Keller and Heckman LLP’s Post

Did Yum! Brands Drop the Ball? A Bite-Sized Look at Corporate Law (with a dash of English idioms!) ⚖️ ⚖️ The Million Dollar Lawsuit (That Never Happened): In 2014, Yum! Brands faced a lawsuit from shareholders claiming the company wasn't doing enough to address meat shortages. The shareholders argued this mismanagement hurt profits. The Verdict? The judge dismissed the case! The reasoning? While the company's strategy might not have been ideal, "being a lousy business is not a crime." This case highlights the limitations of shareholder lawsuits in dictating specific business decisions. Intrigued? Corporate law offers a fascinating world of legal chess matches, where companies navigate complex regulations to operate smoothly. Here are 10 English idioms to help you sound like a legal whiz (even if you're just starting out!): Drop the ball: Make a mistake (e.g., Did Yum! Brands drop the ball on the meat shortage?) Face the music: Deal with the consequences (e.g., Maybe the company will have to face the music for unhappy customers.) Think outside the box: Come up with creative solutions (e.g., Yum! Brands needs to think outside the box to find new protein sources.) On the same page: Agree with someone (e.g., Shareholders and management need to get on the same page about the company's direction.) Hold water: Be a valid argument (e.g., The shareholder lawsuit didn't hold water in court.) Cut corners: Do something in a way that saves time or money but might be risky (e.g., Cutting corners on food quality can damage a company's reputation.) Red tape: Excessive bureaucracy or regulations (e.g., Complex food safety regulations can create a lot of red tape for companies.) Bend the rules: Break the rules slightly (e.t., Yum! Brands needs to be careful not to bend any rules when dealing with meat suppliers.) Level playing field: A situation where everyone has a fair chance (e.g., Corporate law helps ensure a level playing field for all businesses.) #yumbrands #corporatelaw #lawstudent #businesslaw #englishlearning Camila Andrea Riaño Gelvez Rosa Cecilia Amaya Sanchezat BELTRÁN PARDO ABOGADOS Ruth Paola Rodríguez Plaza Brandon Espinel Maria Fernanda Carvajal A. Riyas NM Gloria Montano Mohamed Zain Fabio Humar Jaramillo Fabian Urriago Guzmán PILAR PATRICIA RUIZ OREJUELA Natalia Andrea Ruiz Peñuela Omar Joaquin Barreto Suarez Luz Ivanna Garaycochea AvilaFelipe A. Salas Bloise 😀

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

#TeamSPB covers all things food and drink law in the latest edition of the Legal NewsBITE! Be sure to give it a read!

Precedents come from weird origins. Lawyers live for precedents! Australia’s common law system operates on the back of precedent. It is the higher courts’ interpretation of a statute that gives us guidance. These precedents interpret the legislation for us, and should create consistency. For lawyers, it saves us from thinking. What is unknown and not used today is the power of the Supreme Court to create new law. The common law is designed to allow the court to create courses of action to protect the innocent. The most memorable is ‘duty of care’. Interestingly enough, some of these precedents emerge from the strangest of cases. ‘Duty of care’ is one of these situations. In 1932, the House of Lords in England brought down their decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. Lord Atkin became the grandfather of ‘duty of care’. This was where negligence was created, and professional negligence finds its roots. The case included a poor innocent snail. Mrs Donoghue had gone into a store on an extremely hot day. Mrs Donoghue bought a bottle of ginger beer and sculled half of it before leaving the shop. She poured the rest of it into a glass when she got outside, only to discover the remains of a decomposed snail. This caused some form of reaction culminating in Mrs Donoghue suffering brain damage. The courts created the neighbour principle that stated that all of us must take reasonable steps to avoid harm that we can reasonably foresee that we can cause to another. A logical test! If we can anticipate a harm, we must do something about it. As noted above, this has been the basis of the majority of litigation cases over the past 90 years. Yes, it has been bastardized by subsequent cases. But it set a new standard. I understand that, Coca Cola pins a summary of this case on the wall of their factory in Darwin. Lax bottling standards have led to small snakes and lizards being found in the Coca Cola bottle. I really don’t understand why they are concerned. I would have thought that Coca Cola would disintegrate them so no one would even know if they swallowed them!