Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP Transfer and Pricing Considerations for Financial Service Firms
Financial service companies make their money primarily through two core intellectual assets. The first is their expert knowledge of ways to create, expose, tranche and protect asset value. The second is their ability to project their expertise as embodied in their brand. Aside from the specialized intellectual asset merchant banks, financial service companies do not know how to value their knowledge nor their brand. Furthermore, historically they have not paid much attention to which of their global affiliates created the intellectual asset nor which of their affiliates deployed the asset ' an activity that creates the accounting and financing phenomenon of “transfer pricing.” The importance, more specifically the urgency, in rectifying this informational vacuum arises from recent changes in international tax law pertaining to the pricing of intangible assets that are transferred among Multinational Entity (“MNE”) affiliates. This article, targeting the financial service industry, briefly summarizes the fears of the industry concerning transfer pricing and intellectual property (“IP”); cites an example of a recent innovation that has led to a revolution in the way bonds are priced identifying possible IP transfer pricing red flags; and concludes with suggestions for process improvements.
Introduction
The American Express Company, a well-known financial service company, is valued on the New York Stock Exchange at about $62 billion. The company's book value is only $12 billion. American Express has codified its expert knowledge in at least 173 issued and pending U.S. patents and has built an iconic brand that Interbrand estimates is worth today $18.5 billion. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., another well-known financial service company, is valued on the Exchange at about $55 billion. The company's book value is only $16 billion. Goldman Sachs has codified its knowledge in at least 14 issued and pending U.S. patents and has built an iconic brand that Interbrand estimates is worth today $8.5 billion.
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.