<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Business Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digests/business-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:24:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Banking Practices ‘Bad Faith’ Claim Survives&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff company, who is suing defendant bank for refusing to honor a Debt Settlement Agreement settling $9 million in debts for $3 million, may sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by acting in bad faith and against usual and prudent business and banking practices in determining that plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/banking-practices-bad-faith-claim-survives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pretrial Injunction Ordered in Trade Secret Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mosby G. Perrow III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lynchburg Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Lynchburg Circuit Court grants a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential and/or proprietary information defendant may have obtained from his prior employment with plaintiff, before he went to work for a competitor. Under Virginia law, in order to establish misappropriation of trade secrets under Va. Code § [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud Claim Survives in Modular Home Suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who alleges shoddy craftsmanship, structural deficiencies and an absence of oversight in the installation of a modular home may pursue her fraud claim against a single defendant, but her other claims are barred by the economic loss rule, says a Loudoun County Circuit Court. Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2011, she entered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/fraud-claim-survives-in-modular-home-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bond Principal ‘Necessary Party’ for Bond Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Michael F. Devine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although plaintiff Johnson Controls Inc., who provided materials to defendant Norair Engineering for a construction project on which Norair was a subcontractor, named Norair as a defendant in plaintiff’s suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien, plaintiff failed to name Norair as a defendant in the specific count to enforce the substituted bond, and because Norair [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/bond-principal-necessary-party-for-bond-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malpractice Suit Against Bankruptcy Lawyer Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fauquier County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Jeffrey W. Parker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former client’s legal malpractice action against his bankruptcy lawyer is time-barred because the alleged act – persuading the client to sell his home to the lawyer, who later sold it at a profit – occurred after termination of the representation on July 7, 2005, and the Fauquier County Circuit Court dismisses the suit. Plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/malpractice-suit-against-bankruptcy-lawyer-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Sets Test for Prior ‘Written Demand’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge John R. Doyle III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looking to case law on a similar corporate statute in North Carolina, a Norfolk Circuit Court sets a multi-part test for a minority shareholder’s “written demands” to a corporation required before filing a derivative action, and finds plaintiff met the test for all his claims except his claim that defendants usurped corporate opportunities by developing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/court-sets-test-for-prior-written-demand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contract Assignee May Sue for Breach&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Glen E. Conrad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Charlottesville U.S. District Court says plaintiff building contractor, who was assigned a contract for construction of an office for an auto body shop in Culpeper, may sue defendant North Carolina company, for breach of contract based on alleged faulty workmanship that resulted in water damage and mold problems that required the contractor to compensate [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-assignee-may-sue-for-breach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Facilities’ Charges Not Authorized by ICAs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Claude M. Hilton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit by CoreTel Virginia LLC against Verizon Virginia LLC, the Alexandria U.S. District Court grants partial summary judgment to Verizon in this dispute over certain charges under interconnection agreements entered into under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 compels incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) like Verizon to negotiate contracts, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/facilities-charges-not-authorized-by-icas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rejects Claim for Pipe Patent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alexandria U.S. District Court upholds the USPTO’s rejection of plaintiff’s claims seeking to patent the a spirally formed pipe. On May 17, 1999, plaintiff filed a ‘922 application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 of plaintiff’s application, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed the Examiner’s rejections. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Local Carriers Win Telecomm Case Against Sprint&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Allyson K. Duncan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 4th Circuit upholds judgment for “CenturyLink” plaintiffs, a group of 19 local exchange carriers that entered into interconnection agreements with defendant Sprint Communications under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in plaintiffs’ breach of contract action filed after Sprint began to withhold payments under the agreement; the appellate court also upholds the district court judge’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
