Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Relativity, Netflix Battle Involves Interplay Between Bankruptcy and Streaming License
Entertainment companies be forewarned: Unlike standard civil litigation, a single bankruptcy proceeding can often include multiple seemingly unrelated adjudications that, in hindsight, have a much greater subsequent impact than an unsuspecting litigant might expect. An example of this was evidenced in a recent order entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Wiles of the Southern District of New York that barred Netflix from distributing, and even “contending that they have the rights to distribute” two Relativity Media-produced films prior to movie theater release under the terms of the parties' license agreement. In re Relativity Fashion, 15-11989 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016). (See also, Doc. No. 1948 for the corrected transcript of the decision.) Finding that it was essential to the feasibility of Relativity's confirmed plan and relying on clear confirmation hearing testimony, the bankruptcy court denied Netflix's subsequent claim that it had the right to stream certain films prior to their theatrical release.
Case Background
Before July 2015, when Relativity Media and its 150 affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection, Relativity and Netflix entered into a movie-licensing agreement that contemplated execution of film-specific notices of assignment as part of Netflix's obligations to Relativity. The notices of assignment required Netflix to pay a licensing fee to Relativity's secured lender upon certain conditions, with payment due 12 months after an initial “theatrical release” in movie theaters nationwide.
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.