Three weeks ago, 150,000 California female Walmart employees were no doubt disappointed when a judge rejected their attempt to file a class action discrimination lawsuit regarding alleged wage issues. The women claim that their male counterparts are promoted faster, and paid more than women employed by the retail giant.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out a similar lawsuit filed in 2001; this lawsuit sought to represent 1.6 million female employees of Walmart across the nation. That lawsuit was rejected due to the fact the Supreme Court found no “convincing” proof that Walmart discriminates against females company-wide.

Following this setback, smaller class action lawsuits were filed by some of the women, alleging discrimination took place in various Walmart “regions” in different states. On Friday August 2, Charles Breyer, US District Judge, ruled that the attorneys representing the women failed to support anecdotal and statistical evidence of bias against female employees. He also found that the lawsuit, which was scaled down to include only California female employees, was still too wide-ranging and disparate to be qualified as a class action suit.

Breyer wrote in his ruling that “Though the plaintiffs insist that they have presented an entirely different case from the one the Supreme Court rejected, it is essentially a scaled-down version of the same case with new labels on old arguments.”

In Los Angeles and throughout California, the successful filing of a class action lawsuit can be extremely damaging to a company’s brand and reputation. Large companies, due to the sheer number of employees it takes to successfully operate the business, are particularly at risk in these types of situations.

While this is definitely a victory for Walmart, we’ll have to wait and see how the company fares should female employees decide to file individual lawsuits. As Los Angeles business tort lawyers, Spotora & Associates provides exceptional legal guidance and support, working with clients to achieve the desired outcome.

Business partners no doubt enter a business relationship with the best of intentions; however, sometimes it just doesn’t work out. When one shareholder decides to separate from the others, it can be a messy and complicated process, particularly if no buy-sell agreement was executed.

Here’s a scenario: Two business partners create a company with the agreement that the monies brought in by each will be their own (this is put in a signed letter). One shareholder owns 55% of the stock, the other 45%. After several years in business, one of the partners lacks the desire to expand the company, while the other has brought in 80% of the company’s business. The aggressive partner desires to carry forth the business and separate from the passive partner, but wonders what that partner will be entitled to since he/she is a stock holder who holds 45% of the stock.

What happens if the partner fights the split, or has no desire to separate?

Ultimately, if a partner does not want to sell out his/her portion of the business and has no desire to end his/her involvement, a lawsuit would be necessary to dissolve the business. Otherwise, partners would need to come to an agreement on the value of any assets the business holds, and the good will of the company. A partner could then be bought out for an agreed price, although it may not necessarily be determined based on the partner’s 45% stock holdings.

In these types of situations a buy-sell agreement should be seriously considered. In businesses which are corporations, a buy-sell agreement may be in the form of an stock-redemption or entity repurchase, or a cross-purchase.

Consisting of numerous clauses which are legally binding, buy-sell agreements control specific business decisions including the amount that would be paid for a shareholder’s interest should the partnership dissolve, who may purchase a shareholder’s portion of the business should a partner depart, and specific events (such as retirement, death, or disability of an owner) which may necessitate a buyout.

Pursuant to the California Corporations Code, an involuntary dissolution of a small corporation could be forced by any partner or shareholder who owns a minimum of one-third of the stock of the company.

As skilled Los Angeles business attorneys, the team at Spotora & Associates understand the complex issues involved in both small and large corporations. Let us help ensure your business contracts and agreements are in order, preventing potential future issues or costly litigation.

Earlier this year, Frito-Lay was unsuccessful in a lawsuit the company filed against Medallion Foods regarding trademark infringement. The corn chip giant filed suit against Medallion Foods alleging unfair competition and dilution, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement under the U.S. Trademark Act. The company also claimed patent infringement according to the United States patent laws.

Basically, Frito-Lay claimed that Medallion infringed upon the company’s Scoops design, both in packaging and design. The packaging for the products both companies manufacture are very similar in design, colored blue featuring a background that is geometric and a black name. Both packages also have a panel that is see-through, giving the customer the illusion the chips inside are being dipped in salsa.

As seasoned Los Angeles trademark infringement attorneys, we know that in order to succeed when alleging trade dress infringement it is required that the plaintiff demonstrates its trade dress is non-functional and distinctive, and that the defendant’s (Medallion) product would confuse customers as to the source of the product. The jury ruled in Medallion’s favor, saying they did not believe the patent infringement or specific trade dress claims contributed to the confusion in consumers regarding which products they were purchasing.

At Spotora & Associates, we understand the difficulty companies often face in trying to protect intellectual property, and that issues often arise regarding trademark infringement. If you feel that your trademark has been infringed upon or your intellectual property violated in some manner, contact our Los Angeles business lawyers right away for outstanding legal guidance and support.

By combining with larger companies some businesses can profit, and even avoid having to completely go out of business.  Although business mergers and acquisitions can be quite complex and time consuming, the end result can be very beneficial – and often profitable.

One recent example is the merging of two California banks, First California Financial Group and PacWest, who bought First California after beating out the competition.  While this merger did result in some bank branches closing down, others were able to combine.  First California was considered a money making system, and many believe that the acquisition will prove to be very beneficial for PacWest Bancorp.  However, as usual there were a few issues that weren’t revealed at the onset of the merger.

One such issue is the fact that First California Bank reportedly faced legal penalties regarding bank cards, and the bank’s failure to disclose the fees associated with the card to customers; the bank also allegedly failed to properly represent how the card would work.  Now that PacWest has acquired the bank, it seems the liabilities will be their responsibility.  Still, most feel that the issue is relatively minor, and not serious enough to cause a substantial long-term negative impact for the merger of the two banks.  Perhaps if this merger proves to be successful, we will see more banks as well as other companies merging to the benefit of both.

Companies can thrive by merging with others, however it is critical to gather a substantial amount of information and facts before negotiating a merger or acquisition.  Knowing what the prospective outcome will be and having the right legal information in regards to business laws in California is a must before you proceed forward with what you believe will be a profitable business venture.  As trusted Los Angeles business attorneys, the team at Spotora & Associates can help you make the best decisions regarding mergers and acquisitions, or other decisions relevant to the future success of your company.