Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a nearly half-century-long legal dispute over the rights to John Steinbeck's works, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's $5 million compensatory damages award against the author's daughter-in-law but vacated punitive damages against the heir. Kaffaga v. Estate of Steinbeck, 18-55336. The Ninth Circuit told Steinbeck's family to stop making the same arguments in court over the enforceability of a 1983 agreement that designated family members' controlling rights to Steinbeck's books, which have been contested ever since his 1968 death.
"This has to end," wrote Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Tallman on behalf of a circuit court panel that included Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and N. Randy Smith. "We cannot say it any clearer."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.