then selling at a slightly
higher price in a different market
• Firms willing to commit large amounts of capital could generate substantial returns
from these small companies
• Meriwether headed Arbitrage unit until late 1980s, then picked to head all of SB’s
fixed income securities activities
Treasury BondScandal:
In April 1991, Mozer admitted that he had submitted an illegal auction bid in February 1991.
Mounting speculation in the press that Salomon tried to corner the market for May 2-year
notes.
Result of Case: In 1991, Salomon was caught submitting false bids to the U.S. Treasury by
Deputy Assistant Secretary Mike Basham, in an attempt to purchase more Treasury bonds than
permitted by one buyer between December 1990 and May 1991.
• Risk of investigation
• Serious
Cover-up?
Risk in investigation
Formal
> 35%
SEC regulation
Government might “ignore” the problem – what precedent does that set?
• Not Serious
• Implied
• Inadequate supervision
• Inadequate control
• Redesign incentives?
Anyone who breaks laws should lose their bonuses (but this didn’t happen in
the case of Solomon)
Pro:
• Sends a clear signal internally and externally that Mozer’s conduct was
in appropriate (employees, customers, US Treasury)
• CYA
Con:
• Could Backfire
• Blab- employees saying if you think that is bad here are other things
going on?
• Reputation damage
• Feb? (information known and held for over 5 months)- looks bad
• In depth knowledge
• Ruthlessness
• Aggressive
• Intuition/instinct
○ Value/demand
○ trend
• Risk loving
• Creativity
• Bluffing
• Information + (-)
• Deceive
• Detached emotionally
• Capital reserves
• Talent
• Leverage
• Competitive advantage/sustainable
• Reputation
• Resources/inventory
• Motivating
• Incentive compensation structure
3 Lines Crossed
• 35%
• Section 10b
• Record Keeping
Devices
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or
instrumentality of
interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange --
a.
To effect a short sale, or to use or employ any stop-loss order in connection with the
purchase or sale, of any security registered on a national securities exchange, in
contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to security futures products.
b.
To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a
national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based
swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach -Bliley Act), any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and
regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.
Rules promulgated under subsection (b) that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading (but
not rules
measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading), and judicial precedents decided under
subsection (b)
and rules promulgated thereunder that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading, shall
apply to security -
based swap agreements (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) to the same
extent as
they apply to securities. Judicial precedents decided under section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and
sections 9, 15 , 16 , 20 , and 21A of this title, and judicial precedents decided under applicable
rules promulgated
under such sections, shall apply to security-based swap agreements (as defined in section 206B
of the Gramm-
What happened?
• Mozer placed bid under the client’s name (Mercury) without authorization and for
the company as well which resulted in more than 35% of the shares
• Asked the client (Mercury) to request that the firm not respond to the letter from the
Treasury
• Did it again
Result:
Fined $290 million, the largest fine ever levied on an investment bank at the time, weakening it
and eventually leading to its acquisition by Travelers Group. CEO Gutfreund left the company in
August 1991; a SEC settlement resulted in a fine of $100,000 and his being barred from serving
as a chief executive of a brokerage firm.
ADM
Lysine price fixing international, US government went after them. 100M to prove
importance that they will go after you.
Summary:
Violated Sherman antitrust act, conspired w/ 4 other companies in the lysine market
Conspirators agreed on price levels, sales volumes, had meetings to monitor price
agreements
Company pleaded guilty and was sentenced with $100M which is the largest criminal antitrust
fine ever
Meant as signal that these violations made by individuals and cartels would be vigorously
prosecuted wherever they are
White collar crime: committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the
course of his occupation; nonviolent crimes committed in commercial situations for financial
gain
Some Federal agencies also have authority over WCC such as the FBI, IRS, Secret Service,
EPA, Customs, SEC
Mosaic theory: if you see suits in the office that lead you to believe there may be a merger in
the works, you cannot trade on that speculation—both informer and trading are in trouble (if
you see or hear something important and it is use to generate income)
Accounting fraud case in Houston (Dynergy Inc.) sentenced more than 24 years in prison
Judges are rejecting guilty plea bargains
Increasing tension among sentencing court, prosecutors, and defense counsel in white collar
cases
The decreased cost of information flow, increases the in the number of markets, the liberalization
of product and labor markets in many part of the world, and the deregulation of international
financial flows is stripping away many traditional sources of competitive differentiation and
exposing a new fundamental core as the basis for wealth creation. That fundamental core is the
development and astute deployment and utilization of intangible assets, of which knowledge,
competence, and intellectual property are the most significant. Also included are other
intangible such as brands, reputations, and customer relationships.
• What has been obvious to some- namely, that knowledge and its applications are at the
very roots of modern economic growth and prosperity-has not been transparent to all.
Most apparent in securities markets where swaps, index futures, program trading,
etc are now commonplace. Also firms are outsourcing more. Few firms‘corner the
market’ anymore.
○ Decoupling of information flows from the flow of goods and services: New IT and the adoption
of standards are greatly assisting connectivity. Can do things online like buy insurance (no
salesman needed). Also helps with sharing of information.
○ Product Architecture and Technology ‘Fusion’: new products are rarely stand-alone. They are
usually components of broader systems.
○ Implications: changes dynamic of competition and competitive advantage. Must have non-
tradable assets for advantages.
Mask
Works
Consideratio Trade Trademar (semi
Copyright Patent
ns Secret k conductor
industry
only)
National Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Uniformity
Protected Expression Secret Invention Goodwill Semi-
Property of Idea information conductors
Scope of Exclusive Right to Right to Proscribes
Protection right to make, use exclude against
reproduce, and sell others from misreprese
prepare secret and making, ntation of
derivative to protect using, source
works, against, selling
publically improper
distribute, use or
display and disclosure
perform
Effective date Creation of From date Patent Use and/or First
of protection work of application filing date commercial
conception date of US exploitation
or receipt application
of secret issuing as
information principal
registratio
n on or
after
11/16/198
9
Cost of Low Low Moderate Low Low
obtaining
prosecution
Term of Life of Possibility 20 years Perpetual 10 years
protection author plus of if used
50 years, perpetual correctly
or 70 years protection; and
or diligently
termination policed
at any time
by
improper
disclosure
or
individual
developme
nt by
others
Cost of Nil Moderate Moderate Moderate Nil
maintaining
protection
Cost of Moderate High High Moderate Moderate
enforcing
rights against
violators
Inherent replicability
Easy Hard
IP Loose Weak Moderate
Rights Appropriability Appropriability
Tight Moderate Strong
Appropriability Appropriability
The main classes of nontradable assets today are locational assets, knowledge assets and
competences.
Complementary Assets:
○ External Sensing: During ‘sensemaking’ the organization receives and interprets messages
about new markets, new technologies, and competitive threats.
○ Implications for the Theory of the Firm: Stress entrepreneurial side not administrative.
○ Conclusion: Knowledge, competence, and related intangibles have merged as the key drivers
of competitive advantage.
David Teece clarified that two factors – imitability and complementary assets - will have a strong
influence in determining who will ultimately profit from an innovation. Imitability refers to how
easily competitors can copy or duplicate the technology or process underpinning the innovation.
There are many examples of barriers a company could use to protect itself from imitation,
including intellectual property rights, complex internal routines or tacit knowledge.
Consider the case of RC Cola, it was the first firm to introduce a diet cola on the market, but
since it could not protect itself from imitation soon Pepsi and Coca-Cola jumped in, and using
their complementary assets (distribution channels, brand name, etc.) they appropriated all the
profits of the segment. Complementary assets, therefore, are equally important. They include
any activity that gravitates around the core innovation such as distribution channels, reputation,
marketing capabilities, strategic alliances, customer relationships, licensing agreements, among
others.
If ability to imitate is high and complementary assets are freely available or unimportant it will be
difficult to make money out of the innovation (exceptions can be made at the very short run).
If complementary assets are tightly held and important and ability to imitate is once again high,
the holder of such assets will be the one profiting on the innovation, independently of who
developed it like in the diet cola case.
If ability to imitate is low the innovator will find himself in a much better position. When
complementary assets are not controlled by other economic actors he will be able to collect most
of the profits being generated. When, on the other hand, complementary assets are important
and tightly held negotiation will take place, profits will be shared in proportion to bargaining
power of the parts involved.
The Teece model can be used not only to predict who will profit from an innovation but also to
understand what company will have higher incentives to invest in certain innovations. The threat
of imitation and the importance of complementary assets had already being used under other
frameworks, but usually they were employed individually or were used to dissect the overall
market structure (i.e. Porter’s Five Forces) and not the innovation dynamics. The major flaw one
can find the this theory is the lack of empirical evidence, which results from the difficulty to
isolate the imitability and the complimentarily effects from other factors.
Main Ideas:
Flip- Valuation of patent which allowed the company to offer financing for leasing the payments.
This allowed the company to place the lease payments on the balance sheet and received capital
for giving up relatively little capital. Aberlyn didn’t account correctly for the risk taking.
Problems with Aberlyn’s Process:
• Hard to value
• Protecting patent
• Lessee defaulting – how do you use the patent you have acquired
Case Summary:
Aberlyn Capital Management, a venture leasing firm specializing in providing capital to
biotechnology firms, proposes to introduce a new product. Aberlyn will base a lease on an
intangible product: the patent of a biotechnology firm. This poses a series of short and longer run
challenges.
Background Info
• Developed concept of providing leases based on patents (this allowed growing firms to
finance their need for working capital through leasing, rather than just equipment purchases)
• Provided financing via bridge financings, private placements, venture leasing (1992)
○ New deal called for Aberlyn to lease on an intangible asset: patent of a biotech firm
RhoMed would sell its patent to Aberlyn, lease it back for life of the 3-yr deal
○ Issues to consider:
How much was the patent really worth? (US Patent #4,940670)
If successful, how could Aberlyn capture max profits from its innovation (LR)
What is a patent?
• Innovator (Differentian)
○ Regular Lease payments (interest payments); spread over UST rates or prime
○ Money paid as a purchase option at the end of the lease; lessee can pay FMV not to
exceed 25% of original cost of the equipment
○ “Warrant Coverage” Lessor (Aberlyn) granted warrants to purchase the common stock of
the lessee, at a certain date, for a prespecified exercise price;
Lessor’s ability to sell or transfer warrants for 3 yrs was sharply restricted by
SEC Rule 144 (forbids sale of unregistered securities for two years after the
transaction, limits the volume of sales in the following year; typically have
“piggyback” rights
They understand the VC market and patents. (need more info here)
• Capabilities in
• Patent
• Accounting (when buy patent can put value of patent on balance sheet (versus company
creates patent can only put cost of patent))
• Recurring payments
• Warrants
• Relationships, future deals (Intangible- relationships with companies for future business)
• Brand/Model validation
• Validation is difficult
• Protect; ownership (have to protect patent)- could be pushed back on lessee, however, if
they don’t protect and they default
Who is RhoMed?
10% discount factor (maybe they should have used 15-20% instead)
Most deals made on people (95%) and only (5%) of cases bet on patent.
Updates:
Rho-med
• Agreed to: Name change to Palatin Technologies (still around today with stock price
at $0.12/share)
Disclosures
• Investment types: startup, first and second stage, leveraged buyout, and special situation
Main Takeaways
○ Aberlyn was compensated with promised regular cash payments + warrants to purchase
common stock of the firms for which it provided financing
○ New deal called for Aberlyn to lease on an intangible asset: patent of a biotech firm
RhoMed would sell its patent to Aberlyn, lease it back for life of the 3-yr deal
○ Issues to consider:
How much was the patent really worth? (US Patent #4,940670)
If successful, how could Aberlyn capture max profits from its innovation (LR)
• Provided financing via bridge financings, private placements, venture leasing (1992)
○ Intentionally constrained the firms to which it would provide leasing (min 2 rds)
○ Evaluated potential lessees on a five-part scale attempting to rank firms on the
basis of the likelihood that Aberlyn would be repaid; goals in Exhibit 5
○ Asked (in some cases) to have a nonvoting rep placed on BoD of any firm to which
Aberlyn would provide financing
○ Regular lease payments (interest payments); spread over UST rates or prime
○ Money paid as a purchase option at the end of the lease; lessee can pay FMV not to
exceed 25% of original cost of the equipment
○ Lessor (Aberlyn) granted warrants to purchase the common stock of the lessee, at a
certain date, for a prespecified exercise price;
Lessor’s ability to sell or transfer warrants for 3 yrs was sharply restricted by
SEC Rule 144 (forbids sale of unregistered securities for two years after the
transaction, limits the volume of sales in the following year; typically have
“piggyback” rights
○ Combination of lease payments and purchase prices and warrant coverage define
the return available to a venture lessor
• Aberlyn established policy guidelines for the terms it charged lessees, as a function of
their position in Aberlyn’s five-part risk class
○ Aberlyn buys the patent, firm leases it back to gain the legal right to use patent
○ FLIP – Finance Lease on Intellectual Property – attractive for several reasons:
Lessees would be able to obtain working capital while giving up only a small
equity stake
Helps reconcile firms’ economic value with their accounting statements
• Firms can only value discoveries for the cost of the patent application;
firms that acquire patents record them on their balance sheets at their
purchase price (reflecting market value)
If the patent was ever seized from a defaulting firm, predicting the resale
market value would be difficult
Selection of the patent on which to base the lease – needed to select patents
covering IP distinct and separate from the firm’s other claims
Aberlyn would not execute a lease for > 80% of the NPV of patent
Patent leases restricted to 10% of overall investments by the fund
RhoMed, Inc.
○ Rhodes joins University of Arizona, Los Alamos National Lab, SVP (Scientific Affairs)
of Summa Medical Corp (firm goes bankrupt)
○ Rhodes starts own company out of his garage, financing from SBIR (Small Business
Innovation Research) program
Within 1st year, RhoMed won two Phase I awards, one from NIH, led to a Phase
II award; other from DOE, led to $500K grant to commercialize
○ State establishes NMRDI (New Mexico Research and Development Institute)
○ Rhodes tapped into third financing arm – strategic alliances w/ large pharmaceutical
firms motivated to work with and fund RhoMed because of product line under
development:
RhoChek
LeukoScan
Mgt team, having retained a controlling interest in the firm to this point, was
unwilling to give up a large share of the firm to venture capitalists
RhoMed had so little external financing in the past – clear example of the disparity
between accounting and economic value
Patent was valued at $5M – comfortable safety margin for Aberlyn; RhoMed could
purchase its patent back for $1 at the end of the three-year lease after repaying
Aberlyn’s loan
Warrant Coverage of 10%; warrants’ life at 5 years and exercise price at $1.45
IPO would be appropriate in October, 1994 after product development was further
advanced
Summary:
• Uncle told nephew that he would give him $5K if he didn’t drink, swearing, play cards, or
billboards etc. until 21
Consideration Doctrine -allows the common law to distinguish between contracts and mere
promises of gifts (the latter are generally unenforceable).
• Court says it doesn’t matter if it is a benefit (still says he refrained from action that gave
him consideration- he gave up something, each party in contract needs to bring sufficient
consideration, in this case it was giving up his rights to receive $5K)
• Do the words and actions of the parties constitute an offer, and an acceptance of that
offer?
• Common law applies the mirror image rule: Parties must offer and agree to mirror
provisions in order for a contract to be enforceable
Summary:
○ In Alaska a group of men sign a contract with a company to work on a fishing boat
for a season for $50 plus $0.02 per salmon
○ Once in Alaska the men stopped working and said they wouldn’t keep working until
the got $100 per person
○ Is the court going to enforce the second agreement? They say no on the grounds
that “the captain said he didn’t have any authority to
○ Workers gave no additional consideration for new rate/new contract (Doctrine of
fresh consideration- comes in when trying to modify a contract)
• Agency contract
○ Which employees can bind organization when they are making contracts?
Authority- explicit OR
Job Description (is employee acting within their job description) AND other
party reasonably believed the authority
• Capacity- He did not have the authority to make the decision. thecommon law recognizes
that parties to a contract must possess the necessary mental capacity to bargain. The
common law generally recognizes both infancy and mental illness as bases for non-
capacity
• Duress- The guy did not have any other option. The law requires that parties enter a
bargain of their own free will. A party can claim duress in contracting to void the
agreements
If you can prove all four of these then weaker party can claim Duress.
There was evidence to the effect that before the operation was performed the plaintiff and his
father went to the defendant's office, and that the defendant said before the operation was
decided upon, "I will guarantee to
make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand."
• The plaintiff claims that the words establish the giving of a warranty.
The defendant argues no reasonable man would understand that they were used with the
intention of entering "into any contractual relation whatever," and were only " expression
in strong language”that he believed and expected that as a result of the operation would
be a success
(2) Positive ill effects of the operation upon the plaintiff's hand.
Concluded: the plaintiff's damage is the difference between the value to him of a perfect hand
or a good hand, such as the defendant promised him, and the value of his hand in its present
condition, including any incidental consequences fairly within the contemplation of the parties
when they made their contract. And they send it back to court and determine what it was. New
trial was ordered
Employee contract was shown to be contrary to public interest, there was no breech of employee
contract
Markham did not have trade secrets because they did not reasonably protect them
Jury ruled that Markham claimed ‘trade secret’ defense in bad faith
Issues
• Duress?
• Trade Secret?
• Breach of Employment
• Anti-trust issues?
• Valid consideration?
Was the Process protected?
• Patent? There was an earlier patent about CVD process, similar to Markham.
Patents need to be:
○ Novel
○ Useful
○ Non-obvious
○ Adequate description
• If the bar to patentability is reasonably low the three things that Markham added
could have given them a reasonable chance to get a patent
• Two steps
○ Get a patent
• Patent is still a powerful tool even if small likelihood that it will get upheld in court
• Problem with coordination (no one steps forward to challenge these things because
in doing so they still help their competitors)(no one steps forward even though
they believe they would win in court)
Then they would have to disclose methods (if they didn’t receive
patent competitors in the process would have seen all of their info)
• Cannot be obvious- Engineers would come up with same solutions on their own
• No physical securing
• Gas mixture
• Alumina tip
• Hexagonal nut
○ Consideration
○ Legal purpose
○ Jury decided that the defendants did not violate their agreement because the
agreement was contrary to public interest
• Unless the person who places a boiler somewhere is found at fault or with negligence,
he/she is not liable for damages to their neighbor
• Innovation: Negligence
• Swain admitted hitting Warren’s car (directly in front of her), but that collision didn’t cause
any collision with the Hudson’s car, the 6th car in front of her
• Ken Hudson testified, “All [he knew] is that we were sitting still and next thing you know,
we got hit.”
• According to Hudsons, the affidavits and Swain’s guilty plea to following too closely show
that Swain’s failure to stop was the cause of their damages
• Hudsons point out, the essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are:
○ A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection
of others against unreasonable risks of harm
○ A legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting
injury
○ Some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result
of the alleged breach of the legal duty
• Assuming Swain’s guilty plea established she breached the duty of due care, doesn’t
establish her liability to Hudsons. “Negligence alone is insufficient to sustain recovery”
○ “no matter how negligent a party may be, if his act stands in no causal relation to
the injury it is not actionable”
○ Whether the Hudsons pointed to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue on
whether Swain caused their damages (burden is on plaintiffs)
Conclusion: “Therefore, even viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts
in a light most favorable to the Hudsons, as the nonmoving parties, the trial court did not err by
granting summary judgment to Swain.”
Judgment affirmed
• She won because it prove that it was not reasonable that flash cubes will explote
• A flashcube which does not work properly and explodes is not merchantable. A flashcube
that shatters might be merchantable
• Plaintiff proved injury to her person which is a compensable consequential damage for
breach of an implied warranty of merchantability
• Plaintiff’s evidence exceeds mere conjecture in proving defendant sold her a defective
product which proximately caused injury to her person
• Evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the claim of breach of an express
warranty, negligence and strict liability. Doctrine of strict liability applies only in cases
involving dangerous instrumentalities such as explosives (flashcube). Case hinges on
whether the plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to get to the jury on the existence of
implied warranty or merchantability which was breached by the seller. Plaintiff purchased
the package of flashcubes for $0.88 from defendant’s K-mart store
○ Pass without obligation in the trade under the contract description; and
○ In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality w/ the description; and
○ Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which the goods are used; and
○ Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and
quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
• In NY there was a law that you can not sue the manufacturer unless you had a contractual
relationship with the company
• The law would not let McPherson sue the manufacturer due to no direct relationship.
Cardozo said that was enough and changed the ruling to allow consumers to bring
negligence claims to products.
• If they would have find Greenman negligible he will have lost, but he was not. In this case
they use strict liability.
• Plaintiff's suit based upon NEGLIGENCE and WARRANTY is eschewed in favor of STRICT
LIABILITY
Mismanufacture
Misdesign
Warning Defects
○ Of late, Negligence aspects have crept back into Strict Products Liability
Beachnut
Main Idea:
Summary:
The CEO of Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. must decide what to do when he receives information that
the company's supply of apple juice concentrate may be adulterated. The concentrate is used in
many of the company's juice products. It appears that others in the company may have had
reason to doubt the authenticity of the concentrate for several years. The case illustrates the
importance of accurate information and open channels of communication to ensure sound
decision making by top management. Also illustrates how emphasis on financial objectives and
designated goals may obscure important ethical and legal considerations. May be used to
discuss organizational barriers to information flow, approaches to decision making, and the role
of the FDA and other U.S. regulatory officials in ensuring food purity.
• Parties Involved:
• Company pleads guilty due to the “collective knowledge” of the organization: $2 million
fine (largest ever paid by 6 times)
• Also, $7.5 million settlement in class action suit against the firm
• 1988 costs (est.) $25 million for the controversy (fines, legal, lost sales)
• 1989: Nestle sells Beech-nut to Ralston-Purina for a bargain (est. $65-90 million)
• Anderson DID SAVE $3.5 million by avoiding the destruction of the original product
• Indicted by the DOJ on charges of the sale of adulterated and misbranded product.
• Dimissed
• FDA visits Canajoharie plant, collects samples from 4 different production batches, all
made w/ concentrate supplied by Universal to be tested in new methodology in Buffalo
• Aug 11, NYS Dept of Agriculture and Markets informs McIntosh a jar of BN apple juice from
a retail store tested as adulterated
• Aug 12, BN ships 30,000 cases of apple and assorted juices to Secaucus, NJ
• Aug 20, FDA is of the opinion the 4 samples in Buffalo were adulterated
• Maltby advises to ship 20,000 cases from Secaucus, NJ to Puerto Rico to avoid seizure by
FDA; destroy the four batches the FDA samples came from
• Maltby also advised Andersen he could legally refuse to provide info to the FDA
• Negotiated recall October, 1982; spring of 1983, FDA receives Johnny Appleseed letter
• BN’s efforts to dispose of juice made from Universal concentrate, shipment to Puerto Rican
distributor discounts made by Andersen, also to DR distributor, huge discounts, lacking
documentation; evidence Universal is making phony concentrate
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Affirmed
Ollie’s Barbeque – yes – this business engages in interstate commerce b/c its
suppliers are from out of state
• Have reasonable policy and procedure that employees can use to complain –
• And employee must ACT on it!
• Person who is being harassed had to not avail themselves
attended past Roll Calls but were denied employment. The court's damages were based on the
difference in income from the women's actual work history compared to what it would have been
had
When Landgraf took over the leadership of DuPont Pharma and Imaging division in
1988, what challenges did he face in diversity?
• Merger
• Pay Inequalities
Summary:
December 1993, Kurt Landgraf just took over as CEO of DPM. Receives troubling letter, emails
from AA’s in R&D (claimed dept discriminated against them)
• Joseph Mollica (former CEO) and David Martin (Exec VP of R&D) had retired and left
• Situation similar to one Landgraf faced in 1988 during a period of overhiring; “a manager’s
nightmare, inheriting someone else’s garbage”
• Imperatives:
○ Resolve the equity issues inherent in the allegations of racial discrimination and the
possibility of a costly, time-consuming and damaging lawsuit
• Moved through variety of sales and marketing positions at J&J and UpJohn; felt DP was
conservative, prejudiced, closed
• Headed pharmaceutical operations in Europe for 3 years; opened his eyes to the ways
distrust of “the other” can undermine teamwork and business success
• Named Director of Pharmaceuticals and Imaging, 1991 his division was absorbed into the
JV
• Landgraf has no PhD, but “senior managers who are trained in the social sciences are far
better managers than those with technical, hard science, or engineering degrees,”
especially since “there is no right answer to lots of questions”
• 1986: DuPont acquires American Critical Care: worst acquisition in history of mankind
• 10/3/88: Landgraf receives unsigned letter to VP from “women and minority reps”; class
action
• Landgraf asks MaryAnn Kummert to head a task force to investigate; Regional Sales
Director
• Task force: 10 people= 5 white women, 1 black woman, 2 black men, 2 white men
○ In one day, Landgraf signed 188 pay changes to bring people to same pay
scale/grade
○ Kummert claimed more men were impacted (higher % of men than women in
company)
○ Fired one Senior Mgr, demoted another for breaking the rules
○ Hired consultant on diversity Kirson Herbert (AA, 20+ yrs exp, Kummert’s original
team)
○ Herbert: level the playing field, create awareness of cultural sensitivity, create
systems of accountability (especially critical); need to be financial disincentives to
not performing
• Jerry Gaylord (head of pharma salesforce) saw increased changes (increase in women),
though he believed changes in the hiring pool would have resulted in a new gender mix
anyways; believes finding highly qualified minority candidates is harder
• 1/1/91 – DuPont and Merck merger; 3rd largest chemical OEM + largest US pharma maker
○ 50-50 Co-owned with a six person board drawn equally from the two parents
DP brought entire pharma, R&D, 1,500 scientists (400 PhD), 600 salespeople,
administrative staff; Merck brought 10 employees, European rights to
marketing several prescription medicines, marketing expertise, cash
For an undisclosed period of time, all profits would go into the JV; Merck’s
products ~ 35% of sales, DP’s product ~65% of sales
The Changing Pharmaceutical Industry:
• Highly fragmented: no company had > 5% market share; top 25 OEM’s had 75% of market
• 1990s: profits grew < half of the annual average of the 1980s – companies started
shedding jobs
• Wendell Wilkerson joined DuPont in 1979 w/ PhD in Chemistry; late 50s/60s, involved in
the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), other civil rights causes; worked directly w/ MLK Jr
• Wasn’t interested in DuPont because it was “conservative and racist”, but believed if he
“worked his ass off, he could run the place”
• Started off with a great manager, than had a worthless one; 12-15 years of complaining
loudly – WW sent a letter outlining his concerns and threatening a class action suit
• 12/1/93: CORE writes to Landgraf w/ “many concerns about the mistreatment and lack of
promotional opportunities of AA within DuPont/Merck, especially in R&D”
Landgraf Responds:
• Immediate inclination was to setup a meeting with the letter’s authors; when he learned
through Herbert that WW’s Core Team was not a companywide group, he hesitated
• Landgraf instructed Herbert to work with Gloria Hammond (DPM Compliance officer) other
AA’s to organize a forum to discuss employment issues
• Duane Holland, DPM’s first AA VP of Workforce Development and Diversity, led the forum
(just promoted days before); only one of 13 managers who did not have a division
reporting to him
• 1992: Holland and David Grandison, Director of Worldwide Medical Affairs, formalized
Wilkerson’s efforts by creating the AA Scientist Program
• 1993: contacts recommended 14 AA’s: 3 were interviewed, none received job offers
○ Moved from R&D< reorganized within marketing; in R&D, she was treated as a
novelty by those more receptive to her being there; ignored by those less receptive
to her there
○ “Ignorance and fear” made her very uncomfortable – she’d never go back to R&D
Barriers to Success:
• Landgraf expected Holland to pull together a task force, achieve results by EOQ
• Critics argued R&D was an elitist degree-driven division (Landgraf had no hard degrees)
• Scientists don’t look favorably on efforts that take them away from work, no quant results
• < 1% of all PhD’s awarded in the US/yr awarded to AA scientists – R&D had limited labor
pool
• Timmermans argued:
○ 1988: Landgraf could create gender equity through hiring, not the case now
○ Whenever there is “pressure and urgency to hire” the results were “disastrous”
○ DPM has a responsibility to hire the best scientists to assure medicines were
effective and safe and there would be no surprises 10-20 years down the road
Arguments:
• “Even in the toughest economic times… if you decrease the negatives, you end with a
powerful motivator. It’s simplicity that works; PhD’s can’t understand this simplicity”
• David Grandison (AA) believed there was “no insurmountable barrier” to hiring qualified
AA’s
• DPM should tied potentially good AA scientists to itself through educational support
programs
• R&D Managers “believed in [diversity], but didn’t really work on it in an ongoing process”
Landgraf’s Decision:
• Under pressure to meet financial growth schedule of the organization set by parent
companies
• Believed they shouldn’t “play the numbers game” yet supported numerical goals as
“short-term” answers until corporate culture made them unnecessary
• Landgraf had one AA in mind for Martin’s head R&D position and he would personally
review the employment records of every individual laid off during downsizing