Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the classic movie When Harry Met Sally, Harry says, "When I buy a new book, I always read the last page first. That way, in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends. That, my friend, is a dark side." At the beginning of any licensing relationship, things always seem rosy and full of potential. We talk about royalties, advances, and guarantees with the dream of a relationship that will be enduring and fulfilling for both licensor and licensee. But licensees would do well to heed the advice of young Harry by giving in to their dark side and looking to what lies at the end of the story. Because what may be waiting for them there is an audit for which they are ill prepared.
Audit clauses are standard in almost every license agreement. They typically provide that the licensor has the right to review the licensee's records related to the sale of licensed products at least once a year. They also usually provide that if the auditor finds an underpayment of a certain scale (usually around 5%) then the licensee is responsible for the costs of the audit.
The audit clause itself is not something to be feared. It is a necessary means for the licensor to protect its interests and to guard against unscrupulous licensees. But it is a mistake to think that the clause is there solely to prevent malfeasance. Licensors have discovered that audit clauses can be a source of additional revenue. An audit is literally a way to make licensees pay for their mistakes. And sometimes those mistakes can be costly.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.