Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Partnership Investments
With profits per partner continuing to rise, many attorneys have more discretionary income available for investment. In addition to investing directly in both traditional and nontraditional sources, some partners may choose to invest (either inside or outside their law firms) in opportunities that arise in the law firm setting.
For example, some clients may expect their law firms and other professionals to actively invest in their new activities (e.g., a stock or securities offering or hedge fund) as a sign of support. Or, a partner may obtain an investment opportunity from a third party (e.g., a financial adviser to a client, or the client himself); many partnership agreements provide that any investment opportunities made available to a partner by a client must be offered to and shared with other partners of the firm. Additionally, the law firm's leadership may believe that successful joint investments of monies will strengthen the institutional ties (and retention) of the firm's partners.
Still another source of 'investments' arising from law partnerships is the receipt of stock or other equities in clients in lieu of cash fees for services. That type of 'investment,' most popular during the dot.com days, is beyond the scope of this article. See Sheldon I. Banoff, 'When Can Law Firms and Lawyers Accept Stock or Stock Options for Services?' Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, August 2000, and 'When Should Law Firms and Lawyers Retain Stock or Stock Options for Services?' Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, July 2001.
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 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.