Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Arbitration Update
Arbitrator's Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, Division Four, held that an arbitrator should determine whether alleged breaches of an agreement to purchase a multimedia and entertainment company were arbitrable. Dream Theater Inc. v. Dream Theater, B174152. The Los Angeles Superior Court had found that the dispute wasn't subject to arbitration. The arbitration clause in this case had been included in the indemnification section of the purchase agreement, prompting the sellers to argue that arbitration applied only to third-party claims. But the court of appeal concluded: “Sellers do not point to any language of the Contract which specifically limits the arbitration clause to third party claims or otherwise excludes from arbitration the parties' dispute over Sellers' alleged breach of the representations and warranties concerning the loss of FX Networks business. [The buyers claimed that the sellers had failed to disclose that the sellers' largest customer, FX Networks, had given a termination notice to the sellers before the agreement with the buyers had been finalized.] … The terms 'Indemnification,' 'Indemnified Party,' and 'Indemnitor' in the Contract, in and of themselves, do not limit the scope of the arbitration clause to third party claims.” The court of appeal recently denied the sellers' petition for rehearing of the court's decision.
Effect of Bankruptcy. In the Matter of: George Foreman Foods Inc.
Arbitrator's Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, Division Four, held that an arbitrator should determine whether alleged breaches of an agreement to purchase a multimedia and entertainment company were arbitrable. Dream Theater Inc. v. Dream Theater, B174152. The Los Angeles Superior Court had found that the dispute wasn't subject to arbitration. The arbitration clause in this case had been included in the indemnification section of the purchase agreement, prompting the sellers to argue that arbitration applied only to third-party claims. But the court of appeal concluded: “Sellers do not point to any language of the Contract which specifically limits the arbitration clause to third party claims or otherwise excludes from arbitration the parties' dispute over Sellers' alleged breach of the representations and warranties concerning the loss of FX Networks business. [The buyers claimed that the sellers had failed to disclose that the sellers' largest customer, FX Networks, had given a termination notice to the sellers before the agreement with the buyers had been finalized.] … The terms 'Indemnification,' 'Indemnified Party,' and 'Indemnitor' in the Contract, in and of themselves, do not limit the scope of the arbitration clause to third party claims.” The court of appeal recently denied the sellers' petition for rehearing of the court's decision.
Effect of Bankruptcy. In the Matter of: George Foreman Foods Inc.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.