Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Around the Firms
Cozen O'Connor will swallow up most of the lawyers from Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding in New York, giving the firm two Manhattan offices and doubling the size of its presence there. At least 38 of Fischbein Badillo's 45 lawyers are leaving for Cozen O'Connor. The Fischbein Badillo firm is known to have a practice emphasis on commercial litigation and real estate as well as a host of political connections. The new practices combine with Cozen O'Connor's existing New York work, which focuses on insurance regulatory and litigation matters.
Herman Badillo, a former New York mayoral candidate, will not be making the move to Cozen O'Connor and instead will concentrate on other business interests, longtime partner Richard Fischbein said. But Fischbein, a commercial litigator, along with fellow name partner Raymond B. Harding, will be joining along with real estate partner Gerald N. Schrager and land use partner Howard B. Hornstein.
Cozen O'Connor business litigation chairman Fred Jacoby says the firm was not interested in some of the other lawyers who handle plaintiff litigation for client conflict reasons. Those lawyers will continue to operate a firm, which will retain the Fischbein Badillo name, but Fischbein says if those conflicts subside, they could join Cozen O'Connor at some point. Jacoby says 17 lawyers will join Cozen O'Connor, which will maintain two offices in Manhattan. Its existing one at 45 Broadway serves the firm's financial services and insurance clients, and Fischbein Badillo's office in midtown Manhattan at 909 Third Ave. will primarily focus on real estate, land use and commercial litigation clients. That means the firm is paying rent for two offices in pricey New York City. Jacoby said Fischbein Badillo's lease does not expire until the end of 2008 but said each locale suits the practice areas of the lawyers.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.