Litigation

Right to Rooftop Space

On March 7, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided for the first time that a parody may be a copyright fair use. In the 25 years that followed, the High Court's unanimous 9-0 ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Inc., has been cited in more than 500 court decisions. But the Supreme Court's pronouncement left questions and controversies in its wake.

The Ninth Circuit decided that a group of African-American-owned television networks can pursue racial discrimination claims against Charter Communications Inc., the nation's third-largest cable provider.

The FCA is not a model of clarity. In a certiorari petition in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, the U.S. Supreme Court will address an area of uncertainty that has led to a three-way circuit split regarding the FCA's statute of limitations. Depending on the outcome, FCA defendants could end up facing even more claims up to a decade old or, alternatively, have a new limitation on FCA actions upon which to rely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a long-awaited ruling in Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc., affirming summary judgment in favor of Capitol Records and its record label co-plaintiffs in a case that raised issues of first impression concerning first sale and fair use in the age of digital music distribution.

Why Commercial Fraud Claims Sometimes Fail, and the Importance of Due Diligence If a court decision called you "sophisticated," it was probably not intended as a compliment, but instead signaled the death knell of your fraud claim.

In Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that “… Ponzi scheme payments to satisfy legitimate antecedent debts to defendant banks could not be avoided” by a bankruptcy trustee “absent transaction-specific proof of actual intent to defraud or the statutory elements of constructive fraud — transfer by an insolvent debtor who did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange.”

A Philadelphia lawyer is suing the founder of a fast-growing litigation boutique over a purported fee-sharing settlement, is arguing that the boutique backed out of the settlement so it could fund other cases against video game makers.