Last week, it was announced that a lawsuit filed against influential rock band Led Zeppelin in May of this year would proceed. The lawsuit was filed by family members of the late Randy Craig Wolfe against Led Zeppelin band members John Paul Jones, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, and the band’s music companies.

According to the lawsuit, Wolfe, known as ‘Randy California’ of the rock group Spirit, should get credit for writing Stairway to Heaven, the song that Page claimed he had written while secluded in a remote cabin in Wales. Wolfe’s surviving family members claim that the tune was “stolen” from Spirit, particularly the guitar chords, which were in an instrumental song Wolfe wrote entitled “Taurus.” A news article at NBC Philadelphia claims that Zeppelin and Spirit toured together in 1968, which gave Page the opportunity to become familiar with the group’s music.

The plaintiff wrote in an amended complaint that Led Zeppelin needs to do the right thing and give credit for writing Stairway to Heaven to Randy California, and that “What happened to Randy California and Spirit is wrong.” The lawsuit is filed in Pennsylvania, and the defendants claim that the lawsuit must be dismissed or transferred because as British citizens, they hold no stake in PA. The plaintiff amended the complaint, claiming that Led Zeppelin and its music companies are under Eastern PA jurisdiction, and that through digital downloads, concert performances, CD sales and television exposure, the defendants “exploited” the song in that area. The judge in the case denied the plaintiffs’ request for a transfer or dismissal in early October.

If the plaintiff is successful in the copyright infringement lawsuit, the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust will possibly receive millions of dollars, according to the article.

In a 1997 Listener Magazine interview with California prior to his drowning death, Randy California said that some of the music in Led Zeppelin’s greatest hit was taken from the song Taurus. California went on to say that “Well, if you listen to the two songs, you can make your own judgment.”

As experienced Los Angeles copyright infringement attorneys, we understand that situations such as the one above are far more common than many people realize. If your writing, music, or creative works have been stolen by someone else, consult with a skilled and capable business lawyer. Spotora & Associates staffs a team of seasoned attorneys who each excel in their own areas of expertise.

In July of this year, Britain based Shire and north Chicago-based AbbVie, both drugmakers, came to an agreement that AbbVie would purchase Shire for $55 billion. Prior to accepting AbbVie’s offer, Shire had been approached by AbbVie on several occasions as the company made unsolicited offers to acquire Shire. Now, the deal is off after AbbVie agreed to pay Shire a $1.64 billion breakup fee, according to an article at SRN News.

AbbVie’s reason for backing out of the merger was newly created limitations on tax benefits created by the U.S. government. AbbVie had hopes to reincorporate on Jersey, a British island, however the overseas incorporation would not have provided the tax benefits AbbVie had hoped for.

Essentially, many companies involve themselves in complicated transactions such as the merger of these two companies in order to reduce their tax bill in the U.S. Rule changes have resulted in fewer companies attempting to transform the earnings in foreign markets into U.S. loans, a process known as “hopscotch” loans. Chairman and CEO Richard Gonzalez of AbbVie said that U.S. companies are at a disadvantage to foreign competitors because of the U.S. tax code, which he believes should be reformed.

Ultimately, had the acquisition of Shire gone forward, AbbVie would not have enjoyed the profits the company hoped to gain because under the government’s new rules, the cash AbbVie had stashed overseas for reincorporating in Britain would have been taxed.

Gonzalez said that companies based in the U.S. are at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competitors because of an outdated U.S. tax code. Gonzalez believes that in order to stimulate investment in the economy, comprehensive tax reform is critical.

Following news of the inversion implosion, Shire shares were down more than 25%, while AbbVie shares ticked up 1.85% following the news of authorization of a $5 billion stock buyback program by AbbVie which would increase the company’s quarterly cash dividend which is currently $0.42 to $0.49 per share over the next several years.

As experienced Los Angeles business acquisition attorneys, we understand the complexities of mergers and that until the deal is done, many things can happen. Companies in the LA area who are acquiring or merging with another company can rely on our staff of skilled lawyers for unsurpassed legal guidance and representation.

Anyone who is thoroughly researching a franchise opportunity will likely see a pattern – that most franchises have been involved in a lawsuit with a franchisee. If you are considering a franchise opportunity, you may be interested to learn about the two most common reasons that franchisors/franchisees find themselves in the midst of litigation.

As experienced Los Angeles franchise attorneys, we can attest to the fact that in most cases, there are better, more cost-effective legal options to a lawsuit, and that litigation should be used as a last resort to resolve any conflict.

Now, what are the two most common reasons for franchise litigation?

The franchisor or franchisee is believed to be conducting business in a way that is unexpected or may result in injury to the business. This can work both ways. For instance, a franchisor may feel that the franchisee is doing something to attract more customers into the business that could be damaging to the company’s brand, such as having waitresses wear skimpy costumes.

On the other hand, a franchisee may fear loss of customers or revenue if the franchisor begins opening other units in close proximity to their own unit. It is easy to understand why a franchisee would have misgivings about, for instance, another Wendy’s restaurant opening within a mile or two of their own.

The franchisor or franchisee believes the other party is not holding up to his/her end of the bargain under the terms of the franchise agreement. Frequently, franchisees are made promises by the franchisor in the initial stages of researching or investigating the franchise opportunity; it is only after entering into a franchise agreement that the verbal promise is not kept. Franchisors generally provide ongoing support and assistance in the initial setup of the new franchise, however may fail to keep commitments agreed upon in the contract.

A franchisor may decide to file a lawsuit if a franchisee violates no compete or territorial operating provisions, or if the franchisee does not operate his/her business in accordance with the condition/terms of the agreement.

Overall, most successful franchises have an extremely low failure rate. When considering a franchise opportunity, be sure to choose a franchisor with good values, one who is committed to your success and who tries to avoid litigation at all costs.

If you are considering a franchise opportunity, work with an LA business lawyer who can guide you, explain all of the complexities involved in franchising, and review any opportunity you are seriously thinking about so that in the end, you know you have made the right decision. At Spotora & Associates, we help businesses succeed.

On Monday, September 29, Grooveshark, an online music radio and free music streaming provider, lost in a lawsuit filed against them by numerous entertainment and music giants including Atlantic Recording Corporation, Warner Bros. Records, Sony Music Entertainment, and many others. The civil claim, which was filed in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, found Grooveshark guilty of massive copyright infringement. The guilty verdict was based on statements from former top executives, a preponderance of internal emails, and other direct evidence, according to a news article at Digital Music News.

While the charges have yet to be determined, CEO Samuel Tarantino and co-founder/CTO Josh Greenberg will apparently take the brunt of the charges. It seems that other executives at Grooveshark decided to cooperate in a settlement agreement, and were taken off of the defendant list; it also appears that these executives gave the plaintiffs plenty of ammunition. A summary judgment which was granted for the most part last week will likely result in Grooveshark “disappearing,” according to news sources.

Enormous evidence was allegedly presented at court which proved that Grooveshark not only was aware it was infringing content on its site, but that employees were ordered to upload infringing content onto the company’s servers or face penalties. This information was provided in a 2011 email posted anonymously which was said to be lengthy and informative, an email that resulted in another three-year long legal battle which Grooveshark also lost.

One damning piece of evidence emailed to all employees by Tarantino in 2007 said:

“Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out! If you have available hard drive space on your computer, I strongly encourage you to fill it with any music you can find. Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special “seed points” to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone…

There is no reason why ANYONE in the company should not be able to do this, and I expect everyone to have this done by Monday… IF I DON’T HAVE AN EMAIL FROM YOU IN MY INBOX BY MONDAY, YOU’RE ON MY OFFICIAL SHIT LIST.”

On October 5, it was announced that Grooveshark is appealing the summary judgment, based on the fact that the company does not agree with the decision because it was based on a previous version of the company when it sold music downloads, which Grooveshark allegedly stopped doing in 2008 when it began allowing users to stream through the platform, a system it says is modeled after YouTube.

At Spotora & Associates, we believe it will be interesting to see how this all turns out. Will Grooveshark win if it does go through with the appeal?

As highly skilled Los Angeles copyright infringement attorneys, we provide exceptional legal guidance and representation in all types of entertainment and business areas, including copyright infringement.

This year, former Grey’s Anatomy star Kate Walsh has a new NBC show on which she plays a judge, entitled ‘Bad Judge.’ While she now plays one on television, she may need help from a real-life judge in a situation she finds herself in involving former managers at Evolution Entertainment. Evidently, Walsh fired her former managers more than a year ago, however they are attempting to take a 10% commission from her income for work on Bad Judge, according to a news article at The Hollywood Reporter.

Walsh filed the complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, September 29, requesting intervention by a judge into the dispute over her former management contract with Evolution Entertainment. The star is currently represented by Untitled Entertainment and CAA, and feels that because she terminated the management company more than a year ago, she should not be responsible for paying the full 10% or any part of the commissions Evolution Entertainment is demanding. Walsh is looking for legal intervention and wants a judge to determine if she must pay her former managers anything, and if so, how much.

At Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles entertainment contract attorneys understand the many complexities and issues faced by actors, agents, managers, producers, and others in the entertainment field. Celebrities who star in television and movie productions often work with managers who handle various aspects of their careers. In this situation, it seems that Walsh let her former managers go over a year ago, however they still seem to believe they deserve commissions from the income she is earning from her new television show. While we don’t know what was in the contract between the actress and Evolution Entertainment, hopefully we will learn more once the claim is settled.

Our LA business lawyers have worked in the entertainment field for years, providing legal guidance and support to some of the biggest names in the business. We not only work with actors, singers, musicians, artists, and others in the entertainment industry, but managers, studios, agencies, and production houses as well. When you have any type of issue regarding film, television, movie, music, trademark, management, copyright, or licensing agreements or contracts, trust Spotora & Associates for unsurpassed results and efficient resolution of the matter.