Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Disqualification Motion. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a defense motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel in an investors' suit against a company that develops patented software for multimedia entertainment. Forbes v. NAMS International Inc., 3:07-CV-0039 (TJM/DEP). The investors claimed they had been defrauded by NAMS' statements regarding patent-pending technology to stop entertainment-industry losses from peer-to-peer file sharing.
Plaintiffs' attorney Ronald R. Benjamin of Binghamton, NY, had previously represented NAMS well into trade-secret litigation against Spectra.Net Communications. Non-consensual attorney-disqualification motions require a high burden of proof. When NAMs moved to have Benjamin disqualified from the investors' suit, the district court noted: 'The information currently available to the court suggests that despite the passage of over eight years since Attorney Benjamin withdrew from representation of NAMS, there is nonetheless a substantial interrelationship between the issues raised in the two cases [i.e., the current investors' suit and the Spectra.Net litigation] and a high probability that during the course of his earlier representation of the company he had access to confidential communications enshrouded by the attorney-client privilege. In its complaint in the Spectra.Net litigation, NAMS claimed to possess sensitive and trade secret information regarding the company's technology and business which was disclosed to and misappropriated by the defendant during the course of merger negotiations.'
The court continued: 'At the heart of the present controversy is a claim by the plaintiffs that in soliciting investment in the company the principals of NAMS, including through statements contained within the controversial [Confidential Private Placement Memorandum], overstated its capabilities and technology. The information which was imparted, or at a minimum readily available, to Attorney Benjamin ' during the course of his representation of that company in its litigation against Spectra.Net is directly linked and would undoubtedly provide useful, at least as a starting point, in discerning the capabilities of the company at the time of the offering at issue in this case.'
Disqualification Motion. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Plaintiffs' attorney Ronald R. Benjamin of Binghamton, NY, had previously represented NAMS well into trade-secret litigation against Spectra.Net Communications. Non-consensual attorney-disqualification motions require a high burden of proof. When NAMs moved to have Benjamin disqualified from the investors' suit, the district court noted: 'The information currently available to the court suggests that despite the passage of over eight years since Attorney Benjamin withdrew from representation of NAMS, there is nonetheless a substantial interrelationship between the issues raised in the two cases [i.e., the current investors' suit and the Spectra.Net litigation] and a high probability that during the course of his earlier representation of the company he had access to confidential communications enshrouded by the attorney-client privilege. In its complaint in the Spectra.Net litigation, NAMS claimed to possess sensitive and trade secret information regarding the company's technology and business which was disclosed to and misappropriated by the defendant during the course of merger negotiations.'
The court continued: 'At the heart of the present controversy is a claim by the plaintiffs that in soliciting investment in the company the principals of NAMS, including through statements contained within the controversial [Confidential Private Placement Memorandum], overstated its capabilities and technology. The information which was imparted, or at a minimum readily available, to Attorney Benjamin ' during the course of his representation of that company in its litigation against Spectra.Net is directly linked and would undoubtedly provide useful, at least as a starting point, in discerning the capabilities of the company at the time of the offering at issue in this case.'
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
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.
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.