IP Transfer and Pricing Considerations for Financial Service Firms
February 01, 2006
Financial service companies make their money primarily through two core intellectual assets. The first is their expert knowledge of ways to create, expose, tranche and protect asset value. The second is their ability to project their expertise as embodied in their brand. Aside from the specialized intellectual asset merchant banks, financial service companies do not know how to value their knowledge nor their brand. Furthermore, historically they have not paid much attention to which of their global affiliates created the intellectual asset nor which of their affiliates deployed the asset — an activity that creates the accounting and financing phenomenon of "transfer pricing." The importance, more specifically the urgency, in rectifying this informational vacuum arises from recent changes in international tax law pertaining to the pricing of intangible assets that are transferred among Multinational Entity ("MNE") affiliates. This article, targeting the financial service industry, briefly summarizes the fears of the industry concerning transfer pricing and intellectual property ("IP"); cites an example of a recent innovation that has led to a revolution in the way bonds are priced identifying possible IP transfer pricing red flags; and concludes with suggestions for process improvements.
Getting to Allowance: Seven Habits of Highly Effective Clients
February 01, 2006
<b>1) Tell Your Patent Attorney What You Want Your Patent to Do.</b> IP attorneys are continuously told that we should be business partners with our clients, not just patent scribes. But there are lots of ways to protect an invention. Be open and just tell us: Is the patent "for show or for go"? Is it perceived to be vital to the company or a "home run" for the university, or is it a safety filing to cover a limited advance to keep a productive inventor (or top boss) happy. Is it intended to be a shot in the dark, or part of a shotgun blast of applications into an important emerging technology? Don't walk into a car lot and say "I want your best car!" unless you really mean it.
Development
January 27, 2006
Recent rulings you need to know.
Are Condo Hotels Subject to SEC Regulations?
January 27, 2006
The latest real estate trend in the hospitality industry, across the country and around the world, is the "condo hotel." A condo hotel resembles, and is managed and operates as, a traditional hotel, except that certain hotel rooms are offered for sale as condominium units to individual buyers. In addition, unit owners usually have the option of placing those units in a reservation system or rental program and sharing in any associated fees. The proliferation of the condo hotel is largely the result of the benefits that condo hotels afford developers, lenders, and buyers. For a developer, the condo hotel provides the opportunity to turn a quick profit upon sale of condominiums as opposed to the incremental profits traditionally associated with the cyclical hotel industry. Lenders are also more likely to support developers as a result of the potential return on investment realized with condominium sales (even prior to construction). Finally, the condo hotel is attractive to buyers seeking a residence that includes all the amenities associated with traditional hotel stays. Condo hotel purchases and sales also raise new and unresolved legal issues, particularly whether the sale of a condo hotel unit constitutes the sale of a security requiring registration and compliance with federal securities laws.
Index
January 27, 2006
Everything contained within this issue.
Post-Divorce Torts Not Always Barred
January 27, 2006
In the 1988 case of <i>Buronow v. Buronow</i>, 71 NY2d 284 (1988), the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule that issues relating to marital property must be decided within the matrimonial action. If they are not, the doctrine of res judicata steps in to bar a later suit over subjects that should have been adjudicated. This maxim has caused consternation to some over the years but, by and large, it was fairly easy to understand and follow. Its purpose was to finalize all aspects of spousal litigation as expeditiously as possible in order to preserve judicial resources and prevent divorcing parties from being compelled to take part in never-ending controversies.
