Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a securities suit brought by several investing financial institutions against Paramount Pictures. Allianz Risk Transfer v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 08 Civ. 10420(TPG). The Allianz plaintiffs paid about $231.3 million for securities in Melrose Investors LLC, through which Paramount procured funds to produce and distribute movies between 2004 and 2006. The plaintiffs alleged that statements in the Melrose private placement memorandum (PPM) were incomplete, false and misleading ' including that Paramount planned to use pre-sales to foreign distributors to lower cost and risk, although the studio had already decided its affiliated United International Pictures would handle foreign distribution. The complaint causes of action included for violation of '10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
Granting Paramount's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa noted, among other things, that “the actual decline in Paramount's use of international pre-sales was insufficient to find in any of Paramount's statements a material misstatement or the omission of a material fact, as required to state a claim under the federal securities laws. According to the amended complaint, 25% of the cost of films comparable to the Melrose Slate films and released by Paramount between 1998 and 2003 was financed by international pre-sales, as opposed to 12.5% of the cost of the Melrose Slate films. This does amount to a reduction. However, it is difficult to say that Paramount was no longer engaging in the practice on an 'opportunistic' or 'selective basis,' which is all the PPM claims.”
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
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.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.