Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The View from Canada: A Winning Client Development Strategy
Everyone agrees that the world for those delivering legal services to Fortune 500 clients is in a state of tremendous flux. Demands placed on lawyers and firms to deliver for their clients have never been more challenging, or potentially more rewarding. This new reality has created an enormous opportunity for Canadian law firms with the ability to offer service in the U.S., and it also creates an opportunity for U.S. firms to gain access to a rich talent pool.
A first-of-its-kind survey conducted almost a decade ago by Statistics Canada indicated that there was a fairly balanced level of cross border trade in legal services ' with Canada enjoying a modest $55-million surplus on total two-way business of almost half a billion dollars. With the growth of North American Free Trade, and the general economic growth of the last decade, it would be logical to assume consistent, healthy growth in the value of cross-border legal services, but that has not been the case. Over the years, the professional services industry has experienced lower than expected referral flow on both sides.
Against that backdrop, it wouldn't be a surprise if ' even as the integration of the North American market for legal services continues ' not every American law firm is aware of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG). After all, Canada's second largest firm is fairly young in its present incarnation, built from a merger in March 2000 of five equal founding firms. Each of the founding firms was a market leader in their respective regions of Canada, and each brought solid reputations with various levels of awareness south of the border as independent firms.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?