Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A growing number of lawsuits are alleging that aviation companies are dumping old and unsafe airplanes on Third World countries. Some of the suits charge the companies with leasing planes to startup airlines that lack proper training to operate them safely. In Chicago, a lawsuit is set to go to trial against an Illinois aviation company alleging that it knowingly leased an old and defective plane to a company in the Philippines, where the 22-year-old plane crashed in 2000, killing 131 people.
Features
Is it possible to defame an inanimate object such as a plane, or a house, or a painting? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is 'yes.' This sort of claim, which is generically captured by the designation 'commercial disparagement,' has, on occasion, been pursued successfully at trial involving 'hard' assets and can even be employed when the damages are more prospective than actual. The tort falls generally within the penumbra of libel and slander-related claims, but has been overshadowed by the more commonly recognized types of claims asserted against individuals or corporate entities rather than tangible objects. Commercial disparagement claims, when understood, are a useful line of defense to an asset owner ' as well as a hazard for those unaware of the claim's contours.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Series.</i></b> This two-part article (based on a 2005 white paper issued by ELA's Equipment Leasing Foundation, 'Knocking Down (Great) Walls') looks at the key legal and regulatory issues surrounding investing in the Chinese leasing market. Last month's installment provided a market history and analysis of the current legal and regulatory climate. This month's conclusion examines the experiences of lessors currently operating in China.
Features
Collective Bargaining Agreements/Waiver of Judicial Forum<br>Concert Injuries/Negligence<br>Copyright Transfer/Writing Requirement<br>Television-Programming Dispute/Judicial Forum<br>BOOK RELEASE: 'Music, Money and Success,' 5th Edition by Jeffrey Brabec and Todd Brabec<br>Upcoming Event: The Third Pacific Northwest Arts and Entertainment Symposium
Features
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Malpractice/Venue Transfer<br>Rule 11 Sanctions<br> Rule 11 Substantive Requirements
On Feb. 21, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review <i>MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech</i>, 427 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The question presented is: 'Does Article III's grant of jurisdiction of 'all Cases ... arising under ... the Laws of the United States,' implemented in the 'actual controversy' requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. '2201(a), require a patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed?' Whether the Court affirms or reverses the Federal Circuit, which answered in the affirmative, undoubtedly will affect the balance of power between patentees and their licensees and, perhaps, the willingness of licensors to grant licenses.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a film-option agreement required a film to be released initially in theaters. LaHaye v. Goodneuz Group LLC, 04-55839. Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Christian-book series 'Left Behind,' had filed suit against a production company over a film based on one of the books. The appeals court first found in its unpublished opinion that there…
