Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Malpractice Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided it has supplemental jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim included in a suit over renewal rights to the 1970s hit 'Disco Inferno.' Dimensional Music Publishing LLC v. Kersey, 05-6437. 'Disco Inferno' had been included in Dimensional's $42.8 million purchase of the majority of the catalog of DreamWorks Music Publishing, a successor-in-interest to the original publisher to which 'Inferno' co-writer Ron Kersey had assigned his 50% share of the song. Dimensional Music filed suit for a declaratory judgment that it owned the renewal rights to Kersey's share. The district court decided that the renewal rights will vest in Dimensional, if Kersey's original 1977 assignment of the song rights is found valid.
In its complaint, Dimensional also named as defendants the New York law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Dimensional alleges that if the district court ultimately finds Dimensional doesn't own the renewal rights, the finding will be due to 'the direct and proximate result of professional negligence-legal malpractice' by Paul Weiss. According to the complaint, Dimensional agreed to finance entities that wanted to buy the DreamWorks songs and that retained Paul Weiss to conduct a due diligence of copyright ownership of the catalog. That DreamWorks deal fell through, but Dimensional later completed the purchase and said it retained Paul Weiss to finish the due-diligence investigation. Dimensional further charges that Paul Weiss advised Dimensional that the DreamWorks purchaser would have exclusive ownership of 'Disco Inferno' until 2033. For its part, Paul Weiss, which wasn't involved in the closing of the DreamWorks deal, insists the asset-purchase agreement drafted by DreamWorks' lawyers contained no representations of exactly what DreamWorks's copyright interests were in the catalog songs.
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
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.
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.
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 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.