Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: No Interference Seen in Failure of Deal Talks
The Appellate Court of Conn-ecticut affirmed that the rap group Fort Knox failed to establish that a member's brother tortiously interfered with the group's business expectancy of entering into a recording contract with rap mogul Master P. Robinson v. Robinson, No. 27467. Fort Knox member Delone Robinson claimed that negotiations ended after his brother Curtis told Master P counsel Darrell Miller of Los Angeles that the agreement Master P had offered the artists 'was a 'Mickey Mouse' contract because it contained no advance money.'
The appellate court noted: 'As Delone Robinson conceded, even if the allegations of the defendant's statements to Miller were true, there was no direct evidence that the statements caused [Master P's] No Limit Records to terminate its business negotiations with Fort Knox. A logical and reasonable explanation for the termination of the relationship, as Miller testified, was that Master P was going through a change in distribution companies at the time of the negotiations, which caused the termination. An equally plausible explanation for the breakdown in negotiations was that the proposed changes made by Delone Robinson's Atlanta lawyer caused No Limit Records simply to walk away from the deal.'
The Appellate Court of Conn-ecticut affirmed that the rap group Fort Knox failed to establish that a member's brother tortiously interfered with the group's business expectancy of entering into a recording contract with rap mogul Master P. Robinson v. Robinson, No. 27467. Fort Knox member Delone Robinson claimed that negotiations ended after his brother Curtis told Master P counsel Darrell Miller of Los Angeles that the agreement Master P had offered the artists 'was a 'Mickey Mouse' contract because it contained no advance money.'
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
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?