Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CASE CAPTION: Global Icons LLC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and Lisbeth Barron, L.A. Superior Court # BC364745.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud; and unjust enrichment.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a leading company in the field of licensing and merchandising corporate brands and entertainment properties. Barron is a senior managing director at Bear Stearns, an investment banker. In March 2004, the plaintiff was presented with an opportunity to acquire Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE), the company that controls the intellectual property rights for the Elvis Presley estate. Global began to actively pursue the acquisition and disclosed the opportunity to Barron. The fact that EPE was potentially on the market was highly confidential. Barron recommended discussing the investment with Robert F.X. Sillerman. She also executed a confidentiality agreement acknowledging Bear Stearns as a 'representative of Global Icons.' Barron was authorized to disclose the possible acquisition to Sillerman as a possible investor. After discussions, Global agreed to relinquish the right to acquire EPE to Sillerman, cease efforts to raise financing, and assist Sillerman in acquiring it. In exchange, Sillerman agreed to grant Global the right to control the licensing and merchandising operations. Sillerman acquired EPE with financing arranged by the defendants but breached his agreement with Global. The defendants knew Global wouldn't be granted the licensing rights and ignored their fiduciary duties to Global. The defendants got millions of dollars for introducing Sillerman to the transaction and Global got frozen out.
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.
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?