Super for competing shareholders. Maybe there are enough joint shareholders
(comparable to joint custodians ? ) that facilitated development of this
process. Hopefully there is a consumer rep (comparable to child specialist ? )
involved in the decision-making. If not, might be looking at
anti-trust/consumer law suits down the road (comparable to post decree
litigation ?) if the shareholders are placing their interests ahead of the
consumers' based on short sighted, positional thinking.
But there is always room for hope. Some of us still have carbon paper in our
supply cabinet. :)
BONNIE M. BROWN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Suite 201, Bailey Office Park
4205 Springhurst Boulevard
Louisville, Kentucky 40241-6160
U.S.A.
+1 502 412-9190 ext 226 telephone
+1 502 587-0040 direct line
+1 502 412-9196 facsimile
bmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The preceding electronic message (including attachments, if any) contains
information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client, work
product, or other applicable privilege, and may constitute non-public
information and trade secrets. It is intended to be conveyed only to the
designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail,
please notify me at + 1 502 412-9190 ext 226, and destroy all copies of this
transmittal. Please do not forward this message without my express approval.
Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank You.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, for
the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the Internal Revenue Code,
taxpayers may rely only on opinions of counsel that meet specific requirements
set forth in the regulations, including a requirement that such opinions
contain extensive factual and legal discussion and analysis. Any tax advice
that may be contained in this message does not constitute an opinion that meets
the requirements of the regulations. Any such tax advise therefore cannot be
used, and was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of avoiding
any federal tax penalties that the Internal Revenue Service may attempt to
impose. The legal advice expressed in this message is being delivered to you
solely for your use in connection with the matters addressed herein and may not
be made available to or relied upon by any other person or entity or used for
any other purpose without my prior written consent.
________________________________________
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:46 AM
To: CollabLaw
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Collaborative Opportunities in the News...
Here is an example that was in the news today:
Apple and Google have agreed to dismiss all the current lawsuits that exist
directly between the two companies. Apple and Google have also agreed to work
together in some areas of patent reform. The agreement does not include a cross
license. The deal does, however, include a plan to cooperate on efforts to beat
back so-called patent trolls, such as Intellectual Ventures (IV). IV has
targeted Google and its allies with a variety of lawsuits. And most recently
both Apple and Google have both been sued by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) cofounder
and billionaire Paul Allen. In the end there's a lot of reasons for Apple and
its Android rivals to make peace. And it fortunately looks like things are
finally entering that phase. - See more at:
http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Apple+Drop+Patent+Lawsuits+Against+Each+Other+Sort+Of/article34922c.htm
Ann Buscho, Ph.D.
http://www.DrAnnBuscho.com/index.htm
(415) 456-0952<tel:%28415%29%20456-0952>
FAX: (415) 295-7382<tel:%28415%29%20295-7382>
Clinical Psychologist and Collaborative Law Coach
www.CollaborativePracticeMarin.org<http://www.CollaborativePracticeMarin.org>
[http://www.collaborativepractice.com/media/40507/verticalCP_RGB.gif]
**** ATTENTION **** This electronic document may contain confidential
information and is intended for use by the addressee and/or their intended
representatives only. Review by unintended individuals is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please do not read, transmit, copy,
disclose, or utilize this communications in any manner. If you received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete this message from your computer. Email is not guaranteed to be a
secured medium for exchange of information; therefore, confidentiality
cannot be assured.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:17 AM,
maury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:maury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Has anyone else wondered about the possibilities for The Collaborative Process
in situations which have been in the news lately: the NBA and Donald Sterling;
the City of Detroit and its creditors; General Motors and the families who lost
loved ones due to delayed recalls? The Process has thrived when it comes to
resolving conflict amongst husbands and wives; when will it be a choice of
first resort when it comes to conflict between other "communities"? Perhaps
some issues are just too laden with financial overtones to take the chance; or
perhaps, those who know better, the conflict resolution specialists, haven't
done enough to identify the non-adversarial alternatives for those persons and
entities who find themselves in conflict with another upon whose well being
they still depend? Sterling, as disingenuous as he and his estranged wife
appear, speak of love for the league; we also love our cities; and, even GM, I
believe, understands, that in order t! o thrive, it needs to care about it's
customers. Why is litigation still the first alternative? Can we do more as
leaders in our field to move society toward examination of interests instead of
power? Is this not reminiscent of the debate over the providence of economic
sanctions versus boots on the ground? Just thinking....
