Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New Agreements with Europe
Conscientious corporate counsel and other careful practitioners soon should familiarize themselves with yet another prosecutorial and investigative weapon devised and implemented as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Prompted by an idea to promote cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the United States in fighting terrorism, the EU-U.S. Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance (“the Agreements”), once in effect, will provide new and powerful weapons for police and prosecutors on both sides of the pond. While the Agreements were created for a noble cause, their reach and grasp beyond terrorist activity is potentially troubling.
Of particular note, the Agreements provide for the formation of joint EU-U.S. investigative teams, the use of video technology for taking testimony abroad, and, importantly, the exchange of information regarding suspect bank accounts in investigations of any alleged serious crime, including not only terrorism and organized crime but also financial fraud. Further, the Agreements broaden the range of extraditable offenses by allowing extradition for any offense punishable by more than 1 year of imprisonment.
Signed by the United States and the EU on June 25, 2003, these agreements must undergo bilateral implementing protocols prior to submission to the Senate for ratification, which reportedly will not occur before sometime in 2006. The Agreements supplement rather than supplant the bilateral treaties currently in effect between the United States and EU member states, with the stated intent of streamlining the procedures for extradition and mutual legal assistance by easing formal requirements, simplifying pertinent documentation, and providing for the designation of administrative authorities for making and executing requests. Grounds for refusal to extradite or provide mutual assistance may still be based upon bilateral treaties or principles of domestic law.
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?