Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recently, a prominent Georgia trial lawyer was ordered to pay his former paramour $6 million in child support payments. Willie Gary, whose law practice is based in Florida, claimed in court papers to have a net worth of $60 million. Gowins v. Gary, No. 2004CV88406. (Fult. Super. Ct., July 15, 2004). Gary is known in Georgia law circles for his representation of race discrimination plaintiffs against The Coca-Cola Co., and Centennial Olympic Park bombing victims suing Atlanta Olympic organizers. His Web site boasts of winning a $240 million verdict against The Walt Disney Co. in 2001 in an intellectual property theft case; a $139.6 million verdict against brewer Anheuser-Busch; and a half-billion-dollar verdict against the Loewen Group, a large Canadian funeral-home chain.
The child support judgment orders Gary to pay $28,000 per month — for 16 years — to an Atlanta woman who bore him twins after their brief romantic relationship 5 years ago. Gary agreed to pay $175,000 for “support and maintenance of the children” and for a down payment on a home in Georgia for the mother and twins. He is also obligated to pay for the children's medical, dental and hospitalization insurance, maintain life insurance and prepay college tuition for the twins.
According to Jay D. Bennett, a partner at Alston & Bird, who initially handled the case for the plaintiff and drafted the settlement agreement later adopted by the judge, the agreement also calls for Gary to pay $30,000 to Alston & Bird to cover attorney fees.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?