Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ticketmaster Lead Counsel on Live Nation Merger Issues
The proposed merger between Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. and Live Nation Inc., the world's largest concert promoter, won Justice Department approval in January 2010, following a year of negotiations. The deal was the first negotiated under the Obama administration, which has pledged to impose more stringent antitrust review of corporate mergers.
For consumer groups, independent concert promoters and some performing artists, the combination of West Hollywood-based Ticketmaster and Beverly Hills-based Live Nation represents a threat to competition in ticket sales. The settlement between the companies, the Department of Justice and the attorneys general of 17 states, awaits review by a federal judge. The Canadian Competition Bureau also participated.
The final deal came with strings attached. Ticketmaster must sell one of its ticketing divisions and license its ticketing software to concert promoter Anschutz Entertainment Group Inc. (AEG). Moreover, the merged company, to be called Live Nation Entertainment, will be subject to “tough anti-retaliation provisions,” according to the Justice Department.
The law firm Latham & Watkins advised Live Nation, and Los Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher counseled Ticketmaster. At Gibson Dunn, Steven Sletten, a partner in Los Angeles, led a team of dozens of lawyers in Los Angeles, Washington, Dallas, New York and London. In an interview, Sletten stated that he prepared his client to face a tough audience, both at the Justice Department and in the court of public opinion. The ticketing services aspect of the merger, which constituted a minor aspect of the deal from a business perspective, proved the stickiest point in the negotiations, he said. The interview transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: Negotiations over this merger have been going on for a year. How much work was this?
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?