Features
Michael E. Clark
On June 10, 2003, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued its report responding to an October 21, 2002 request from Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for the agency to review the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In performing its review of the OIG (from October 2002 through May 2003), the GAO interviewed over 200 current and former OIG employees, examined thousands of pages of documents, replicated a web-based employee survey conducted by the OIG in January 2003, spoke to representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and various Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFUCUs), and interviewed three current or former inspectors general from other federal agencies.
Ronald H. Levine
&
Michelle L. Ostrelich
The Congressional response to the scandals of Enron and its corporate cousins was not exactly laser-guided. Much ado already has been made about many provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act), but one that has drawn little comment is its unprecedented, sweeping and criminal whistleblower law.
Stan Soocher
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Stan Soocher
If a TV network makes a non-recourse loan to a production company to produce a TV series, could the production company nevertheless be required to pay back the loan? Assume that the agreement with the network provides for a license fee to the production company as well as a loan for production costs that exceed the license fee, and that the loan will be repaid only from the series' net profits. What happens if the series is never syndicated and thus earns no net profits?
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Christine Lepera
&
Christopher T. Bavitz
The Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Sec. 204) provides that '[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.' A copyright infringement defendant may argue that it made use of a plaintiff's work pursuant to a grant of rights or license from the plaintiff. Where a license is written, the consent defense is relatively straightforward, and frequently turns on whether or not the defendant acted in accordance with the terms and scope of the license at issue. Where no writing exists, however, a plaintiff can more readily challenge such consent and force the defendant to face the writing hurdle imposed by Sec. 204.
Features
Susan H. Morton
&
David W. Oppenheim
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent cases in entertainment law.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, has decided that to toll the statute of limitations of the California Talent Agencies Act, an 'action' must be filed with the state labor commissioner, rather than state court, within one year of the alleged Act violation. <i>Greenfield v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County</i>, B159313 (Feb. 27).
