Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
China recently launched two offerings of asset backed securities ('ABS') in its interbank market after several years of preparation and planning. On Dec. 9, 2005, China Construction Bank ('CCB') issued 2.9 billion yuan ($360 million) of debt securities in China's first residential mortgage-backed securitization, and on Dec. 12, 2005, China Development Bank ('CDB') issued 4.2 billion yuan ($500 million) of debt securities backed by unsecured loans from the telecommunications, energy, utility, and transportation industries. To facilitate ABS offerings, China's regulatory agencies have promulgated rules to govern ABS issuances, including the Administrative Rules for Pilot Securitization of Credit Assets, promulgated by the People's Bank of China ('PBOC') and China Banking Regulatory Commission ('CBRC') on April 20, 2005, the Rules for the Information Disclosure of Asset-Backed Securities, promulgated by the PBOC on June 13, 2005, and Rules for Regulating Financial Institution's Securitization, promulgated by the CBRC on Dec. 1, 2005.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a television-production company breached its obligation to in good faith negotiate a renewal option for a time-buy agreement for the airing of additional power-boat racing programs on the plaintiff's network. <i>Network Enterprises Inc. v. APBA Offshore Productions Inc.</i>
Features
American lessors continue to look for ways to expand their business, often turning to new products or structures. Savvy lenders also look to take their products to new markets, which are increasingly global. However, leasing equipment outside of the United States can present a number of issues for the U.S. lessor and its counsel. Preparation and an understanding of the foreign country's laws relating to equipment leasing are keys to success.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, decided that right of publicity and misappropriation claims by an individual hired to be a fictional character were preempted by federal copyright law. <i>Stanford v. Caesars Entertainment Inc.</i>
I have a lot of trouble accepting something that makes no sense simply because an attorney trying to make a point in a deal says: 'It's always done that way,' or 'Everyone does it like this.' Attorneys preparing a film contract often use this 'irrational' rationale. I am referring to the reversion clause in a contract to acquire rights in a basic work, such as a novel for a film.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the inclusion, without a license, of thumbnail-size reproductions of concert posters of the Grateful Dead in a book on the band's history constituted copyright fair use. <i>Bill Graham Archives (BGA) v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. (DK)</i>.
We want to know how we can make this newsletter an even better resource for your professional needs. Are we covering all you want to see? Are there sections you would like to see enhanced or replaced?<br>Your views and opinions are essential in our effort to continue to provide you with the top notch News, Strategy and Analysis you have come to expect from Law Journal Newsletters.<br>Help us help you! Please click <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=604771980045">here</a> to complete a short survey or type the following URL into your browser: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=604771980045.<br>Your answers will assist us in making this an even better newsletter for you! Thank you.<br>Regards,<br>Colin Graf<br>LJN Marketing Director
Two highly successful rock groups from the 1970s and '80s recently commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against their former record company, claiming a larger share of revenue derived from paid digital downloads of their recordings. <br>The essence of the plaintiffs' claim is that Sony is calculating the artists' shares of revenue from digital download sales through services such as iTunes, in the same manner that the label calculates royalties for physical sales of CDs through traditional retail outlets. The plaintiffs claim that these are not physical sales, but are instead sales of digital copies of recordings that have been licensed to music download providers by Sony, and the royalty rate payable for licensing income, which is much higher than for physical sales, should apply.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.