Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's Note: This article raises a number of serious questions about closed vs. open compensation systems. Stay tuned for an upcoming A&FP panel discussion on these issues.)
When Robert Tucker and 35 other partners jumped ship as Arter & Hadden was sinking in 2003, they wanted to leave behind the infighting about money that had pervaded some of the relationships at the now bankrupt Cleveland law firm.
They had seen how flaps over pay can tear partners apart, Tucker says, and they hoped to eliminate the divisiveness that had plagued their former shop, which today is still mired in bankruptcy litigation.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?