Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Film Financing/Breach Of Contract
No reasonable jury would find a meeting of the minds was reached on the essential elements of an alleged agreement for the plaintiff to produce an educational film in return for the defendants' promise to finance an unrelated feature film, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held. Baker v. The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, 04 Civ. 426. Robert I. Lappin and The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation hired plaintiff Gil Baker as writer and producer of the film 'Great Jewish Achievers' (GJA). Baker sued after the Lappin defendants failed to provide funding for the full-length film 'Bungalow 6' that Baker wished to make. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Baker's breach-of-contract claim. The court explained: 'As Baker conceded at his deposition, there was no discussion, much less any agreement, on critical items such as the nature of the investment (whether loan or equity or otherwise); the time of performance (when Lappin was to provide the $500,000 [for 'Bungalow 6']); the manner of performance (whether the funds would be paid in a lump sum or installments); the terms of repayment (if the monies were to be repaid at all); whether interest would be paid and if so at what rate; whether Lappin would share in profits and if so in what manner and to what extent; whether and to what extent Lappin would have any control over content, casting, or other creative issues; and who would own the copyrights.'
A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Paramount Pictures expressly conditioned licensing its TV shows 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown' on a broadcaster also licensing the show 'Becker,' or whether Paramount licensed the programs together to permit the broadcaster to obtain lower prices for 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown,' the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, decided. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Johnson Broadcasting Inc., H-04-03488. Paramount filed a breach-of-contract suit alleging that Johnson Broadcasting failed to make payments for some licensed TV shows and failed to air others. The broadcaster then alleged that Paramount had engaged in anti-trust activity. The district court explained: 'Tying arrangements, which are prohibited under the [federal] Sherman Act and the [federal] Clayton Act, occur when a seller agrees to sell one product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different, or 'tied,' product. ' Block-booking is a type of tying arrangement in which a distributor licenses one film or group of films to exhibitors on the condition that the exhibitor will also license another film or group of films released by the distributor. ' While conditioning the sale of one product on the sale of another violates antitrust laws, selling multiple products as a package is permissible.'
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
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.