Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Earn-Out Payments In <i>Rock Band</i> Video Game at Issue in Delaware Case
Attorneys for Viacom International Inc. told the Delaware Supreme Court in oral arguments in July that their client did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it failed to renegotiate an agreement with Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) to distribute the video game Rock Band , thereby reducing the earn-out payments to shareholders of the game's developer, Harmonix Music Systems Inc., which merged with the Viacom entertainment conglomerate in 2006. Viacom's attorneys presented their case to the high court after Harmonix's shareholders appealed a Delaware Court of Chancery decision that dismissed their claims that Viacom purposely sought to reduce Harmonix's earn-out payments.
As the state supreme court mulls the parties' arguments in Winshall v. Viacom, in a separate, but related development in July it affirmed the chancery court's decision to uphold an arbitrator's $298.8 million award to shareholders who claimed they were shortchanged out of the earn-out payments in 2008. Viacom International Inc. v. Winshall, 513. Viacom contended the award should only be $191 million because it should be permitted to write down the cost of unsold games.
In upholding the chancery court's decision, the Delaware Supreme Court decided that BDO USA LLP, which arbitrated the earn-out dispute, was correct when it refused to consider evidence presented by Viacom. “If the subject matter to be arbitrated is the calculation of an earn-out ' all issues as to what financial or other information should be considered in performing the calculation are decided by the arbitrator,” said Justice Carolyn Berger.
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?