Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

Intermediate Date Used for Prejudgment Interest in Digital Downloads Fees Suit

A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an intermediate date for determining prejudgment interest for breach of a digital music distribution contract. Orchard Enterprises NY Inc. v. Megabop Records Ltd., 09-9607. Orchard Enterprises had obtained a default judgment in a suit it filed against the U.K.-based Megabop for payment of $175,039.69 that Megabop allegedly owed Orchard for digital download sales of sound recordings. Magistrate Gabriel W. Gorenstein initially noted: “The Second Circuit [in which the Southern District of New York resides] has held that an inquest into damages may be held on the basis of documentary evidence alone, 'as long as [the court has] ensured that there was a basis for the damages specified in [the] default judgment.' ' Orchard Enterprises' submissions include an affidavit and attached documentary evidence. Because these submissions provide a basis for an award of damages, no hearing is required.” In Orchard's request for the nine percent pre-judgment interest allowed under New York law, Magistrate Gorenstein found: “Because the record is not clear as to when Megabop paid Orchard Enterprises $20,000 [of a total $195,039.69 owed], it cannot be determined when Orchard Enterprises began to incur damages from each individual invoice [Orchard submitted to Megabop]. Thus, the Court will compute prejudgment interest upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date. Orchard Enterprises has proposed [Dec.] 31, 2007 as such a date, as that is the date 'when approximately half of the amount claimed had already been invoiced.' Megabop has not challenged plaintiff's proposal of [Dec.] 31, 2007. Accordingly, we will accept that date as reasonable.” However, the magistrate denied Orchard's request for attorney fees and costs by noting that “Orchard Enterprises provides no admissible evidence to support its claim for these categories.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

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 So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

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 Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

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?