Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Movers & Shakers
Chamberlain Hrdlicka announced that it has changed its formal name to Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry. Atlanta-based tax attorney David Aughtry has been added to Chamberlain's masthead after serving as a shareholder with the firm for 27 years.
Aughtry began his tenure at Chamberlain Hrdlicka in the firm's Houston office before opening the Atlanta practice in 1986 with only five attorneys. Under Aughtry's leadership, the Atlanta office now has a roster of more than 40 attorneys practicing in the areas of tax controversy and litigation, tax and estate planning, construction law, real estate, corporate securities and finance, intellectual property, business litigation and bankruptcy.
Aughtry's practice focuses on civil and criminal tax litigation, defending companies and individuals in disputes with the IRS. He has been nationally recognized in tax litigation in Chambers USA and the US Legal 500 Litigation Guide. In 2010, Aughtry was selected to serve as President of the Southern Federal Tax Institute Board of Trustees. He is also a Fellow of both the International Society of Barristers and the American College of Tax Counsel.
Aughtry began his tenure at
Aughtry's practice focuses on civil and criminal tax litigation, defending companies and individuals in disputes with the IRS. He has been nationally recognized in tax litigation in Chambers USA and the US Legal 500 Litigation Guide. In 2010, Aughtry was selected to serve as President of the Southern Federal Tax Institute Board of Trustees. He is also a Fellow of both the International Society of Barristers and the American College of Tax Counsel.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.