Chaparlaw Attorney Rebecca Strickland recently was a featured speaker at Emory University's School of Law.  Along with two other noted women lawyers, she spoke on the subject of how attorneys are "Navigating the Economic Downturn."

Practically anyone with Internet access can post a comment on a web page.  Anonymous web posting promotes the free exchange of ideas and opinions. When clients of The Chapar Firm posted true comments on line, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit and had the court issued subpoenas to the web site operator to seek to reveal the identity of the posters.  In that case, The Chapar Firm successfully quashed subpoenas to unmask the "John Doe" posters. 

However, under the cover of anonymity, a web poster may feel emboldened to publish false comments about others.  Even the First Amendment does not permit an anonymous web poster to post libelous comments.  Further, the Terms of Use of a website may restrict what a user may post without implicating the First Amendment.  Some websites prohibit users from posting libelous, defamatory, illegal, obscene, or threatening materials.  Other websites specifically state that one may not post confidential information about someone else.  

When anonymous web posters published defamatory comments about a Chapar Firm client, the Firm successfully convinced the website owner to remove the defamatory comments without resorting to legal action.  The Chapar Firm  invoked the Terms of Use of the website which specifically prohibited defamation.  When subsequent defamatory comments were posted, The Chapar Firm demanded that the post inspiring the defamatory comments be closed to commenting.  The website complied.

 

Attorneys Chapar and Strickland secured the dismissal of a case filed in Georgia against a foreign corporation, due to lack of personal jurisdiction.  The case was filed against a foreign sub-distributor, the Firm's client. 

The plaintiff, a foreign distributor, sued the foreign sub-distributor for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract.  The contracts giving rise to the causes of action were all executed and performed outside of the United States.  Plaintiff brought suit in Fulton County, Georgia, based on its contention that a few internet sales had been shipped to Georgia and that a few products had been offered for sale in Georgia.

In Innovative Clinical & Consulting Services, LLC v. First National Bank of Ames, Iowa, 279 Ga. 672, 620 S.E.2d 352 (2005), the Georgia Supreme Court held that business activity can form the basis of personal jurisdiction. 

Nonetheless, the Firm successfully argued that personal jurisdiction did not exist in this case because the alleged contacts with Georgia were unrelated to the cause of action and were not relevant to the jurisdictional analysis.  The defendant in this case did nothing to solicit the sales from customers located in Georgia and did not negotiate with the customer regarding the sales.  Rather, it simply fulfilled orders.  As such, the Firm argued the defendant did not purposefully direct any actions or transactions at Georgia.  The court agreed and dismissed the entire action.

There was no appeal.

Our counsel, Attorney Salomon Hazday, continues to provide assistance to the Firm’s clients with in business transactions of all types.  Notably, he offers special experience with Latin American transactions.  He has built upon his significant experience handling technology deals throughout South America, including Brazil.