Litigation

A Miami, FL, federal jury ruled in favor of a Croatia-based production company in their trademark dispute with a titan of concerts, Ultra Music Festival.

In Lagos v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996,

Since the GDPR's implementation, the “WHOIS” service by which the general public could search registration information, including names and contact info, has been largely in a state of flux. It's now even tougher to find information, attorneys who work with domain registration say, which could concern entertainment and intellectual property holders who want to go after infringing websites.

A federal judge in Atlanta called out attorneys in a nationally watched copyright case for their role in an “an all-out, knock-down, drag-out fight between the '800-pound Gorilla' of the recording industry in one corner of the room vs. 'Spinrilla', the self-proclaimed '800-pound Gorilla of free hiphop mixtapes' in the other corner.”

Part One of a Two-Part Article

The United States Supreme Court's October Term 2017 was a good year for criminal defendants in areas as varied as the Fourth Amendment, obstruction of justice, the death penalty, and criminal restitution. There was only one major criminal law decision this term — Carpenter v. United States — but there were several decisions that defense counsel would do well to study.

In fiscal year 2017, the DOJ collected more than $3.7 billion dollars from False Claims Act (FCA) cases — part of the $86 billion it has collected from FCA cases since 1986. States and municipalities are aggressively pursuing FCA recoveries as well. Whether or not such payments are deductible as business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code is an important consideration when negotiating a settlement with the government.

The majority of these recent amendments become effective on Dec. 28, 2018. Many of these reforms appear to be in direct response to concerns expressed in 2016 by the New York Attorney General (NYAG), yet the changes do not appear to be as sweeping as the NYAG had sought.

In the real estate business, as in many others, the question of just who is contractually responsible when things go wrong is a recurring one, particularly when a closely-held corporation or other business entity is involved.