Legal News You Can Use

The Buzz thinks the new California cell phone law is silly. You can still eat, play drums, shave, read the newspaper, and put on makeup but you cannot hold your hand next to your ear. Oh, you can still talk on the phone too, you just need to do it on a hands free device. Mind this, you do not actually need any hands on the steering wheel, you just need to be distracted talking on the phone while the phone is not next to your head. As we said, silly! In fact, we think it was merely a revenue grab; an excuse to take $20 ($50 for a second and further offence) from anyone using their phone. Sure the State is short on money, although showing the fiscal restraint of drunken sailors. No...I'm sorry...that’s unfair to drunken sailors. Well, we’re here to help. California Vehicle Code Section 23123(c) provides that, “This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.” SO, if you are using your telephone for any emergency, challenge the ticket. The Buzz says go for it!

-- Paul Marotta

Bon Jour

The Buzz will never forget reading a book about Cambodia, where the friendly greeting “bon jour” was frequently accompanied by a handful of dollars used to bribe whomever was receiving the greeting. Similarly, on June 30, 2008, Iraq sued 50 companies ranging from Chevron, BNP Paribas, and GlaxoSmithKline to Boston Scientific, and AWB, Australia’s largest wheat producer, for taking kickbacks in connection with that textbook example of fraud known as the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. Surprisingly that fine example of responsible leadership Saddam Hussein received kickbacks. The only really surprising thing here is how gullible we can be when assuming the best about people. Paul Volker headed a commission that found that 2,200 companies in 66 countries paid at least $1.8 billion in kickbacks to Iraqi “officials.” since the Oil-for-Food Program ran some $70 billion, we imagine he only saw the tip of the old iceberg. The recent lawsuit alleges violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, among other things. One thing that may prove troublesome for the Iraqi plaintiff is that the plaintiff frequently must show “clean hands” before throwing stones. Iraq was represented internationally by a bunch of crooks for so long that it may not be able to do this. We’ll see. Bon Jour!

-- Paul Marotta

Chick Fight

Barbie just won $100 million against Bratz. Former Mattel (Barbie) designer Carter Bryant, developed the Bratz concept for MGA Entertainment, Inc. Most of the damages were related to an employment contract between Mattel and Bryant. MGA was found liable for interference with contract and aiding and abetting Bryant’s breach of fiduciary obligations. Ten percent of the damages were assessed against MGA for copyright infringement. No punitive damages were awarded even though they could have been if intentional interference with contract was found, like in the infamous $11 billion Penzoil v. Texaco case. MGA claimed vindication and said that the amount Mattel was awarded was dwarfed by their demand. Bratz girlz Yasmin, Cloe, Jade and Sasha had taken food out of Barbie’s mouth. They might be right since MGA and its CEO Isaac Larian have built a billion dollar Bratz empire. Barbie sales slid as Bratz gained popularity, adding Bratz Boyz, Bratz Petz and Bratz Babyz. Bryant, maybe seeing the train wreck to come, settled with Mattel on the eve of trial. We’ve know for a long time that “girls toys” consisted of Barbie, while “boys toys” was everything else, so maybe it was time for some competition. Still, with an ounce of prevention……...

- Paul Marotta