Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Movers & Shakers
The partners of global law firm K&L Gates LLP and Australian national firm Middletons have voted unanimously to combine firms effective Jan. 1, 2013. The addition of Middletons' 300 lawyers and four offices ' in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Brisbane ' extends K&L Gates' global reach to more than 2,000 lawyers in 46 offices across five continents. The combined firm will employ the K&L Gates name.
Through the combination, K&L Gates greatly enhances its Asia-Pacific regional coverage to 400 lawyers and 11 offices, including a recently announced office in Seoul, and becomes the first firm to combine with an Australian firm to form a single integrated global law firm. In addition to the common brand, from the outset the firm will enjoy full financial, operational, and technological integration, as well as unitary global governance and a single approach to partner compensation.
K&L Gates Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter J. Kalis and Middletons National Managing Partner Nick Nichola stated: “By their resoundingly affirmative votes, our partners have boldly seized the future by aligning our business with the businesses of clients in an era of intense consolidation and globalization. With the largest integrated network of law offices and law partners of any global law firm, our clients will be able seamlessly and efficiently to access top-notch legal resources around the corner and around the world.”
The partners of global law firm
Through the combination,
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.