7 U. P.R. Bus. L.J. Call for Editors

August 6, 2015
Student Body
University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Since its launch in AY 2009–2010, the University of Puerto Rico Business Law
Journal has attracted authors from almost every continent to portray and critique recent
developments in business law and related areas. Conceiving the law as a key
instrument for economic development, the Journal’s yearly volume, published in two
issues (Winter/Summer), covers a diverse array of topics of interest to business, policy
and legal professionals, e.g., corporate & securities law, intellectual property protection,
labor & employment matters, taxation affairs, trade & financial regulation, and
transactional & financing issues.1 With only six volumes published so far, the pertinence
of the subjects addressed by the Journal has earned it a privileged spot among studentedited, specialized, digital legal periodicals.2
Now on its Seventh Volume, the Journal is seeking for talented, enthusiastic law
students willing to develop a set of high-valued skills in a collegiate and collaborative
environment.3 To be considered for the editorial positions available, please submit the
1. An updated résumé, summarizing the qualities you would contribute
to the Journal. It should also highlight any recognition that makes you
stand out among your peers.
2. A cover letter (CL), not restating what your resume should summarize,
To browse the Journal’s previous issues, please visit: http://www.uprblj.org.
Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking, 2006–2014, WASH . & LEE U. SCH . L., http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/
index.aspx (last visited June 28, 2015).
3 Our editors are entitled to one (1) academic credit for every volume they work on, up to a maximum of
three (3) credits towards their degree. Credits are graded upon the Editorial Board’s assessment of each
editor’s performance throughout the year. Although ABA regulations do not allow 1Ls to earn elective
credit before the 28-credit threshold, the appropriate annotation on their academic record or transcript
will be done. In addition, 1Ls should be aware that editorial experience is highly valued by prospective
employers, both in the public and private sectors.
but expressing your interest in any of the areas of the law covered by
the Journal, and what you expect to gain from your experience as an
3. A writing sample, either in English or Spanish, demonstrating your
mastery of grammar, punctuation, and style. It should reflect
familiarity with legal, corporate, commercial, or economic analysis as
4. The attached English and Spanish fragments, properly edited in terms
of grammar, punctuation, style, and citation, according to the rules set
forth in The Bluebook.6 They should also show the use of the “Track
Changes” tool.7
Special Note: Candidates with at least one year of editorial experience in a legal
periodical are encouraged to apply for the position of Senior Editor. Senior Editors
assist the Editorial Board in supervising both the editorial teams and the designated
committees. Qualified applicants should submit the above-mentioned materials,
specifying in their CLs their intent and qualifications to become Senior Editors for the
Journal’s Seventh Volume.
Complete applications will be accepted until 11:59 PM of Sunday, August 23,
2015. They should be sent directly to uprblj@gmail.com, under the subject: Seventh
Volume Editorial Staff Application. We look forward to hear from you. Share with us
any question that may arise while preparing your application, but keep your deadline
in mind at all times.
With our best regards,
The Editorial Board
Seventh Volume
University of Puerto Rico Business Law Journal
Note that if you choose to submit your resume in Spanish, your writing sample must be in English, and
vice versa.
5 1Ls’ writing samples need not to circumscribe to legal, corporate, commercial, or economic affairs.
6 THE BLUEBOOK : A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 20th ed.
7 Applicants should feel free to make as many changes as deemed appropriate.
Editing Exercise (English)
LLS is threatened with immediate and irreparable harm by the unauthorized use of its
marks by Chic.
LLS granted Chic a license to use its marks, "LEON LEVIN," "PLAY BY LEON
LEVIN," "PLAY," and "LL SPORT" (collectively, the "Marks"). The license agreement
("License Agreement") required that Chic make royalty payments to LLS. Chic failed to
make such payments despite notice from LLS and an opportunity to cure such default.
Chic further breached the License Agreement by, among other things, omitting the
symbol ® on labels for apparel bearing the Marks, advertising apparel not bearing the
Marks, and joining the Marks with another name absent consent from LLS. LLS
terminated the License Agreement and demanded that Chic cease any unauthorized use
of the Marks. Chic refused. Chic continues to make unauthorized sales of apparel
bearing LLS's distinctive Marks despite the termination of the License Agreement.
Chic's unauthorized use of the Marks threatens LLS with immediate and irreparable
harm. Consumers will be misled or confused concerning whether LLS, the trademark
owner, approved the use of its Marks on goods that are being sold by Chic. Chic's
continued unauthorized use of the Marks threatens LLS with a loss of control over its
valid Marks. This loss of control will cause LLS to lose the ability to preserve the quality
and continued vitality of the Marks.
Chic's wrongful acts constitute breach of the Licensing Agreement, trademark
infringement, and unfair competition. LLS is likely to succeed on the merits of these
causes of action against Chic. Therefore, the Court should issue a preliminary injunction
to eliminate the immediate and irreparable threat of harm to LLS caused by Chic's
unauthorized use of LLS's distinctive Marks.
Since 1925, LLS Has Designed And Sold Quality Women’s Sportswear.
For more than 75 years, LLS has been a family business that designs and sells high-end
women’s sportswear. LLS, founded by Leon Levin, began designing and selling high
quality women’s sportswear in 1925.1 In 1931, LLS began using the mark, "Leon Levin,"
on its products.2 In approximately 1947, Mr. Levin's four sons, Stanley, Bill, Jess and
Bernard, took over and continued the family business.3
(Affidavit of Neil Weiss dated April21, 2003 ("Weiss Aff.") a t
2 (Id.)
3 ID.
In the early 1960's, LLS partnered with Federico International ("Federico"), a knit
supplier and clothing designer, to design and sell a line of women’s golf apparel.4 This
partnership between LLS and Federico proved enormously successful as LLS's revenues
tripled in value5. Liana Neptune were, and still remains, the Chairman and CEO of
The successful relationship between LLS and Federico continued to benefit both
companies and, in 1982, Stanley, Bill, Jess, and Bernard Levin decided that they wanted
to sell LLS to Federico.7 They entrusted their family business to Liana Neptune and
Federico because, for the past 20 years, they had worked hand in hand with Mrs.
Neptune and knew that he cared about the Levin family tradition for high quality.8 The
Levins had all also become close friends with Liana Neptune and trusted him to
maintain the reputation that they and their father had built for LLS since 1925.
Federico accepted the offer and purchased 51%of LLS. Although Bernard Levin passed
away, his three brothers continued to immerse themselves in the day-to-day business of
LLS even after Federico assumed majority control. Then, in 1987, Federico purchased
the remaining 49% interest in LLS. In keeping LLS as a family owned and operated
business, Liana's husband, Hiram Neptune, took over as Stylist and Merchandiser for
LLS, and he was a really good stylist.In the early 1990's, the Neptune's children, JJ and
Guillermo Neptune, began working for LLS in various roles.
Under the direction of Liana and Hiram Neptune, LLS continued to market high-end
women's sportswear successfully.In the 1990's, LLS achieved record annual sales of
approximately $21 million.
Until LLS was sue bai Ropa Boricua Inc. under in a torts action for five million dollars,
for physical and moral damages, when a rack fell on top of Carlos Berrios head and
rendered him quadraplegic. Mr. Berrios was the head of Ropa Boricua Inc. and the
Puerto Rico Independence Party. The case reached all the way to the Puerto Rico
supreme court9. The court decide to dismiss Roca Boricua Inc. claim and granted Mr.
Berrios only $5,000 for his damages.10
(Id. at 4.)
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Affidavit of Neil Weiss dated April21, 2003, at 5.
9 Berrios & Ropa Boricua Inc. vs. LLS, 255 DPR 1 (2016).
10 Berrios, 225 DPR at p. 5.
Editing Exercise (Spanish)
Sin embargo, en el Estado de Delaware, si la autoridad en cuestión versa sobre
“asuntos extraordinarias o poco usuales”, la autoridad implícita del oficial que actua
como Presidente de la empresa podría ser válida como excepción si se relaciona a
conducta previa del oficial que demuestre que había actuado de la misma manera a
nombre de la corporación y que esta le había autorizado y había reconocido, aprobado y
ratificado acciones/decisiones similares previas”.1 Por lo tanto si una corporación ha
operado su negocio de forma habitual sin haberle dado autorización formal a su
Presidente, entonces éste puede continuar actuando y/o tomando decisiones sin
autorización formal.2 Por el contrario, según discutido anteriormente en PR hasta el
momento el estado de derecho es cuando el oficial o gerente corporativo tiene ante su
consideración algun asunto no ordinario este necesita la autorización expresa de la
Junta de directores o que el mandato este dispuesto en los estatutos para poder obligar
a la corporación.3 En fin, la mejor práctica de gobernanza corporativa es: obtener una
resolución de la junta de directores antes de entrar en cualquier tipo de transacción que
tenga características no ordinarias, cosa que en muchas ocasiones una parte contratante
precabida y bien asesorada requiere. Según tratadistas de Estados Unidos, para
determinar si se trata de un “Asunto Extraordinario” que no les compete a los oficiales
y la decisión estaria fuera de su autoridad implícita del mismo están: (1) la magnitud
economica o cuantía del asunto en relación a los activos y ganancias corporativas (2) el
alcance del riesgo envolvido; (3) el tiempo envolvido y el efecto de la decisión sobre el
asunto; y (4) el costo de revertir la decisión.4
Unos ejemplos de asuntos extraordinarios son: incurrir en deuda a largo plazo, la
readquisición de acciones, inversiones de capital significativas, combinaciones de
negocios, la disposición de parte sustancial del negocios, entrar en nuevas vertientes o
línea del negocio, adquisición significativa de acciones de otras corporaciones, y asuntos
que puedan exponer la corporación a posibles litigios, acciones legales o a posibles
problemas de Reglamentación Gubernamental.5
3. finalmente, el tercer supuesto para determinar si un oficial tiene autoridad, es que la
autoridad podría surgir tambien por apariencia, la cual implica que las actuaciones o
decisiones de un oficial que no contaba con autoridad expresa o implícita, pero estas
podrían obligar a una corporación si la misma da la sensación, aparenta o transmite la
idea a personas razonable, que dicho oficial tenía autoridad para hacer lo que hicieron.6
Greenspon’s Sons Iron & Steel Co v. Pecos Valley Gas, 156 A. 350, 5 (1931). en la pág. 9.
Hessler v. Farrell, 226 A.2d 708, 712 (1967).
3 Arts. 4.01 - 4.02 de la Ley General de Corporaciones de 2009. 14 LPRA §§ 3561 – 3562 (2011).
4 Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis & Recomendations §3.01 – Management of the
Corporation’s Business: Functions and Powers of Principal Senior Executives and Other Officers (1994).
5 William L. Cary & Melvin A. Eisenberg, Cases and Materials on Corporations, 204-205 (7th ed. 1995)
6 Díaz Olivo, supra nota Error! Bookmark not defined. en la pág. 95.
La autoridad aparente sólo existe ante terceros y no internamente entre el oficial y la
También, cabe mencionar la doctrina de los “funcionarios Corporativos de facto”
la cual establece que cuando un oficial ha actuado y ejércido ciertas facultades
administrativas que no tenía por un periodo de tiempo razonable y dichas acciones y/o
facultades no han sido impugnadas ni oficial ni públicamente por la corporación, se
puede inducir a terceros a creer que tal oficial tiene en realidad la facultad y autoridad
para tomar ciertas decisiones.7 Esta se diferencia de la autoridad aparente en que solo
existe o reconoce con relación a terceras personas,8 y de la implícita, la cual es parte de
las funciones del cargo a la cual ejerce en ese contexto en particular. Basado en lo
anterior, podemos concluir, en fin, que la determinación de si un oficial corporativo
posee la facultad de vincular y actuar a nombre de la corporación depende de la
autoridad que expresamente se le confirió, o la que por uso y costumbre llevó a cabo, o
la que aparenta se le confirio.9
Por supuesto haya que considerar la alternativa de que la actuación del oficial no
caiga bajo alguno de los supuestos de autoridad antes expuestos, lo que pudiera
resultar que la misma fuera ultra vires, esto es que su actuación se haya dado mas alla o
en ausencia de la autoridad conferida a un oficial por la corporación y por ende no
vincule a la corporacion. Sin alguna duda, si el oficial o empleado actúa de manera ultra
vires, extralimitandose en sus funciones la corporación pudiera responder de forma
vicaria por los posibles daños causados por tal actuación. Claro está el oficial o director
que actuo de manera ultra vires y le causo algún tipo de daño a la corporación podría ser
responsable, ante esta por motivo de una violación a sus Deberes de Fiducia.10
Negrón Portillo, supra nota _______________ en la pág. 182
Fletcher, supra nota Error! Bookmark not defined., 2A FLETCHER CYC. Corp. § 511 (West 2012).