Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Internet has brought many innovations, fads and new considerations with it to public life in general, and to the realms of commerce in particular, including to the practice of law.
Among these, it has allowed new assets to spring into existence for consideration by competent tax and estate planners.
All Internet assets are intangible personal property ' they cannot be seen, felt or perceived in the usual way by the ordinary senses. For tax- and estate-planning purposes, each Internet asset is subject to one of three different legal classes. Below, we look at these assets, the classes they fall into and some considerations that bear on them.
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 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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?