Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Malpractice Claims Filed Against Loeb & Loeb and Of Counsel Over King Fury 2 Film Production
A Chinese film production company seeks over $60 million in damages and alleges a Los Angeles law firm and its attorney committed legal malpractice and breached their fiduciary duty while involved in an overseas film production. Shanghai-based Creasun Entertainment USA Inc., has filed suit against Loeb & Loeb and attorney Michael Helfant, who is of counsel to the firm, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Creasun Entertainment USA Inc. v. Helfant, 24STCV03380.
Creasun claims the defendants failed to diligently represent its interests when the company retained the firm and Helfant to negotiate its financing for the film King Fury 2, set to star Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Fassbender, among others. Creasun became involved with the production after film producer Alex Lebovici approached Minglu Ma, the company's chairman, about an investment opportunity in the film.
The lawsuit claims Lebovici and the defendants also "secretly developed an attorney-client relationship" that created a conflict of interest when they represented Creasun in negotiations with Lebovici and his business partners. When Ma visited Bulgaria for the movie's production, she claims she learned of alleged fraudulent activity with the film's budget. Despite only investing $3 million at the time, the film had over $4 million in its account and producers told Ma it "was a simple accounting error," the complaint said.
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.