On Thursday April 25, a dispute between the second-largest cinema chain in the nation, AMC Theatres, and Walt Disney was resolved.  With the highly anticipated release of Iron Man 3 this summer, Disney put up a fight, saying they desired a 3 percentage-point increase in the share of ticket sales proceeds.  While the terms of the deal between the two companies were not disclosed, an agreement was reached according to the Wall Street Journal.

Some have wondered whether the dispute would result in AMC Theatres being the only one offering Iron Man 3 up on its screens; Disney’s desire for more revenue from the sale of movie tickets has caused several large movie theater franchises across the U.S. to delay putting tickets on sale in advance.  On Thursday, Disney also reached an agreement with Regal Entertainment Group, the largest theater chain, and Cinemark Holdings over how revenues would be divided on upcoming movies.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Disney sent out a letter to theater owners requesting an increase in the shares at the box office approximately two weeks ago; this increase would amount to three percentage points.  News articles claim that Disney’s Marvel superhero franchise and upcoming re-launch of Star Wars emboldened Disney studio to make the move.

Iron Man 3 is scheduled to be released in theaters on May 3.  In pre-release surveys that have been conducted, it is expected that the superhero movie will rake in more than $100 million the opening weekend.

The Los Angeles business litigation attorneys at Spotora & Associates expect that the release of the movie next weekend will be well-covered by the media.  Hopefully all parties involved will now be satisfied with the percentage of revenues they receive.

As in-the-know Los Angeles business attorneys, we know that the problem of employees committing cyber crimes is growing every year.  A single hacking attack implemented by an employee of Sony in 2011 cost the company more than $170 million.  Online businesses lose up to $7 million each day because of hacking according to the estimates of Richard Power, Computer Security Institute director.

Current or former employees commit most of these cyber crimes, which puts employee data, proprietary trade secrets and private client information at risk.  Thankfully, there are many tools that allow companies to take a proactive approach to these crimes.

Thoroughly screen potential employees. While this seems like a basic step, it is critical that you conduct a thorough screening of potential employees; this is a time when problems may be identified early on.  Look for the applicant’s reasons for leaving prior employers, and gaps in their work history.  Don’t just look at the individual’s references – actually CHECK them.

Have a security expert conduct an IT audit. Techniques related to hacking and other cyber crimes are evolving at a rapid pace.  In fact, an employee who is skilled could hack into your system in just minutes, gaining access to a substantial amount of private and confidential information.  Have audits performed by an IT expert on a regular basis.

Have an IT professional work with you to implement effective monitoring. An information technology expert can work with you to develop monitoring procedures that are beneficial for your business and environment.  Computer backup systems, remote monitoring of screens, and other procedures can work to prevent cyber crimes, or help contain the evidence should an employee hack into your system.  However, before you implement monitoring options you will want to consult an experienced Los Angeles business attorney to ensure that you won’t face legal issues down the road.

Notify employees that you have monitoring procedures in place. It is critical that you advise your employees that they should not expect privacy at work, and that you have the right as an employer to inspect voicemails, emails, computers and other property that belongs to the company.  Be sure that your employee handbook clearly outlines privacy policies, and the fact that any and all data regarding clients or you as an employer is strictly confidential.  In letting your employees know that they are being monitored, you will likely find that the odds of hacking or other cyber crimes decrease substantially.

It’s also important to encourage all of your employees to alert the company if they suspect misconduct in other employees.  Give them very clear instructions on how to go about this; you may even want to consider an anonymous way of reporting misconduct, so that employees are not reluctant to report their concerns.

At the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, we understand that in a highly technical world where nearly every business has an online presence, risks are ever present.  As an employer, don’t let your company be the victim of cyber crime.

As a business grows and evolves, some of the responsibilities, benefits and rights of those who are partners in the business can change, just as the business does.  It is critical when a business partnership is formed that these responsibilities, benefits, and rights are clearly set forth, so that all involved are clear on how each is working toward the common goal of all partners.  However, much like a marriage, sometimes things change, and one or more partners may feel that others are not living up to his or her end of the bargain.  Attitudes may change, as well as various aspects of the business itself.  Eventually, a dispute or disagreement may come about that places the viability and future of the business in jeopardy.

What are some of the common causes of partnership disputes?

Partnership disputes can arise out of issues within the business itself, or personal problems of particular partners.  Some of the issues that can arise in the business often relate to business debt, expansion, financial arrangements, retirement issues, employment problems, profit sharing, or the direction the company is going in.

Personal issues that may arise and cause a dispute or disagreement between partners include divorce, personal finance problems, marriage issues, injuries, illnesses, and more.  When a dispute arises,, it is important that partners come up with the most effective solution so that the result of the dispute is not the dissolution of the business.  While our Los Angeles business lawyers are skilled litigators, we believe that in cases involving partnership disputes, mediation may be a good alternative.

Why mediation?

Courtroom litigation is generally expensive, and in cases involving partnerships should usually be a last resort.  Mediation makes it possible for partners to remain in control of the situation and the results, while an impartial third party provides his or her ideas and suggestions for sorting out the issue in a somewhat friendlier environment.  A mediator can evaluate the situation, and hopefully help partners with amending agreements so that changes are reflected to all partners’ satisfaction.

At the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates our Los Angeles business attorneys are highly skilled in all business matters including partnership disputes, contracts, agreements, and mediation/litigation.

Last month, Pacoima-based Gravity Defyer filed a claim against Under Armour Inc. in U.S. District Court alleging trademark infringement.  Gravity Defyer claims that Baltimore-based Under Armour knowingly used Gravity Defyer’s mark and name on its running shoes.

According to the claim filed in the Central District Court of California on March 14, the Gravity Defyer federally registered “G Defy” name and trademark have been infringed upon by the Micro G Defy running shoes manufactured by Under Armour.  The company goes on in the complaint to say that Under Armour purposely and knowingly used the company’s mark to draw attention to their product, and is asking the court to require that Under Armour not use the phrase “G Defy.”  Gravity Defyer is also seeking monetary damages in the suit, although an amount was not specified.

Gravity Defyer senior vice present and CFO Paul Coleman said in a statement printed in a news article at Baltimore Business Journal that “Our brand identities are a reflection of the promises we make to consumers every day.  Trademarks are an extension of that promise.”

In a March 25 press release, Gravity Defyer claimed that Under Armour purposely created a product name that sounds like Gravity Defyer’s own in an effort to mislead consumers who shop online through the use of social media, search engines, and other outlets.

Under Armour is a fairly well-known company, and it seems no stranger to lawsuits involving trademark infringement.  In February, Under Armour filed a trademark infringement claim against sportswear giant Nike for allegedly infringing upon its slogan “I Will.”  The company also filed suit against BodyArmor Nutrition LLC of Beverly Hills in April of 2012, based on the use of the “Protect + Restore” phrase, the company’s name, and an interlocking logo.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates provides vigorous, effective legal representation for companies involved in business disputes including copyright and trademark infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, theft of trade secrets, online disputes and more.  Contact our Los Angeles business litigation attorneys today for outstanding results.

Peter Murphy, lead singer of Goth group Bauhaus, pleaded not guilty on March 19 to charges of DUI, hit and run, and meth possession.  Murphy’s attorney, Robert Wilson, entered the plea for his client, who did not appear in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Murphy allegedly fled to Los Angeles after rear ending a vehicle in Glendale.  According to news reports at the Glendale News Press, an eyewitness to the alleged crime blocked Murphy’s Subaru until police arrived.

Known as the “Godfather of Goth,” Murphy was placed in jail after being arrested by Glendale police on suspicion of DUI causing injury, possession of meth, and felony hit-and-run; he was held in lieu of $500,000.  The Goth rock movement is said to have been ignited by Bauhaus, a well-known group that recorded four albums over the span of the group‘s career.  Murphy is a native of Britain, and has a residence in Turkey.  While Judge Frederick Rotenberg did release Murphy on his own recognizance, he barred the musician from driving under “any condition” and from driving anywhere at all without permission from the court, because prosecutors feel Murphy may be a flight risk.

Initial news reports claim that the crash in which Murphy allegedly rear-ended another vehicle took place in Glendale at Goode and Central Avenues.  The individual who followed Murphy from Glendale to Los Angeles and blocked him in until police arrived said that he was afraid that Murphy’s driving may kill someone, according to Glendale police.  Murphy was said to be driving a Subaru Forester; the vehicle he allegedly rear-ended was a Mercedes.

Police said that Murphy denied he had been drinking alcohol the day of the accident, and that he had taken prescription depression medication.  Officers did not find the bag containing what they believed to be methamphetamine until they got inside the Los Angeles police patrol car where Murphy was detained.  Officers believed Murphy was attempting to get rid of the bag in the patrol car, although the defendant denied it belonged to him.

Los Angeles DUI attorneys know that while driving under the influence is one of the most common criminal offenses people are arrested for, it’s also one of the most difficult to defend.  These cases are often complex, and require the skill and experience of a capable lawyer who can successfully navigate the legal system and obtain a positive outcome.

While the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates do not condone driving after consuming alcohol or illegal substances, we do know that the punishment handed down is often far more severe than the actual crime.  Rely on our dedicated team for unsurpassed legal guidance and representation.