Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Delaware Court Dismisses Fox Stockholder's Suit Over Disney Deal
In a decision that narrowed what actions can be brought by Delaware companies' stockholders in the context of a merger, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims brought against former 21st Century Fox executives, including three members of the Murdoch family. Brokerage Jamie Goldenberg Komen Rev Tru U/A 06/10/08 v. Breyer, 2018-0773.
In the judicial opinion, Chancellor Andre Bouchard wrote that a Fox stockholder hadn't adequately proven that about $82.4 million in stock given to Rupert, James and Lachlan Murdoch interfered with the company's sale to Disney, and that the stockholder therefore didn't have standing to bring derivative claims.
In December 2017, 21st Century Fox Inc. gave to Disney assets including Fox's movie and television studios in exchange for a later-agreed-upon price of $71.3 billion, to be paid half in cash and half in Disney stock. Prior to the rest of the company being purchased by Disney, Fox spun off some of its broadcast, news and sports businesses into the new public company Fox Corp.
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?