Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Concert Cancellations
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld an arbitration award over cancellations by rapper of Lil Jon of concerts in Japan. Smith v. Positive Productions, 05 Civ. 3748 (MBM). Lil Jon didn't appear at the arbitration hearing, after which the arbitrator awarded concert promoter Positive Productions $184,000 in lost profits, $138,000 in concert-related expenses, $50,000 for loss of reputation and business, as well as $7,874 in legal fees. In his petition challenging the award, Lil Jon claimed that the arbitrator had acted in “manifest disregard” of New York law. But the district court noted: “A cynic would view the arbitrator's award of lost profits as a simple rubber-stamping of Positive's claim of $130,000 in lost profits from the March [2004] shows and $54,000 in losses from the replacement shows. However, the court's standard of review is far more forgiving, and where, as here, it happens that the arbitrator's decision has as at least a 'barely colorable justification' in the record, the award must be confirmed. … In awarding Positive $138,000 in expenses, there is little question that the arbitrator relied on Positive's balance sheet … [But] Smith does not cite a legal rule, let alone a clear and established one, barring the inclusion of fixed costs in an award of expenses.” And though damages to reputation usually can't be recovered under New York law for breach-of-contract claims, the court found that post-Lil Jon-cancellation correspondence from complaining third parties that had done business with Positive Productions was “proof of specific harm arising from the loss of reputation”.
Concert Cancellations
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?