RSS FeedTupac’s Mother Files Counter-Suit Over Late Son’s Film Rights
First posted on Commercial Law International on March 19, 2009.
The mother of late rapper Tupac Shakur, Afeni Shakur, filed a $10 million suit against Morgan Creek, an independent production company over the rights to make a biopic of the rapper. This is a counter claim to a suit filed earlier by Morgan Creek in Los Angeles alleging Amaru Entertainment reneged on a deal to sell the rights for a biopic about the deceased rapper.
Amaru Entertainment, what is that and how did they get involved in this dispute? Isn’t it between Morgan Creek and Ms. Shakur?
This is easily explained. Amaru Entertainment controls the estate of the late rapper which in turn is over seen by Ms. Shakur.
Ok, with me now.
This whole morass it would seem stems from, and you will never guess, Biggie Smalls. Yes the other late rapper and Tupac’s rival, Christopher Wallis a.k.a. the Notorious B.I.G – no no please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to reignite the whole West Coast-East Coast, Tupac vs Biggie thing. I simply want to point out that this dispute, in my opinion, is highly connected and only arose after the biopic, “Notorious,” about Biggie grossed over $20 million in its opening weekend earlier this January and potentially profitability of a Tupac biopic became fully crystallized in the minds of both parties.
The central legal question is this case appears to whether or nor there was a deal between Morgan Creek and Amaru entertainment. For all the present and former law students out there, yeah, offer and acceptance is rearing it ugly head out side the safe confines of a law school.
Hahahahahahhahaha.
Was there in fact a deal? You decide:
Both parties were in advanced negotiations about a biopic on the later rapper. In December of last year Morgan Creek received a final term sheet which detailed everything that would be required to reach a deal. Morgan Creek’s executives in late January accepted this proposal – please note that this is after the “Notorious” opening weekend. It then began tell others in the film industry that it in fact owned the rights to a Tupac biopic. Morgan Creek then file suit in order to get Amaru to honor the deal.
Amaru Entertainment for its part claims that that there was no deal but that the final term sheet was in fact a counter offer and was the basis of further negotiations. In fact key details of a deal were not workout, such as an executive producer credit for Ms. Shakur. Because Morgan Creek was only one of many suitors for the biopic rights – others included Fox Searchlight, Paramount and Kennedy/Marshall – when they began telling others in the industry that they owned the film rights it sabotaged negotiations with the other studios.
Like I said a morass.
Is Tax The New Area Of Concern For Corporate Social Responsibility?
First posted on Commercial Law International on March 7, 2009 by Charles Wanguha.
In the early 1990s, Nike suffered a huge backlash from the revelation of child labour in its factories abroad. As a result, there was a drive to ensure that clothing was environmentally sound.
In early 2000, a push for carbon footprint labelling ensured that consumers were conscious of the effect of their consumption habits on the climate.
In 2009, after a Guardian expose, there has been an uproar regarding tax evasion by big corporations. These corporations, through the use of extensive webs of subsidiaries in tax havens, have managed to create a near-zero tax liability status in their country of operation. The Guardian describes it as “the triumph of technical proficiency over social responsibility”.
It is likely to spark the age-old debate about whether a corporation’s main point of existence is the creation of shareholder value. If that point of view is to be accepted, then the less tax is paid to the government, the higher the dividend or return that is passed to the shareholder.
In response, the corporations argue that in strictly legal terms they are not breaking the law or involving themselves in an illegality. In this instance, should the regulator then be blamed for the tax avoidance? And how can the regulator keep abreast of all new avoidance schemes when at the moment they face close to 200 known schemes? The corporate social responsibility debate has been pushed forward largely by the moralist argument rather than the strict legalistic interpretation of the corporate duties to society.
A corporation, like all legal persons, has a responsibility to pay taxes. In turn, the government has a duty to provide services at an acceptable level. In the example of the Johnny Walker brand, valuable royalties earned were moved from England to Holland (which had a zero rating tax on IP rights) while the production remained mostly in England. Thus, in one swoop, a huge tax gap is imposed on England tax offices. The tax gap must then be filled by the low income and small businesses who are unable to hire the services of the lawyers, accountant, and consultants that dream up these schemes.
A new incentive, similar to the carbon footprint labelling of food, has been initiated. (See more at tax ticked.) It in effect aims to reward good corporate citizenship.
If successful, the focus will return to good corporate citizenship as opposed to charitable acts easily negated by tax evasion.
Two British Engineers Charged With Espionage… Industrial Espionage That Is.
Mobile Phone Camera, a very powerful tool.
First posted on Commercial Law International on March 23, 2009.
No, no, this is not a joke, nor is it a case of a 007 mission gone awry. It is a simple case involving two British engineers; a British company and its subsidiary; a mobile phone; an American tire company’s secret equipment; and a Chinese tire company.
Oh all so simple, indeed.
The two engineers, Mr. Clark Roberts and Mr. Sean Howley, are due to stand trail in May in Knoxville, Tennessee charged with 12 offences relating to theft of trade secrets and fraud. Both men are looking at a maximum sentence of 150 years — yes, you read correctly, 150 years — and a fine of $2.75 million.
Oh all so simple, indeed.
The story of how these men found themselves in this predicament unfolds as interestingly as any spy novel — if not better. As they say: truth is often stranger than fiction.
The two men worked for Wyko Tire Technology Inc. in Greenback, Tennessee, which happens to be a member of the Wyko Group, one of Britain’s largest suppliers of engineering components. It is alleged that the pair conned their way into a Goodyear plant in Topeka, Kansas, where they took photographs which were emailed to Wyko Tire Technology in Dudley, Midlands, UK.
And what piece of sophisticated spy gear was used?
Are you ready for this? The answer: a mobile phone. Yes, a mobile phone. No, not a watch, or a pen that doubles as a camera, but an everyday, run-of-the-mill cell phone.
According to US prosecutors, after conning their way into the Goodyear plant, Mr. Roberts acted as a lookout for Mr. Howley as he proceeded to take the seven photographs. The pictures were of a piece of a top secret, specialized equipment used in the manufacturing of large off-road tires for earth-moving equipment. Later, the seven photos just so happened to end up in the hands of Wyko Tire in England. This company just happened to have a $1.2 million contract with Haohua South China (Guilin) Rubber Company — based, you guessed it, in China — to produce a very similar piece of equipment.
Both men of course deny all the charges.
Oh all so simple, indeed.
