Bit Parts

Book Publishing/Personal Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging that representatives of the Rolling Stones withdrew promised support for the plaintiff's book, “Love You Live, Rolling Stones: Fanfare from the Common Fan.” Regan v. Loewenstein, 07-3266. The appeals court agreed there was a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the long-arm statute of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff resides. The appeals court noted in an unpublished opinion: “Even assuming, arguendo, that a contract ever existed in this case, which is far from clear, the 'prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences' are insufficient to establish minimum contacts between the Defendants and Pennsylvania. The District Court found that '[t]he evidence submitted by Plaintiffs shows only that Plaintiff contacted Defendants seeking their approval and cooperation …' and that '[o]ther than responding to Plaintiff's request for Defendants' support of her book, Defendants did not solicit the contract or initiate a business relationship leading up to the contract.' ' Such unilateral communications cannot constitute purposeful availment by the Defendants.”

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee decided that the phrase “the royalties from all posthumous publication of any of my works” in the last will and testament of science fiction author Andre Norton, who died in 2005, didn't include the copyrights to those works. Horadam v. Stewart, M2007-00046-COA-R3-CV. Dr. Victor Horadam, the will beneficiary, had filed a petition for interpretation of the phrase against Norton's former caretaker, Sue Stewart, the estate executrix. The trial court ruled that Norton intended to use the words “copyrights” and “royalties” interchangeably in her will. But the appeals court disagreed: “Based on the language in the four corners of the Will, we agree there was an ambiguity in the Will but have determined it was latent, rather than patent ' Accordingly, the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the decedent's intent and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will is permitted and is necessary for the proper administration of the estate. After careful review of the record including Executrix's proffered evidence of decedent's intent, we have determined that the decedent intended different meanings of the terms 'copyrights' and 'royalties' and we reverse the court's determination that those terms were used interchangeably. In doing so, we award the copyrights not previously bequeathed in the Will to Executrix and the royalties, as defined in this opinion, to Beneficiary.”

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California voided a film-financing tax shelter in which since-bankrupt financial-services firm Imperial Credit invested. The district court also awarded Imperial Credit's trustee a return of funds invested. Imperial Credit Industries Inc. v. Lerner, SA CV 07-777CAS. The district court found that material facts about the transaction ' and about the transactional interest of Perry Lerner, who arranged for the investment while he was on Imperial Credit's board of directors ' weren't disclosed to the directors. The court decided the transaction “was unfair and unreasonable” under California Corporations Code Sec. 310. The court also ruled that Lerner breached his fiduciary obligation to Imperial Credit, because there was “evidence to suggest that Lerner intended on making the transaction 'very expensive' for Imperial.” The trustee's counsel, Irell and Manella, says the damages award by the court, with prejudgment interest, could total more than $26.5 million.

Book Publishing/Personal Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit alleging that representatives of the Rolling Stones withdrew promised support for the plaintiff's book, “Love You Live, Rolling Stones: Fanfare from the Common Fan.” Regan v. Loewenstein, 07-3266. The appeals court agreed there was a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the long-arm statute of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff resides. The appeals court noted in an unpublished opinion: “Even assuming, arguendo, that a contract ever existed in this case, which is far from clear, the 'prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences' are insufficient to establish minimum contacts between the Defendants and Pennsylvania. The District Court found that '[t]he evidence submitted by Plaintiffs shows only that Plaintiff contacted Defendants seeking their approval and cooperation …' and that '[o]ther than responding to Plaintiff's request for Defendants' support of her book, Defendants did not solicit the contract or initiate a business relationship leading up to the contract.' ' Such unilateral communications cannot constitute purposeful availment by the Defendants.”

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee decided that the phrase “the royalties from all posthumous publication of any of my works” in the last will and testament of science fiction author Andre Norton, who died in 2005, didn't include the copyrights to those works. Horadam v. Stewart, M2007-00046-COA-R3-CV. Dr. Victor Horadam, the will beneficiary, had filed a petition for interpretation of the phrase against Norton's former caretaker, Sue Stewart, the estate executrix. The trial court ruled that Norton intended to use the words “copyrights” and “royalties” interchangeably in her will. But the appeals court disagreed: “Based on the language in the four corners of the Will, we agree there was an ambiguity in the Will but have determined it was latent, rather than patent ' Accordingly, the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the decedent's intent and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will is permitted and is necessary for the proper administration of the estate. After careful review of the record including Executrix's proffered evidence of decedent's intent, we have determined that the decedent intended different meanings of the terms 'copyrights' and 'royalties' and we reverse the court's determination that those terms were used interchangeably. In doing so, we award the copyrights not previously bequeathed in the Will to Executrix and the royalties, as defined in this opinion, to Beneficiary.”

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California voided a film-financing tax shelter in which since-bankrupt financial-services firm Imperial Credit invested. The district court also awarded Imperial Credit's trustee a return of funds invested. Imperial Credit Industries Inc. v. Lerner, SA CV 07-777CAS. The district court found that material facts about the transaction ' and about the transactional interest of Perry Lerner, who arranged for the investment while he was on Imperial Credit's board of directors ' weren't disclosed to the directors. The court decided the transaction “was unfair and unreasonable” under California Corporations Code Sec. 310. The court also ruled that Lerner breached his fiduciary obligation to Imperial Credit, because there was “evidence to suggest that Lerner intended on making the transaction 'very expensive' for Imperial.” The trustee's counsel, Irell and Manella, says the damages award by the court, with prejudgment interest, could total more than $26.5 million.