Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
State tax credits are valuable tools for helping meet the costs of producing films, TV shows, commercials, and other media and entertainment productions. To entice production companies to work locally — and depending on its particular tax-credit program — a state may allow production companies to use the credits to pay tax liabilities to that state, as collateral for loans and even to sell the credits to third parties.
But if more than one production company is involved with a project, a legal dispute can arise over which company owns the right to the tax credit funds. That's what happened in Feel Films Ltd. v. AP Production Services Inc. (APP), 21 Civ. 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), a current case involving Georgia's tax credit incentives.
Leading up to this litigation, London-based Feel Films was hired to produce a commercial for Kia Motors. Feel Films in turn entered into an agreement with APP for the latter to take care of line production services for the commercial, to be filmed in Georgia. The Feel Films/APP contract provided that APP "shall, in as expeditious a manner as possible, do and perform all acts necessary to maximize the amount of [Georgia] Tax Credits and secure [their] receipt … necessary to ensure the availability of the Tax Credits, the issuance of the Tax [C]redit Certificate(s) and the payment of [the amounts reflected on the Tax Credit Certificates,] … to [Feel Films] or at [Feel Films'] direction." The agreement further stated that "[t]here shall be no offset or other reduction taken by [APP] against the [amounts reflected on the Tax Credit Certificates]" and that APP "agrees that the Tax Credits and Tax Credit Certificates are held in trust for [Feel Films] such that the Tax Credits and Tax Credit Certificates are the property of [Feel Films]."
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.
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.
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.