Who is Foundation Press? (Started 1/22/2017, published 3/20/2017) (The WordPress generated, case-sensitive short-link ends “-5yu” and FYI, I include that information for my own help when quoting one post on another also…). The post was basically complete in late January, I added mostly just footnote information (two out of three) at the bottom. Since then, I have been focused deeply on other topics.
The information points out who profits from trademarked information tied into the legal profession case notes, some interesting info about the history of both “West” and LexisNexis, and I hope an appeal to some people I’ve given up attempting to persuade that it actually matters, WHEN they reblog from some funded alternate news (so-called), on-line news (so-called) or Independent Media (so-called) who, really, is behind it.
I’ve also had long and sometimes detailed, and at times impassioned, “communications” with individuals over the issue of whether it’s really helping ANY custody cases, or the overall situation in the family and divorce courts, to “Call attention to” and get some news reporter who has to keep the headlines coming for his (or her) employer, or client (if a freelancer) to produce a dramatic story line over individual cases. After that, then what? Who is any better informed about WHAT systems are involved, how they interact, and how they are controlled and financed?
If I get to it (which I intend to, this week), I have two more examples of “storytelling” which do less than help illuminate anything but those who like to engage in story-telling. THere is ALWAYS a back story and (referring to the two examples upcoming, which tend to show up in my inbox, referenced by tweets, or facebook posts from groups I keep my eye on), you can often learn much more by looking up the organizations associated with the individuals being quoted. Most of them are, after all, networked. News reporting gravitates towards the personal quote, but usually it’s not the personal quote, but the person’s connections, one should pay better attention to over time.
Let me put it another way: If you had three years to spend listening and reading on a major problem to take to a powerful entity (the federal government, or your state government (if that applies), would you rather approach them with their financials relating to the problem, or an anthology of anecdotal evidence (even if true and compelling) and expect that storytelling to apply for the rest of the state (or country) because it has an emotional, heartstring component?
So do many folktales and mythologies. They have story lines, heroes, antagonists, and at the end usually a moral and an underlying message about “how the world works.” Generally speaking, if you compile anecdotal evidence from one “cause” and from “another” (to the contrary purpose), they can easily cancel each other out; but the politicians may hear both sides because they are supposed to be “responsive” to all. You feel heard and get to go tell followers you were heard by a politician as part of building momentum (so do the others). The politicians or other civil servants get to go tell someone else they listened. You’ve “bonded” at some level.
All that time, anyone could be, on their own time and individually, looking up the financials and teaching EACH OTHER how to read and analyze them, as it pertains to the cause of interest and at the end of the same few years, you would have something to demand that public attention, more substance and less symbiotic “theater.”
Parts of this story are still located in Minnesota. If the shoe fits, wear it, on paying attention to active corporations in your home state affecting key issues of interest to some of the “justice” or ‘Injustice” blogs around the family court theme. And on paying attention, given any report, news (breaking or otherwise) as to who published it. That’s all I did to learn what’s in this post. It’s just a personal habit. ANYONE with access to a cell phone or other device accessing the internet can develop that personal habit, but which ones they are (and aren’t) over time make a huge difference.
I looked up the publisher of a single author whose cause I knew about in a summary of a conference I’d written about, and I learned again that the publications are most interested in their profit, and typically that’s advertising revenue not subscriptions, that newspapers in the USA are increasingly consolidated, and not necessarily even run or operated by people with the USA’s best interests at heart.
On the other hand if the material is trademarked or controlled by licensing, and the information flow NEEDED for (say, the legal or financial, health or science) professions to function, subscriptions (with licensing fees) are a VBD (Very Big Deal).
While that shouldn’t be ALL news, it sure does shine some light on the situation about who became the richest man (in Canada) and how (as of year 2000) his family controlled 73% of the stock of an entity which helped him get there.
Other than that intro and the second and third footnotes below, I didn’t do much to this post: WYSIWYG (What You See (as written two months ago and held as a draft) is What You Get.
Who is “Foundation Press”?
(Whatever it was, now it’s an owned imprint, used by license from a strange corporation registered only Feb. 2013 in Minnesota (Jan. 2013 Delaware legal domicile), from another one, also in Minnesota, which at one point was bought-out by major Canadian publisher Thomson Corporation (despite an antitrust movement by the US Department of Justice), which then bought Reuters as in (later) Thomson Reuters, significant in the financial and news market and “the rest is history,” then and now. Another corporation, still active (and it says since 1982) in Minnesota seems to be the licensor, the 2013 one the licensee, but my trip to USPTO.gov (U.S. Patents and Trademark Office) seems to say, the 2013 entity owns most of those trademarks. And the one in Minnesota has an assumed name. What I don’t know yet is, why the assumed name, and what’s with that exact entity in 2017.
Before looking at how my asking Who (and looks like I should’ve added “or what”) is Foundation Press? led to this much broader realization (see post titles):
As of a very well-written 2008 article by Erin Carlyle, writing for a TwinCities (MN)-based weekly, I’ll be quoting below — but not before I take readers through the filing history lookups, trademark lookups which led me eventually to the article, after I had sorted out “who was who” among the entities, publishers, trademarks, and “imprints.” At least I think (and I still have unanswered questions about the current owner — or licensor of the trademarks):
…Competition between the two companies was fierce. In 1995, West’s management decided to put the company up for sale. Thomson Corporation, a Canadian information mega-firm, purchased West for $3.45 billion.[###] Though the Department of Justice antitrust division got involved, Thomson West came out controlling about 40 percent of the legal publishing market.
[Thomson Corporation, later Thomson West, no longer exists. It’s Thomson Reuters. From their website company history 2008: “The Thomson Corporation and Reuters Group PLC combine to form Thomson Reuters.”]
At the time, people said Thomson paid too much. They doubted that Thomson would be able to squeeze more profit out of West, which was already posting 25 percent returns. But since its takeover, Thomson has consistently managed to attain 30 percent or higher profit margins. Legal information seems to be the sponge that won’t dry.
Last year (2007), Thomson acquired Reuters, the financial information and news firm. In its first year as a single entity, the combined company earned $11.7 billion in total revenue—more than any American-held printing and publishing company, including Gannett, McGraw Hill, and the New York Times.
[Yes, Thomson Reuters, as I said just above, from website viewed in 2017]
Westlaw is one of the great successes of the information age. At a time when major newspapers are falling into bankruptcy, it’s worth paying attention to what worked.##
[### I’ll discuss the Thomson Corporation history and 1995 purchase of “West,” in a bit. One thing at a time here, like a PopQuiz… In fact, I’m foot-noting “Thomson Corporation | FundingUniverse.com history (which goes up to year 2000 only). See bottom of the post, but here’s the part referencing this purchase:
During the mid-1990s Thomson completed several more acquisitions, three of which were particularly important. In 1994 the company paid about US$465 million for Foster City, California-based Information Access Company (IAC), a former division of Ziff-Davis Communications Co. IAC was a leading provider of reference and database services for academic and public libraries, corporations, hospitals, and schools. Also in 1994 Thomson added to its healthcare information portfolio with the US$339 million purchase of the Medstat Group, but lost out to rival Reed Elsevier plc in the bidding for a leading information database, Lexis-Nexis.
Lexis-Nexis had been started (or was a product commissioned) by the Ohio Bar Association back in the ?1970s, per the Erin Carlyle article I quoted, above. I’ll use two images to quote, rather than confuse with this non-imaged (and emphases-added) quote from FundingUniverse.com. The images come from a 2008 article in “Citypages.com” called “Westlaw rises to publishing fame by selling free information.” This comes from the “Rules” section, Rule #3.
Preview of imaged info: It shows — after Eisenhower got ARPA going, and  ARPANet (connecting computers via telephone lines), John Horty, a Pennsylvania law professor worked to get computers to search legal documents, coding public health statutes onto punch cards, and using the University of Pittsburgh’s “massive computer” which loaded them onto a tape, which Horty then searched the tape for those terms. Next door in Ohio, the Ohio State Bar thought that was a great idea…. and their database was “full text of a limited group of federal and state statutes and case law.”
Observing “Lexis,” Dwight Opperman, then President of West Publishing (Note: this entity still exists in Eagan, MN, the address is” Opperman Drive”) figures they’d outdo this by providing the valuable case summaries in similar fashion. (It appears the legal profession was already hooked on them off-line — see article) — which product was called “WestLaw.”
Two years later Thomson completed the largest acquisition in its history when it paid US$3.4 billion for Eagan, Minnesota-based legal publisher West Publishing Co., maintainer of more than 6,000 electronic databases on law, medicine, and insurance. Thomson and West were the two largest U.S. legal publishers, which prompted close antitrust scrutiny and objections from competitors in the field, most notably Reed Elsevier plc. To gain antitrust approval, Thomson and West had to sell off more than 50 legal publications, while resolution of a lawsuit filed by Reed Elsevier was reached when Thomson agreed to sell some of these legal publications&mdashout $50 million worth&mdashø [=?? meaning “($50M worth),” that is, “to”??]the Anglo-Dutch firm [Reed-Elsevier plc]. (In early 1997 West and Thomson Legal Publishing were merged as West Group.) Meanwhile, Thomson’s newspaper holdings grew smaller still through the 1995 divestment of its remaining U.K. newspaper holdings and through the 1996 disposal of 43 daily newspapers in the United States and Canada.
So, in the previous (first of this post) quote, final paragraph:
Westlaw is one of the great successes of the information age. At a time when major newspapers are falling into bankruptcy, it’s worth paying attention to what worked.##
##I’m seeing, it’s not just “what worked” but who got in on the legal profession first, and commanded a market niche even after technological innovations such as the concept of “on-line” and with it ownership of access, as in “on-line access” in exchange for pay. (For the rest of that, read the rest of the article!) …The story of Thomson Corporation is equally astounding (Roy Thomson was born 1894 in Toronto; by 1940, being 36, he’d sworn to become a millionaire by age 40; but that having failed, he didn’t give up. Having seen and jumped at an opportunity, by 1944, well, looks like maybe he was:
…Thomson solved the predictable problem of feeble radio sales by opening his own radio station, CFCH, in 1932 on borrowed money. Roy Thomson’s avowed ambition was to become a millionaire by the time he was 30 but, nearing the age of 40 now, he was nearly penniless. His decision to capitalize on advertising revenue in his current venture, however, helped him to belatedly achieve his goal several hundred times over. Within two years of CFCH’s debut, Thomson had bought additional stations in Kirkland Lake and Timmins. This latter purchase coincided with Thomson’s entry into newspaper publishing, another source of advertising revenue and what would soon be the cornerstone of his empire, via the Timmins Press, a paper whose offices were in the same building as his newest station. By 1944 his holdings included five newspapers and eight radio stations.
When he couldn’t sell radios, he borrowed to open his own radio station and sold advertising on it, enabling him to then buy obviously a newspaper — and sell advertising on the newspapers. Contrast with the “Cradle-to-career” recommendations we get nowadays for “not being poor” dosed out — by those who control many of the media and publications — to the urban school population and regularly to the public.
This includes ‘get a job” and “stay married,” and for the public as a whole, pay government to incentivize marriage, dis-incentivize sex and child-bearing outside marriage, and when one or the other (or both) parents/spouses can’t take this any more, but have children still to raise, get the courts involved forcing co-parenting, and churning the custody-battles, adding personnel generation after generation….
Somehow, Roy Thomson (a century ago) figured out what was NOT the route, and took a different one, the “start your own business and continue controlling it, when there are profits, buy more businesses creating more revenue streams” one. Also, “where possible, dominate the market” and “don’t limit yourself to ownership of your revenue streams to just one country…”
Eventually he moved to the UK, Scotland, became a British Citizen and combined “ITOL” with Thomson Newspapers” to become “Thomson Corporation. Eventually the Brits decide he gets a hereditary barony, too….Roy Thomson died in the 1970s his son Ken inherited, when Ken was a “septuagenarian” he encouraged his son Paul to stay involved….. Per Thomson Reuters current site, Ken R. Thomson (Chairman of the Board) died in 2006 at age 1982….
Among the specific market leading positions of Thomson units are: West Group, number one in the U.S. legal sector; Derwent Information, the world’s leading patent information provider; Law Book Company, number one in the Australian legal market; and Gale Group, leading provider to the U.S. library reference market. Thomson also continues to own the Globe and Mail, the self-described ‘national newspaper of Canada,’ which is part of Thomson Financial. Control of the company has long rested in the hands of founder Roy Thomson’s son, Kenneth, Canada’s richest man and heir to his father’s title, Lord Thomson of Fleet. The Thomson family owns 73 percent of the company’s stock. (<==that’s as of Year 2000)
PopQuiz Q1: Based on that quote from the 2008 article (which I found on-line Jan. 2017), when the article was written, which corporation from which country owned both West and Reuters (Reuters had been absorbed into it), i.e., that major financial information and news firm Reuters, AND major legal information firm West?
- The two-part answer is right in the paragraph…
The year is interesting because in fact my question “Who is Foundation Press” came from reviewing a February 2008 write-up of a 2007 Wingspread Conference involving some familiar (at least to me and others who may follow the participating organizations) between the National Council of Juvenile and Family Courts, Inc. (NCJFCJ, an HHS and I’m sure DOJ grants-getting nonprofit based at UNevada-Reno, with its related entities) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (another nonprofit based in Illinois, but not advertising this on its IRS return or website, which feature a Madison, Wisconsin street address).
I’m getting back to 2008 shortly, but taken in 2017 from another website (image shown below), we can see that Thomson Reuters no longer owns “West Academic.” Another image from same website gives their timeline. The “West Academic” timeline first. Shown here in print, and again later, but as an image (the image is a bit fuzzy), after their very brief description of their (three at this point) brands:
Our content is published under three brands:
- West Academic Publishing
- Foundation Press®
Learn more about our brands
Each imprint publishes materials authored by renowned legal scholars and award-winning law teachers. Our product lines range from materials designed specifically for law school courses to topical overviews that make complex legal concepts easy for anyone to understand. With a comprehensive catalog covering a wide range of legal topics, West Academic has the most trusted materials for all kinds of legal learners.
1908 – West Publishing launches the American Casebook Series® under the West imprint
1940 – West Publishing acquires Foundation Press
1997 – West Publishing acquired by Thomson Corporation
2000 – Gilbert Law Summaries acquired by Thomson Corporation
2013 – West Academic acquired by ** Eureka Growth Capital and operates as a stand-alone business with three imprints: West Academic Publishing, Foundation Press, and Gilbert
[*under “Our History” I adjusted the quote as to line-wrap and relative size of headings vs. descriptions. for easier reading and to save vertical space, and of course, to highlight two years for later reference]
So, “Eureka Capital Growth” bought “West Academic” from Thomson Reuters in 2013, with three imprints now under it, one of which is “Foundation Press.”
PopQuiz Q2: 2013 entry — does “West Academic” sound like a business, or a product (“imprint”) of some other business? Is “West Academic” an actual company?
I went looking. Answers below, and that answer, technically speaking, is “No.”
PopQuiz Q3: Does the 2013 entry tell you who Eureka Growth Capital bought West Academic (whoever or whatever each of those is, which are other significant questions) from?. Answer: No. [** Writing in the passive voice (“acquired by” often leaves out significant persons, parties or “players”] However it was from Thomson Reuters, other parts of the site, and other sources say. So until Eureka Growth Capital bought West Academic (that is, 1997-2013), the Canadian Thomson Reuters was still in control of this major name within major publishing niche.
Whoever controls the information can either sell it all, or license it to others, who in turn my sell it to people, and pass on the licensing fees. Take a look at this image (2017) from WestAcademic.com. I’m providing one “clean” version and another heavily annotated showing what I learned yesterday including there is typically a lot more than meets “the naked eye” on any publisher’s websites, and particularly legal publishers as old and large as are involved here, not to mention in the post-Internet/Information age… (we are probably by now well into the AI (Artificial Intelligence) age anyhow:
<== west-academic-heavily-annotated-showing-sign-in@ top-bottom-of-image-and-that-its-no-longer-part-of-thomsonreuters (left-sidebar)-scrnshot-2017-01-22-at-3-31pm
The clean copy (as of 1-22-2017) screenprint is simply the “Faculty” page on the website. As this may change, it is the image below. Click the link on its caption to see all the trademarked “Content” offering.
So (PopQuiz Q4) whatever happened (timeline doesn’t show, does it?) to “West Publishing”? Did West Publishing change its name to “West Academic” or is it still hanging around somewhere? IF it’s still hanging around somewhere, would that be under Canadian mega-giant Thomson Reuters (assuming that’s still in the same existence), or has it been spun off or sold off.
I went looking, in increasing amazement at the scope of “WestLaw” history, and what have found so far, you will find in this post as a reminder to maintain at ALL times an awareness of who controls which media, which publishing outlets, and as to these professions, the fees they can charge — which will certainly be passed on to end-users, the clients, the public. Without question, it’s a valuable service, but also without question — it’s controlling access to information not really or readily available (at any reasonably lower cost or time & effort) elsewhere, it would seem.
FYI, so far as I can tell (without checking Thomson) all of the above are privately owned, meaning their shares are not available for public consumption unless you’re in on it, know someone, or are sold them by someone who already owns. And I’m not sure, but am “just guessing” that 30% returns is good enough for the average investor….But — people, and wealth management firms, are of course always looking for a good deal, and if that means selling off parts of a company, or brokering someone else doing the same, they will.
FYI, Eureka Capital Growth was formed in 1999 and is in Philadelphia, and as those things seem to go, has or had some of its leadership (as a wealth management business) helping run the newer “West Academic.”
Now that we see where Thomson-Reuters (owning at the time what was called West or “WestLaw”) was at the time, Where were you in 2008? Do you remember?
Because it’s personal, I’ll fine-print it and foot-note it to bottom of the post under “I remember 2008,” but I am include it in this post as backdrop to the context of which profession’s information-provider was raking in 32% profits, and obviously any private investors, some nice dividends. I’ve been around long enough to realize, that with individual variations depending on our backgrounds, my experience was not that different from others who have had to
(1) file for legal intervention in significant domestic violence;
(2) at the time, were also mothers with young children, particularly their own (biologically speaking) children by birth, and
(3) by the grace of God, no thanks to the family court systems, are still alive
We are still dealing with the aftermath of years of alienation from mainstream economy and social relationships and progressively discovering in just how many ways our best interests have been betrayed, for profits to others and in exchange for ongoing legal and family conflicts, generating new forms of case precedents, caselaw, etc. to be cited, new lines of work for some types of professionals, and new excuses to publish opinions on the same. “Incidentally,” both political parties and persuasions (progressive/conservative) as well as the domestic violence entities within government AND the associated nonprofits, continue to betray us in 2017 the public, the working middle classes and women in particular did in 2008…. with the exception of those working in these fields and neither adult, nor independent enough to consider that their might be an alternative interpretation of their own “fields” and which interpretation might be a more comprehensive, historically more honest, and therefore accurate interpretation of those fields.
A WHOLE lot of people’s viewpoints has to do with what is presented in media. So it seems appropriate to take a closer look at who controls that media inbetween consuming it with fascination, headline by headline, as the White House Administration changes hands, and Russia and other nations talk back to the present realities. Keep in mind “the Bentley 500” top 10 owners of the worlds asset infrastructures. Trump talks about jobs — but the US (when civilian and military are combined) is still #1, Exxon and Gazprom (I.e., Russian) I believe, within the top 5 as well as a French entity.
2008 was a tough year for so many people. Our government determined to do another bailout of the “too-big-to-fails” and we tightened the belt-buckles some more, and bit that bullet. For people who were already doing that — and this includes the sector I represented, that is women and mothers who had to file for protection from domestic violence, and were thereafter dragged into the family court coliseum, gauntlet, whatever you call it, and forced to fight the same battle again, with or without lawyers, and often without because:
- Domestic violence, violent controlling relationships are definitely not conducive to maintaining separate financial resources, or “getting ahead” in any fashion: socially, work, support networks, etc. Many are (I was at time of separation) without access to credit, stable work history, or the ability to acquire housing without help.
- As to pro-bono or low-cost (for those who could afford ANY) legal representation, the available agencies in the family court field — I learned in hindsight — are already taking fatherhood funding and under incentives to increase noncustodial parenting time, and in exchange for reduction of child support payments, or accrued arrears — so how do you think that might affect the general household income?
- As to those who MAY find legal representation for one or two hearings, perhaps, or longer — are these lawyers going to bite their own sources of ongoing income (from either men or women) by informing their frightened, angry, or even level-headed and determined (but IGNORANT of where and how the local HMRF funding, originally from federal receipts to state agencies) might be affecting the local courthouse?
- As to those who may get court orders retaining some privileges as a parent in this context, how many are fully aware that their local law enforcement has no real duty to enforce in the form of an individual right to have court orders enforced at all? Or, their district attorneys under any real duty to prosecute in any individual case for repeated violations of the same court orders? The District Attorneys (obviously from the legal field also) can — and in my case did — sit back and simply do nothing, let the case spin out in the family court venue, while handouts to the “criminal prosecution of domestic violence” sector continued.
- See also “Family Justice Centers”
This is where my look-ups for “Foundation Press” as having published an AFCC author, Clare Dalton, and at the time law professor at Northeastern University School of Law (“NUSL”) in Boston….
“Foundation Press” (“OpenLibrary.org”)– self-published? ebooks? Author search here shows 3 books by Dalton: One in 2001 part of a University Casebook series, and two in 2007 (time of the Wingspread Conference). OpenLibrary (on-line database of published books) standard is one book/one web page “Publishing History” graph from their home page shows editions published over time; the highest bars are just to the right of the year 2000 and a sharp decline shortly after….
Looks like “Foundation Press” was an imprint formerly under Thomson-Reuters, but now owned by Western Academic (Westernacademic.com, image to the right), out of Eagan, Minnesota, which is itself interesting in light of the DV entities in the state, also UMN (Major research university) with its “IDVAAC” (a well-known Institute based in the School of Social Welfare) not to mention Wm. Mitchell College of Law
Following this gets complicated, fascinating, and as you see (from the former post), is now moved to a new post (this one). Why?
For one, ever heard of “WestLaw”? – you’re in it. That company goes back to 1872.
If you’ve ever heard of Lexis-Nexis, an article I found (written 2008, below) says that with the advent of the computer (data-punch cards status), the Ohio Bar Association commissioned a company to compete with “West” which was at the time dominating the market. [This quote is now actually above…] We think of the internet age as possibly beginning in the 1980s — but remember the categories that seem to always get there first (because of their financial backing, based in major part on public tax receipts): The military, the scientific, and the legal sector.
So, always pay attention to who owns whoever’s publishing, as well as who owns (and who may pay licensing fees to use), the trademarks. This cost will always get passed down to the end-users eventually. Question: Who are the “end-users” of major segment of the legal profession (and not just within one country)…My point precisely. Fine print from the bottom of “WestAcademic.com” website:
© 2017 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic
are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
So, “West Academic” the business name is a dba of “LEG, Inc.” but as to the trademarks, someone else — West Publishing Corporation — owns them. The story (stories) behind that are “deep” and symbolic of publishing, business, and print-and on-line media. And, the legal profession over time.
I still don’t “get” after looking at it most of (1/21/2017) why there has to be a separate business name “LEG, Inc.” with all the others involved in the sell-offs, mergers, and absorptions, but I do see filing and trademark histories of LEG, Inc., and the basic filing history of West Publishing Corporation (both in Minnesota, but LEG, Inc. as a Delaware Corporation).
Currently of the three product lines (see trademarks) referenced below, this describes the FoundationPress® imprint under “Western Publishing”:
Foundation Press® is a leading educational publisher of scholarly casebooks and texts for U.S. law professors and law students. Its nationally recognized board of editors consists of outstanding legal scholars and educators, including former deans at Yale, Harvard, the University of Chicago and the University of California Berkeley. This board provides a solid and continuing basis for ensuring the quality of Foundation Press publications.
- University Casebook Series®
- Concepts and Insights Series®
- Law Stories Series®
- Turning Point Series®
[Re: the author whose other publisher listed at the time was the NCJFCJ itself…]
With a B.A. in jurisprudence from Oxford, a Masters in Law (LLM?) from Harvard, and a teaching position at a Boston University School of Law, Ms. Clare Dalton has the credentials to be published above. Interesting history of who owns the publishing company, and its various (imprints or brands) over time:
Since 2013, Eureka Growth Capital has “Western Academic…”
[<==This part also quoted — but as text — near the top of this post]
(hopefully you can make out the print in that image — just one line per date). So, for “Who or what is “West Academic” (acquired by Eureka Growth Capital in 2013, whoever they are), I notice the bottom of the same website, very (very) fine print, says that “West Academic” is a deba of “LEG, Inc.” while certain other names are owned by “West Publishing Corporation” and used under license — i.e., someone is paying those licensing fees:
So, “West Academic” the business name is a dba of “LEG, Inc.” but as to the trademarks, someone else owns them:
© 2017 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic
are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
Just for general interest, “Relationship Science.com” (sort of like “Muckety”) on-line shows Eureka Growth Capital, and names its Co-Founder Christine C. Jones, and that it is, not exactly surprising, a private equity investor, formed in 1999 as an “LLC,” and based Philadelphia in 1999. (use link to see full-sized). Its website announces a 2016 “Dividend Recapitalization” for its investors in “Western Academic.”:
“Eureka Growth Capital Completes Dividend Recapitalization of West Academic
PHILADELPHIA, PA 03/01/2016
Eureka Growth Capital (“Eureka”) today announced it completed a dividend recapitalization of West Academic Publishing (“West Academic”), the leading provider of higher education learning materials for the law school market.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, West Academic provides legal textbooks, casebooks, study guides and other course-related materials in both print and digital media formats for law school faculty and students in the United States. West Academic provides its products under the West Academic Publishing, Foundation Press and Gilbert imprints. Eureka, in partnership with senior management, formed West Academic to acquire the Law School Publishing business of Thomson Reuters in February 2013.
That’s not quite true. Technically, legally, they can say that, but in fact (in reality) what they “formed” was a Delaware-Domicile entity called LEG, Inc. — and then immediately registered it in MN, and about the same time acquired an Assumed (Minnesota) Business Name. For all I know, also in other states…
In partnership with whose senior management? Probably, as the patterns seem to go, with Thomson Reuters senior management. This type of investor likes to also help manage that which they purchase, increase profits, and sometimes, then, sell. The costs will not doubt be passed on to the consumers (see who products are directed towards), who will not doubt also pass it on to their own clients, continuing to make any involvement in litigation — or in a legal education in this country– notably expensive.
“We are very pleased to provide this strong return to our investors and management partners as a byproduct of the collaborative effort we have made with West Academic’s tremendous team to build on the company’s leadership position in bringing value and innovation to the legal education market,” said Chris Hanssens, Managing Partner of Eureka and a Director of West Academic. “Since our acquisition, CEO Chris Parton has led the growth of the business from 50 to 82 people today, with a focus on driving growth in digital products and advanced learning materials integral to the evolution of the legal education market and to our relationships with our authors, law schools and their students.”
Below, a screen print image from Minnesota Business and Lien Search (MBLS portal) confirms that Christopher Parton (at a St. Paul address) is indeed Chief Executive Officer of “LEG, Inc.”
“Eureka’s consistent commitment to the long-term strategy and success of the business has helped us secure our market leadership position with the launch of innovative products such as CasebookPlus,” said Chris Parton, CEO of West Academic. “We are thrilled with our early success as an independent business and are very excited to continue to work with Eureka to expand our product and service leadership in the law school higher education market.”
So (still backing up to the footnote of “West Academic” and in the context of “Foundation Press” who in 2001 and 2007 published, respectively, 1 and 2 books with Clare Dalton’s name as author), who would “LEG, Inc.” then be? West Academic is characterized as of 2017 as a d/b/a of Leg, Inc.
The street address in one place, I looked up, and found an attorney Louis H. Higgins associated with “West Academic” (SUNY Buffalo, NYState Bar admitted 1994): 444 Cedar St Ste 700, Saint Paul, MN
This looks to be a downtown address or office building, but for what it’s worth, Suite 2200, same building is UBS Wealth Management and a bank: As it’s (pdf-available on the site) “Corporate profile” says:
- Top-ranked Financial Advisors.2 Attuned to the specific needs of those with significant wealth, UBS FAs manage an average of $151 million in invested assets.3 To help clients pursue their ultimate goals, our Advisors provide comprehensive strategies and solutions based on an understanding of clients’ objectives and risk tolerance, and financial plans they create together.
Also same building, Bremer Bank N.A. (Nat’l Commercial Bank/Depository Institution, category “other”). Having a bank and a major publisher in any downtown metro area is hardly a major coincidence, I’m just pointing it out. Not much else came up on the street address search (Google)..
So, I wanted to know, who is that “LEG, Inc.?
and looked it up at Minnesota Business & Liens Portal (<=Link is set to a name search. FYI, the filing # is 644146200029) and found it was registered in 2/2013 as a Delaware Corporation, didn’t file annual report for 2014, changed Registered Agent or Address in 2/2015, went status-revoked in 6/2015 and corrected this in 7/2015, and so has since February 2013, a total of only two annual statements (plus a Re-instatement was also necessary). Shows registered agent a Sandra Endres and the CEO Christopher Parton: (Image shows two search results for the same entity, one reads “Home Business Name” the other “Minnesota Business Name”). Do the search and click on “Details” for either one to Renewal and Filing histories below ‘Business Record Details.”
Well, then (being who I am…) I looked quickly at the filing histories of the not one, but two different Assumed Business names, and trying to visualize a three-column ledger: Columns read:
LEG, Inc. – Assumed Name #1 — Assumed Name #2
and the rows would read, in date order, the filing events, which would be something like this:
1/2013 — LEG, Inc. registers in Delaware (which is great at NOT providing much info to outsiders on the entities — probably why it’s a location of choice for some of the biggest ones, and has been for a long time). It used a corporate filer (a well-known one) so not one person’s name is actually associated with that legal entity, at least as far as Delaware on-line is concerned. Image from “Div. of Corporations” search results/detail on this page. (“More details available at $10 OR $20 EACH”….)
2/2013 — images and links shown above:
Leg, Inc. (a) registers as a foreign corp in Minnesota, and (within a few months / 6/2013) West Academic and/or West Publishing also are entered as Assumed names.
2014 — LEG, Inc. doesn’t file, and so by 2015 is 6/2015 properly revoked (for not filing) but the Assumed Names provided “cover” (which may have originally been LEG, Inc.s but I can’t see past owners so that is still conjecture. Probably a good one, but just not a proven one. ) DO file in 2014, and 2015, and 2016, meaning the lapse of LEG, Inc. while retaining the assumed name (which is it would seem illegal — any assumed name must point to a legitimate entity) has to be deliberate.
Page-up several times in this post to where “West Academic” gives a brief corporate history and indicates that “West Academic” is purchased by “Eureka Growth Capital” in 2013. Well, “West Academic” is a dba of “Leg, Inc.” as of January 2013 (you can’t get much earlier in the year than January, as shown in red, white, and blue (and gray) Delaware Corp. image just above). What they aren’t saying is, actually, Eureka Growth Capital acquired LEG, Inc. which is dba these other “West” names (two of them). Here’s where Minnesota’s “Don’t ask us much, and we won’t tell you much either” fine-print, no-images “Business Search Portal” helps defeat further inquiries. In some states (like at least at one point Maryland, or, say, Massachusetts, possibly also Connecticut I seem to remember) you can actually view pdf’d images of the filings, which are VERY helpful in tracking corporate geneaology and relationships…. Especially “private” ones which then will at least show who incorporated. In other states, you can maybe find out if you’re “flush.” And in yet other states, “forget it.”
What about tax evasion? Chances are a major law school textbook publisher was actually making money, having been a spinoff of a well-known publisher’s (Thomson-Reuters) in the first place — in 2013, 2014 and 2015 first half. So, under what name would anyone have filed their corporate tax return –that is, assuming it was filed at all.
And if it just was NOT filed, this being a private equity firm, that would certainly help increase the dividends, would it not? Not legally, but hey — it’s not listed on the SEC, so who knows what the revenues were, ….
So, EUREKA GROWTH CAPITAL (formed only in 1999, based in Philadelphia, buys and sells corporations, produces dividends for its investors, and likes to sometimes put its own partners on the board of the acquired organizations, along with former board members of the same) — question: WHY even have the name “LEG, Inc.” unless there is something to hide?
Here’s the screen for USPTO trademark search. I’m going to dive in here:
USPTO.gov “TESS” (Trademark Electronic Search Site)
These are Search Tips for TESS. Interesting to note, trademarks can be legitimate, but not registered here. Also I saw another link for looking them up on-line (Assignments on the Web), all those 1955 an thereafter. As I did find several by “Leg, Inc.” mostly dated 2014, I didn’t go there:
TESS TIPS ***
What is in TESS? The Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) contains the records of active and inactive trademark registrations and applications, some of which could be found in the USPTO’s examination of your application to be grounds for refusing to register your mark, i.e., if the examining attorney determines that a “likelihood of confusion” exists.
What is NOT in TESS? Some trademark owners with valid and protected trademark rights do not choose to register their marks with the USPTO, so those marks will not be found in this database. However, you should still consider these other marks when adopting a mark for your goods and/or services. If a trademark is being used in the United States, the owner may have legally protected rights that are not the result of the USPTO registration process. You may therefore wish to consult a trademark attorney for a more comprehensive search of, e.g., state registrations and common law marks.
Why should I perform a search? The purpose of the search is to help determine whether a “likelihood of confusion” exists, i.e., whether any mark has already been registered or applied for at the USPTO that is (1) the same OR similar to your mark; and (2) used on related products or for related services. Note that the identical mark could be registered to different parties if the goods and/or services are in no way related, e.g., for computers and soft drinks. For more detailed information about “likelihood of confusion,” including examples, click here. WARNING: If your search reveals another mark that would definitely “block” your application based on the above standard, please note that if you file anyway, the filing fee is a processing fee that the USPTO does not refund even if registration of your mark is refused.
Will my mark register if I do not find anything in TESS? No, not necessarily. USPTO attorneys make decisions on whether marks may be registered. After you file your application, the USPTO will conduct its own search and other review, and might refuse your mark, based on several different possible grounds for refusal. (Once you submit your application, the USPTO will not cancel the filing or refund your fee, unless the application fails to satisfy minimum filing requirements. Filing an application does not guarantee registration.)
USPTO “TESS” search of (Search Field set to “Owner”) “Leg, Inc.” produces many results now owned by this entity, plus others (see related images; left column (2-digit#s) are search results; this is one search, three images of ones that from their names obviously might be legal text related, showing others that obviously aren’t (as in “the Butt Blaster” or … Costumes” or “Elegant Legs” etc.).
Looking at some of these earlier trademarks now owned by “LEG, Inc.” in St. Paul, I noticed that some were owned by “West Publishing Corporation” and went to look it up in Minnesota. It is still active. It’s been through major mergers (19 mergers in 20 years, including SIX on 12/30/1996, and the last one, Nov. 2015) , showing registration since 1982. It is also privately owned (not public-traded) and only 10,000 shares showing.
The former names were WestLaw. I printed the pdf showing the mergers, and an image showing that the current CEO is Peter Warwick, in Eagan MN, in fact on “Oppernan Drive.” Dwight Opperan was a former person, or owner of “WestLaw” which in fact actually dates back to 1872.
(TRUST ME — read the pdf. I could individually each page and post it here, with my arrows and boxes pointing out the merger patterns. Or, you could click on this and see for yourself. (Printed Jan. 2017. Link repeated with its longer filename, next to that single image, below)
Also, an excellent (2009) article (after which we now know there were more mergers).. points out the history of this major company, how the Canadian “Thomson” bought it in the 1990s, and eventually it was combined with Thomson-Reuters. It is in fact, it seems, operating as a subsidiary of Thomson-Reuters (as of 2009, this article). The profits are phenomenal in part because the business model is excellent — the need for organized print-and-online-accessible information for attorneys NEVER dries up, nor, it would seem, attorneys’ need to search caselaw. So, they were talking returns (that is, profits) of 25% to 32% (after it was bought by Thomson).
[And we wonder why so many can’t afford legal representation in the U.S….]
This is a fine article, I think, with no comments showing. It is engaging and historically revealing; I learned a lot from it. Give it a look!
west-publishing-corp-formerly-westlaw-and-its-many-mergers-since-1982-ceo-now-paul-warwick-in-egan-minnesota-bls-business-filing-details3pp-printed-2017jan-cf-uspto-of-mns-%22leg-inc%22-trad. (<==That link again. It will display in easy-to-read white on black, and my annotations are just as easy to read — boxes and arrows in blue, green or red…)
This is where it gets weird.
(Click and See, and/or see my footnote “LEGINC.net” below, which happens to be a GoDaddy.com domain in McLean Virginia (any connection to “Leg, Inc. dba West Publishing not proven).
Footnote “Thomson Corporation through Year 2000 (Per “FundingUnverse.com”)
(suggestion: Just read the page. Notice the sources at the bottom which typically end with a credit to a St. James Company, Year 2000). I’m posting an image of the (again, @ Year 2000 only) “specs” in which it’s public-traded on three exchanges (Toronto, London, NYSE) with key dates. And a second image, starting where that left off, with a summary paragraph — after which the history of the company as a detailed and interesting narrative begins.
I’m not enclosing this because I think blog readers need more frivolous entertainment. From ongoing interactions with people in person and, when it comes to these subject matters, now also on-line, it becomes clear many are fixated on obtaining “media coverage” without regard to who owns the media they want the coverage in, and what that means for the type of coverage likely to occur. I’m tired of trying to talk through, over, or across this type of mentality. If you don’t understand just how internationally owned are some of the major media in the US (whether on-line or print), if you do NOT start grasping what’s happening to print newspapers, and how even “alternate on-line media” sources still have owners — and that refers to financing — how are you going to deal with reporting on financing of, say, a single government, like the USA Federal, or legal/court system, like ours in the US which for years was dependent on a foreign-owned company even to access its own legal case notes?).
Besides which, Thomson Corporation as a type is significant. HOW centralized is the control of this media?
Thomson Corp from FundingUniverse.com
- Roy Thomson begins operating a radio station in North Bay, Ontario.
- Thomson acquires his first newspaper, the Timmins Press.
- Thomson exits from the radio field to concentrate on newspapers.
- Thomson buys his first non-Canadian newspaper, the Independent of St. Petersburg, Florida, and expands into the United Kingdom the following year.
- The London Times and its associated weeklies are acquired.
- International Thomson Organisation Ltd. (ITOL) is established and corporate headquarters are moved to Toronto.
- Thomson Newspapers Ltd. acquires a group of Canadian newspapers, including the Globe & Mail.
- Times Newspapers division is sold to Rupert Murdoch.
- ITOL and Thomson Newspapers merge to become The Thomson Corporation.
- Thomson acquires database specialist Information Access Company (IAC) and healthcare database firm Medstat Group.
- Company divests its remaining U.K. newspaper holdings.
- Legal publisher West Publishing Co. is acquired, while 43 daily newspapers in the United States and Canada are sold.
- Company announces intentions to divest its remaining newspaper interests, with the exception of the flagship Globe and Mail; Kenneth R. Thomson announces his decision to step down as chairman within two years.
As it prepares to enter the 21st century, The Thomson Corporation is completing its transformation from a media, information, and travel empire into a focused information powerhouse primarily serving the business and professional markets. The company is also concentrating on providing electronic–particularly Internet-based–information services and solutions, with half of revenues being generated from electronic media. The markedly decentralized Thomson is organized into four main groups, each of which is among the market leaders in its field: Thomson Legal & Regulatory, which accounts for about 43 percent of overall sales, serves law, tax, accounting, intellectual property, corporate finance, and human resources professionals; Thomson Financial, which accounts for 26 percent, serves financial communities worldwide; Thomson Learning, which accounts for 17 percent, is a publisher of college and higher education textbooks and of career information with a focus on technology, trades, healthcare, and cosmetology; and Thomson Scientific, Reference & Healthcare, which accounts for 14 percent, serves researchers and other professionals in segments of the healthcare, academic, scientific, business, and governmental markets. Among the specific market leading positions of Thomson units are: West Group, number one in the U.S. legal sector; Derwent Information, the world’s leading patent information provider; Law Book Company, number one in the Australian legal market; and Gale Group, leading provider to the U.S. library reference market. Thomson also continues to own the Globe and Mail, the self-described ‘national newspaper of Canada,’ which is part of Thomson Financial. Control of the company has long rested in the hands of founder Roy Thomson’s son, Kenneth, Canada’s richest man and heir to his father’s title, Lord Thomson of Fleet. The Thomson family owns 73 percent of the company’s stock.
Early Years: From Radio to Newspapers to Television …
Footnote “I Remember 2008”
I remember the year 2008 also, as a year in which I was flat-ass out of work after years of aggressive other people’s in- and out-of-court messing with “our” (though obviously the other parent considered them a “my — “forget you!”) children, who until just recently (@2008) having lived all their lives in my household [whether married or separated], and with my life and work relationships also as “mediated” by a local family court system (judges — as the case was churned, plenty of them, DV dockets, Custody Dockets court-appointed mediator from “Family Court Services,” at one point, briefly even a court-appointed GAL) playing tag-team with the local child support agency, and law enforcement (where, eventually it had degraded to this point, children were exchanged to visit their father) determined to ignore the court order violations, domestic violence history (of course), even a felony child-stealing event, followed by more stalking incidents** and even more egregious disregard of ALL court orders in place at the time, at least those portions which entailed allowing me contact of any sort (in -person, phone, holiday, alternating weekends) with our children (I’d given birth to, raised, taken out of witnessing in-home violence, demonstrated in front of their eyes that one can rebuild from it and without this factor, work a sustainable profession, without cutting out the other parent from their lives, and return to something resembling normalcy — though in a two-household family)….
With the only remaining part of this family line, or his, that mattered to me and to that date, in whom I’d personally invested the most time, love, energy and structuring of my life (including where we lived and where and at what I worked) around. And as to that last sentence, first part, it is a present reality. My daughters are still the only part of this family line, or his, that matters to me at all. [other than as it relates to damage control and disclosure | FOR closure on past events, which those daughters also deserve to know or at least have the option to know. SO DO I.]
The parts of this family line who I did “give a crap” about (including both my own parents), are now deceased.
There is a very elderly relative I think still alive that I have had little (no current) contact with, as the only contact would be through other family member/s who have made it clear what they think of me for having taken any stand against them for anything — particularly “outing” forms of abuse and their support, tacit approval and aggressive furtherance of court order violations, a lot of this going well into criminal grounds in an attempt to discredit and discourage further “outing.” These other family members did not speak up (some) when aware I was being battered, or (the same) all but rejoiced when the children were stolen overnight (with others, older (my generation) and young (nieces), standing by silent about it; if any questions were had, I sure didn’t hear them, or sense any action taken or sought regarding those questions), which apparently dovetailed with previous plans to commandeer what remained of any inheritance, or even at times hope to get free from such toxic personalities, and their ability to influence my bottom line, directly or by means of hired professionals.
Throughout most of 2008, I at least had a functional used car (about ten years old, bought used at a price which’d be hard to match again, all paid for) in good condition, and needed in this area as it’s suburban, and bus transportation between communities is there, but infrequent, not connecting with others, and primarily serves people commuting to the larger metro areas by commuter rail — not within neighboring communities. Many lines didn’t run on Sundays (and since, also cut out Saturdays later), or frequently, or on time. Eventually I ran out of money to keep it registered, and had to go to traffic court to cut a deal on paying the late fees. Meanwhile, it had to be parked somewhere; and it was ticketed at, for lack of law enforcement’s interest in prosecuting more serious crime to prosecute apparently, 2:30am on a broad low-to-no traffic most hours residential street (within view of my house) blocking no one’s driveways, and being in good condition and not in direct view from any home, hardly an eyesore. I had at this time no off-street parking available. I moved the car, and being unable to drive it, had to leave it near my home. Not much later (and before the court-deadline), and while I was out navigating the non-connecting local bus lines in an attempt to get (as I recall that time period) either to and from the local libraries some miles distant, for maybe one hour’s or two hours’ maximum computer time, or to/from the EDD (employment-seeking center) which had been moved (gentrification-style) to the outskirts of a different city which though less than 10 miles away, took multiple bus/bus or bus/commuter rail interfaces to get to and from.
So, I came back home after all this — at a time still in some shock from not being able to even visit own children (despite no charges of abuse, and charges that children were not in school and myself an abduction risk [immediately after signing a 12-month lease and having scheduled both work and auditions for more work within the month….at the beginning of a school year.. and having no significant connections to housing or work anywhere else…] — and “voila” — no car.
I had been (repeatedly) kicked to the curb financially, and all it took, really, was to destroy a work life through family court fiascos, in combo with (which otherwise I’d have considered optional) the father refusing to seek work and pay child support once he realized I wasn’t coming back (for more abuse) but actually moving on or at least leave us alone. Once he grabbed the kids, “forgetting” there were court orders and criminal laws against the same, then I was the one who was supposed to suddenly “forget” I was a mother. Having local relatives on my ex-batterer’s/husband’s/ children’s fathers cheering squad didn’t exactly help either…
Meanwhile, locally and nationally in 2008 as this past week, concurrent with the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump as U.S. President (see “Women’s Marches” mislabeled “worldwide” on one local news media, but documented nationwide — not worldwide — on the same show), the feminist icons, celebrities and those running on the public-relations-fed VAWA-version of stopping and addressing violence against women), the agencies continued growing in size and influence, and being quoted each time there was another “headliner” or fatality with any connection to domestic violence or in the context of people leaving it. In fact, in my area, there was a triple homicide the following fall: one woman (not the mother, but her friend, who gave her life to save another woman), the shooter, and a responding officer.