Tag Archives | Frolic and Detour

My fellow Boston blogger Lee Gesmer has posted about a recent decision here in Massachusetts that is too good to pass up, even though it is not an international judicial assistance case. The case is AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG (D. Mass. 2013). According to the First Circuit’s decision in the case, here were the facts.

Biolitic, Inc., a US subsidiary of Biolitic AG, a German firm, sold medical equipment to AngioDynamics. The sales contract contained an indemnification clause requiring Biolitic, Inc. to indemnify AngioDynamics for patent infringement claims. AngioDynamics was sued for patent infringement and settled the case; it then obtained a $23 million judgment against Biolitic, Inc. on the indemnification clause in a New York lawsuit. AngioDynamics then sued Biolitic AG, Wolfgang Neuberger (the CEO and majority shareholder of Biolitic AG), and others in Massachusetts on veil-piercing, fraudulent transfer, and other theories. The claim, according to the court, was that the German parent had “looted [Biolitic Inc.] of more than $18 million to render [it] judgment-proof and to move [its] assets beyond reach.” The defendants answered. Biolitic AG raised personal jurisdiction as a defense, but it’s not clear that Neuberger did: his answer only claims that the court “lacks jurisdiction over the person of Defendants BAG [i.e., Biolitic AG] and Biomed.”

AngioDynamics then sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin a merger that Biolitic AG was about to undertake with its Austrian subsidiary; it claimed that the merger would make the judgment unenforceable because American judgments cannot be enforced in Austria.

The contemnor

It’s somewhat shocking to encounter this kind of disobedience to an injunction. Neuberger has thumbed his nose at the judge, and I think the judge’s strong reaction is entirely justified. I agree with Lee, who writes: “Bottom line, Biolitec should reverse that merger post haste. What were they thinking?”

Long-time readers will know that I have been fiercely and maybe ridiculously protective of personally-identifiable information belonging to Letters Blogatory readers. For example, I don’t use Google Analytics, relying instead on Piwik so that none of the analytics data I collect go to any third party. I don’t use a third-party email vendor, so those of you who subscribe to Letters Blogatory via email can rest assured that no one but me has your email address. I have turned down some overtures from advertisers who wanted to advertise on Letters Blogatory but who also wanted to collect analytics of their own. And—until now—I have not used “sharing buttons,” those little Twitter or Facebook icons that allow readers to share articles on social media networks with the push of a button. Social sharing buttons allow Twitter, Facebook, et al. to track readers, and I think that’s not really okay, at least without the reader’s express permission.

The key point there is “express permission.” It turns out there is some new software that allows me to include social sharing buttons at the bottom of each post, with a twist. The buttons are greyed-out and inactive unless you, the reader, turn them on. Once you turn on a particular social sharing button, then you will be able to share posts you read on Letters Blogatory, but as with all sharing buttons, the particular social network will then be able to track your visits.

I decided to look into this when my wife, Letters Blogatory email subscriber #1, read my latest post on the Boston Lockdown and wanted to share it on Facebook, only to realize there was no easy way to share it. For better or worse, in 2013 readers expect to be able to share what they read easily, and so I think it is time for me to get with the program, but only in a way that respects your right to privacy on the Internet.

Therefore, effective immediately, you will find greyed-out social sharing buttons at the bottom of each post. If you want to activate one or more of the buttons, click on the button you want to enable, or the wrench icon (which allows you to enable a button permanently). You’ll then be able to share to your heart’s content. I will be updating my terms of service to reflect the change. As of now, the options are Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus. I am hopeful that the author of this software will be able to include LinkedIn as well.

Thanks as always for reading!

My choir, the Metropolitan Chorale of Brookline, is performing Karl Jenkin’s The Armed Man: A Mass For Peace on May 4 at Jordan Hall. If you are in Boston, please do come!

The Armed Man, a 21st century anti-war composition, evokes the descent into war; moments of reflection; the horrors that war brings; and the hope for peace. The concert has been long-planned, but the piece, a non-traditional setting of the Mass which begins and ends with the French Renaissance tune L’homme Armé, is most appropriate for a concert in this season, in Boston.