Fox Film's Refusal to Return Initial Investment Isn't Breach of Co-Financing Agreement<br>Oklahoma Federal Court Finds Fraudulent Transfer of Songwriter's Assets<br>Trading Card Series Is Protected Speech<br>Video Game Developer's Counterclaim Seeking Milestone Payment Avoids Summary Judgment
Title insurance is a regulated business in New York. Title insurers are required to file their rates with the state insurance department, and are required to adhere to those rates. If the insurers fail to adhere to their filed rates, New York state courts have recognized the possibility of class action relief for consumers.
Since adult children are not statutorily entitled to support from their parents, the primary legal question to be answered when a parent residing in New York learns of the existence of a previously unknown child is, "What rights, if any, do such offspring have in their parent's estate?"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
