Tag: court

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Elon Musk’s lawyers claim Twitter is being difficult in the pre-trial process

In the latest bout of Twitter v. Elon Musk, Musk’s lawyers claim Twitter is making the pre-trial process difficult and want the Delaware Chancery Court to make it play nice.

In a letter to Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, who will decide the case, Musk’s lawyers outlined three main issues and calls on the court to resolve them.

First is the issue of the trial date. Team Musk claims the lack of a trial date is giving Team Twitter room to “delay all other scheduling discussions” and prevent the case from being trial-ready by October. Musk’s lawyers want the trial to start on October 17th, while Twitter wants to start on the 10th.

Here’s the thing — Team Twitter wants an earlier start date. The social media company pushed for the earliest possible start on the grounds that Musk’s ongoing shenanigans are hurting the company. Team Musk, on the other hand, wanted the trial to start early next year. McCormick chose October.

Next up: Team Musk is once again complaining that Twitter isn’t producing documents and data. This loops together the second and third issues cited in Musk’s lawyers’ letter to McCormick. Once again, Musk is after Twitter data — presumably, given that Musk keeps banging on about it, Twitter’s firehouse data, which was the central part of Musk’s complaints about Twitter having more spam bots than it said.

In the letter, Team Musk says it needs all that information by August 1st and requested McCormick compel Twitter to produce said data.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. The Verge suspects there will be a lot more legal complaining in the coming weeks in back-and-forth filing from both sides. Team Twitter will likely respond to the Team Musk letter with its own filing about how Musk is being just as difficult.

How McCormick responds to all this may give us a clue to how the whole thing will play out — will she put up with the shenanigans or put a stop to it?

Source: The Verge

Categories
Cottage Life

Cottage Q&A: Revoking a right-of-way

By Peter Turner Photography/Shutterstock

There is a right-of-way through my property that dates back to horse and buggy days. Traffic has obviously increased; it is now being used by heavy construction equipment to build and remodel cottages beyond our property. Is this legal? Can it be stopped? Can an old RoW be revoked because of a substantial change in use?—Jan Le Clair, Sand Lake, Ont.

Ian Keay, a managing partner with MKC Law Office in Peterborough, Ont., is answering your questions with…more questions. “Does the party using the right-of-way have that right in their deed? If the answer is no, then, does the party using the right-of-way have a prescriptive right-of-way?” (That’s when the easement is created after a party uses the road for a certain number of years, giving them a form of “adverse possession”—a.k.a. squatter’s rights—that legally allows them to use the road.)  

If those using the right-of-way don’t have that right in their deed, you could apply for an injunction (a judge’s order) to keep the construction equipment off your property, says Keay. “But the party doing the construction may be able to establish a prescriptive right-of-way, which could defeat the injunction.” 

Okay, back to square one. It’s true that the construction equipment might exceed “what was contemplated when the original right-of-way was granted,” says Keay. Or, the disruption could amount to “substantial interference,” considered offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to a “reasonable person.” 

The former does happen. For example, a right-of-way established only so that a farmer can lead cattle to the edge of a lake to drink, or a right-of-way to only access parking. Unfortunately, “most often with ‘old’ rights-of-way, there are no restrictions or specifications whatsoever,” says Keay. “And I doubt the usage amounts to substantial interference.” (Yes, apparently, there is equipment that is more annoying than construction equipment.)

Even if it does, Keay doesn’t think that the right-of-way would be revoked. “It’s more likely that the continued use of the road by the heavy equipment could be restricted or prevented. Only a judge can do this.”

So, you might not be able to stop all traffic on the easement, but if it keeps the noisy equipment off your property, that’s a win, isn’t it? Contact a lawyer with a strong background in easements, and go from there.

Got a question for Cottage Q&A? Send it to answers@cottagelife.com.

This article was originally published in the May 2022 issue of Cottage Life magazine.

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Lawyers question legitimacy of Edward Rogers’ boardroom takeover in B.C. court

In the latest chapter of the ongoing Rogers drama, Edward Rogers’ lawyers went up against lawyers from the Rogers company in a Vancouver courtroom on November 1st. The focus so far has been whether B.C. law allows Edward Rogers to change the board of Rogers Communications without a shareholder meeting.

As The Globe and Mail reports, the company is incorporated in B.C. despite having its headquarters in Toronto. One of Edward Rogers’ lawyers, Ken McEwan, argued that B.C.’s Business Corporations Act allows Edward, as the company’s controlling shareholder, to reconstitute the board through a consent resolution. Since Edward is the chair of the Rogers Control Trust, he has the authority to vote 97.5 percent of the company’s voting class A shares.

However, lawyers for the Rogers company argued that the kind of change proposed by Edward Rogers requires him to hold a shareholder meeting, despite that class B shares held by minority shareholders don’t have voting power. Instead, a shareholder meeting would give minority shareholders an opportunity to vote by buying or selling stock.

Moreover, company lawyers cited Rogers’ governance practices, articles of incorporation and a memorandum of late founder Ted Rogers’ wishes to support arguments against Edward. One lawyer urged the judge to reject Edward’s position that he can do “whatever he wants on whatever terms he wishes.”

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick said that she intends to issue a decision on Friday afternoon.

The courtroom debate is the latest in a long-running feud between Edward Rogers and his mother and sisters over the Rogers company board and CEO Joe Natale. It began with chief financial officer Tony Staffieri leaving the company, which was later reported to be a result of Edward Rogers’ failed attempt to oust Natale and replace him with Staffieri (a plan allegedly exposed by Staffieri butt-dialing Natale while scheming with Edward).

Following the butt-dial report, Edward Rogers put his plan to replace half the company board into action, which ultimately led to two groups claiming to be the Rogers board and Edward taking the whole squabble to court.

Those interested can read a full timeline of the reported family feud here.

Source: The Globe and Mail

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Epic CEO says company paid Apple $6 million as ordered

Epic Games has paid Apple $6 million USD (roughly $7.6 million CAD) for violating the iPhone maker’s App Store guidelines.

The payment follows last week’s ruling in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, which was largely a loss for Epic. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down the ruling on September 10th — it determined that Apple’s App Store was not a monopoly but that the company had engaged in some anti-competitive practices. Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple would need to allow other forms of in-app purchases.

Beyond that, Epic lost on every other count. Moreover, the judge ruled Epic would need to pay Apple 30 percent of the $12.1 million USD it earned between August and October 2020 plus 30 percent of any revenue earned between November 2020 and today.

As for why Epic was on the hook to pay Apple, it all traces back to the beginning of the lawsuit. In August 2020, Epic added its own payment method to Fortnite. That led Apple to boot the game off the App Store — however, those who already had it installed could still play (eventually, an update made the app unusable). During that time, the game still made money, and that’s why Epic was on the hook to pay Apple.

Epic, obviously, isn’t a fan of the ruling. The company has already announced plans to appeal, and CEO Tim Sweeney previously tweeted that Fortnite will return to the App Store only when it can “offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment.” The tweet seems to ignore the fact that it’s up to Apple when (and if) Fortnite can return to the App Store.

Sweeney also tweeted confirmation that Epic paid Apple the $6 million with a somewhat cringey joke: the tweet included a picture of the Apple Pay logo.

Source: @TimSweeneyEpic Via: MacRumors

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Judge rules Fortnite’s Peely doesn’t need clothes for court

The ongoing Epic v. Apple legal battle nearly wrapped up this week in a loss for both parties. Well, it depends who you ask — Epic painted it as a loss and announced plans to appeal, while Apple declared it a win without acknowledging the concessions imposed on it by the court.

One party definitely did win, however: Peely.

Peely is a recurring Fortnite character, a banana, and also the central figure in perhaps the weirdest moment of the trial. The Verge reflected on the Peely incident after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down her ruling on the lawsuit. The incident started as a joke about whether it was appropriate for Peely to appear naked in court.

Gonzalez Rogers officially noted in the ruling that “the Court agrees, Peely is ‘just a banana man,’ additional attire was not necessary but informative.”

Peely’s entrance into the trial came on day six, when Apple’s attorney cross-examined Epic’s VP of marketing, Matthew Weissinger, to learn more about how Fortnite worked. During the examination, Apple’s attorney noted that they chose to show Peely in his ‘Agent Peely‘ attire (above) since “We thought it better to go with the suit than the naked banana, since we are in federal court this morning.”

Although very clearly a joke — a fact reinforced by Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling — Epic doubled down on the banana after Apple criticized the company for hosting ‘Itch.io,’ a storefront with “so-called adult games.”

Epic’s attorney asked Weissinger about Peely, requesting a picture of Peely be put on screen.

“Is there anything inappropriate about Peely without clothes?” the attorney asked, to which Weissinger responded:

“It’s just a banana man.”

And so there you have it. A federal judge has officially ruled that a banana can appear naked in court, a win for Peely and his cohort. Perhaps, also, a loss for the rest of us, depending on your views on bananas.

Image credits: Anna Sullivan (Unsplash), Fortnite Wiki

Source: The Verge