In October of 2014, a judge rejected a lawsuit filed by writers Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold claiming copyright infringement of their work by Fox’s ‘New Girl’ television series.

In January of last year, the writers sued William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment, Fox, Liz Meriwether (showrunner of New Girl) and executive producer Peter Chernin for allegedly basing the ‘New Girl’ series on the writers’ own proposals for a movie or television series which they said would have been titled Square One.  As defendants in the suit, Fox demanded a dismissal of the charges saying in court documents that “the only similarities between the works arise from general, non-protectable ideas.”  In October, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the lawsuit against Fox and the other defendants, saying the copyright infringement claims were ambiguous.

The judge ultimately dismissed the claim without prejudice, meaning the writers could bring the claim against the defendants again.  However, after the plaintiffs/writers had rejected a settlement offer of $10,000 allegedly extended by Fox and switched lawyers, the statute of limitations came into play, suggesting that perhaps they did not obtain an explicit tolling agreement in order to extend the time to file the claim.

Ultimately, on June 12 of this year Judge Wilson granted WME (William Morris Endeavor) Entertainment’s motion to dismiss the idea theft claim.  This time the judge dismissed the claim with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot file a lawsuit against the defendants again.  The Court found that Counts and Gold failed to allege any facts which would excuse the writers from timely filing of the claim.

As Los Angeles business attorneys specializing in entertainment law, we know these types of copyright infringement claims are made frequently in the entertainment industry.  Writers, designers, and other artists or “creatives” often feel that their ideas and works have effectively been stolen.  In some situations this is indeed the case, in others it may not be.  Do not allow the statute of limitations to dictate the outcome of your claim. For copyright infringement and other entertainment issues, trust the team at Spotora & Associates for unparalleled legal guidance and support.

On Monday, May 11, 55-year-old Craig Stevens of Newport Beach pleaded not guilty in a scheme allegedly designed to bilk investors out of more than $4 million by selling ‘bogus’ In-N-Out Burger franchises in the Middle East, according to an LA Times article.

Stevens, who was in federal court in Santa Ana, pleaded not guilty to wire fraud. Prosecutors allege that in January of 2014, Stevens contacted potential investors via email, peddling the franchises for approximately $150,000 per location. Royalties would cost an added $250,000 annually, according to the article.

Charge documents filed by the U.S. attorney’s office claim that through his email scheme, Stevens solicited about $4.27 million. Court documents also allege that in June of last year, Stevens passed off a fake licensing agreement for an In-N-Out franchise via email to a Lebanese investor, who was not identified.

While Stevens made claims to investors of partnerships and franchise agreements, In-N-Out Burger Inc., based in Irvine, has been in business since 1948 and is privately owned. The company says it has no such agreements with third parties. Stevens is scheduled to go on trial on the wire fraud charge in July.

As seasoned Los Angeles business attorneys, it is sometimes difficult to believe how gullible some individuals are, particularly when it comes to email or other schemes on the Internet – but it happens every day.

Before you invest in any franchise, it is vital to have a skilled attorney review all agreements, restrictions, rights, purchase or sales agreements, and other relevant documentation regarding the purchase of a franchise. Franchise law is complex, particularly given the fact that so many businesses are crossing into countries outside of the U.S. today.   Franchises are also subject to numerous regulations, so it is essential to have every detail analyzed with a fine-tooth comb.

If you’re considering investing in a franchise opportunity, speak with the professionals at Spotora & Associates first.

According to a recent article at the Democrat & Chronicle, Xerox has acquired Healthy Communities Institute, a public health data firm based in Berkeley providing a cloud platform that makes it possible for public health agencies, hospitals, and community coalitions to access community health and socioeconomic information easily. This allows these organizations to have a clearer understanding of risk factors, community demographics, and other information related to health.

Healthy Communities Institute supports organizations in 36 states in the U.S.. Xerox intends to integrate Healthy Communities Institute into its Midas+ Juvo Care Performance analytics platform in an effort to ultimately reach improved health care outcomes due to an enhanced comprehensive view of patient care for the organizations who use the cloud-based platform.

Midas+ senior vice president and managing director Justin Lanning said in a statement that “With this acquisition, we are enriching our health care business, evolving our offerings and innovating to address market changes.” Lanning went on to say that the acquisition would make it possible for clients to identify populations that are more at-risk, resulting in timelier clinical interventions that are more personalized. Ultimately, it is hoped the acquisition will improve health care while reducing costs.

Detailed terms of the acquisition were not disclosed in news articles.

At Spotora & Associates, our merger and acquisitions attorneys know there is much involved in acquiring a business, whether a company is acquiring another business or the company is to-be acquired. When structured properly, these deals can result in big companies expanding their competitive strengths while smaller companies enjoy growth opportunity. Ultimately, we work with our clients to help them achieve their goals and advise them on wise, profitable business decisions. Los Angeles area companies can rely on our skilled team of business lawyers for exceptional legal guidance, insight, and support in all of your business dealings.

On Monday, May 4 it was announced that Steve Easterbrook, new CEO of McDonald’s Corporation, would reorganize the company’s business units, cut costs, and sell restaurants to franchisees in an effort to transform the world’s largest restaurant chain into a “modern, progressive burger company.” Easterbrook made the announcement via video, in which he vowed to eliminate “cumbersome” management and thoroughly analyze the business for inefficiencies in an effort to save the corporation about $300 million net annually, most of which he anticipated would be realized by the end of 2017.

Mike Andres leads the U.S. McDonald’s market, which news reports at Reuters claim account for more than 40% of the fast-food giant’s operating income. He will continue to lead this market. In the video, Easterbrook said that in the year 2015, $8 to $9 billion would be returned to shareholders of McDonald’s.

Ultimately, the goal is to improve how consumers perceive McDonald’s restaurants in terms of slow service and food quality. In recent years, McDonald’s has been in a decline in the burger fast-food franchise industry. Easterbrook said in his announcement following one of the iconic fast-food restaurant’s worst years that he would “not shy away from the urgent need to reset this business.” Easterbrook took the McDonald’s helm on March 1 of this year.

Prior to Easterbrook taking over the helm, it was planned that McDonald’s would sell 1,500 restaurants by 2016. Under Easterbrook’s management, the plan is to sell 3,500 restaurants by 2018 to franchisees, which would result in an increase of franchisee ownership around the world from 81% to 90%. However, it appears that investors were not thoroughly impressed by Easterbrook’s plan, considering that the announcement seemed to provoke a “prove it” sentiment in immediate reactions noticed in investors according to Stephen Anderson, analyst at Miller Tabak & Co.

Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK will comprise the new “international lead” market according to Reuters, which accounts for 40% of the burger franchisors’ operating income.

McDonald’s has been a successful franchise in the U.S. and many international markets for decades, and has proven a successful business model for tens of thousands of franchisees. However, the latest news can make anyone who is thinking of investing in a McDonald’s franchise apprehensive, to say the least. Anyone considering a franchise investment should consult with an experienced and knowledgeable attorney before making a decision that could change your life, and your financial future. Count on the Los Angeles business attorneys at Spotora & Associates for sound legal guidance and support in franchising or any business matter.

Recently, it was announced that Twenty-First Century Fox and Walt Disney Co. would no longer run Verizon FiOS commercials in certain markets that advertise Verizon’s cable package, arguing that the company’s FiOS TV, a cable program that is said to be cheaper and slimmer than basic cable, violated existing agreements.

According to a news article at L.A. Biz, Verizon called the move made by the two companies, along with Comcast Corporation, an “anticompetitive tactic.” A spokeswoman for Verizon revealed to the New York Times that Disney would pull ads run for the cable program at television stations in New York including A & E and WABC, in addition to ESPN radio. In Philadelphia, the ABC affiliate pulled advertising for the FiOS custom TV stations. Fox has decided to pull the Verizon ads from WNYW, its New York affiliate, and YES, a sports cable channel.

According to another article at Reuters, Walt Disney Co. did run the Verizon ads in Pittsburgh, Boston, and Washington, D.C. last week. Disney declined to comment on the commercials, while a spokesperson for Fox told the Times that the company desired to keep the company’s discussions regarding commercials confidential.

Verizon’s FiOS Custom TV package makes it possible for customers to sign up for a basic package consisting of 36 channels; customers are also able to add on two news, sports, children’s program, or other genre-specific packages. With a cost of $55 per month, the package targets those who have chosen streaming services over cable due to cost.

On Wednesday, April 22, Disney notified Verizon via e-mail that the company would not run FiOS Custom TV ads on their channels, claiming that the ad violates contract agreements. Verizon maintains that the company, under current agreements with media companies to offer the slimmed-down service, is within its rights by giving subscribers their basic package of 36 fixed channels for the monthly charge.

Ultimately, at the bottom of the dispute is that while pay-TV providers desire to break up the large bundles of channels being offered by online companies and cable rivals at the current time, media companies are attempting to keep specific channels that are popular in the larger packages they offer in an effort to protect business.

At the time of news reports, Verizon and Disney had no comments on the pulled television ads.

The Los Angeles business attorneys at Spotora & Associates realize that the business and entertainment worlds are highly competitive, and the claims arising from television programming package agreements can be particularly complex. Whether your company is being accused of violating a contract or another entity is in breach of your agreement, contact us right away and our senior associates will identify and enforce your contractual rights to resolve the issue as efficiently as possible.

Today, Samsung and Apple were sued by the Coalition Against Distracted Driving, a citizens groups supporting education of drivers against distracted driving, specifically the use of smartphones and smartwatches while driving, according to a news article at West Side Today. The group, who is said to be anticipating the risks regarding the use of the Apple Watch, is attempting to force makers of smartphones to pay $1 billion for a program designed to educate motorists regarding the dangers of distracted driving.

Filed on Monday, April 20th, the lawsuit also names Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc. The lawsuit claims that the Coalition Against Distracted Driving (CADD) is a group based in Los Angeles that was formed for the purpose of promoting ongoing and effective education to the public regarding the use of mobile devices while driving. Stephen Joseph, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he is “acting in this case in the public interest.” Joseph also states in the suit that he recognizes the potential of injury to himself caused by the “possibility of being hit by a driver who cannot see the road because he/she is using a smartphone or smartwatch.”

The lawsuit against the defendants claims that the use of smartphones while operating a vehicle is an “epidemic” across the nation, and cites numerous instances across the U.S. in which accidents were the fault of inattentive drivers. Specifically, one truck driver was allegedly looking on Facebook at photos of women using a Samsung Galaxy smartphone, when he killed one police officer after plowing into five police cars.

While the Apple Watch has not yet been made available to the public, the lawsuit claims that the watch “creates a far greater distraction than smartphones” because given the fact the watch is attached to the driver’s wrist, ignoring notifications is more difficult. In regards to teenagers, the suit claims the temptation for teens to view the notifications by the watch is “irresistible,” particularly in situations involving conversation via text.

According to the CADD, the $1 billion cost the group wants Samsung and Apple to pay to educate people nationwide regarding the use of smartphones and smartwatches “is a tiny fraction of profits that defendants receive from the sale of these products.”

At Spotora & Associates, our senior associates understand that in many cases, the products companies manufacture are open to lawsuits of this nature, lawsuits which claim the dangers of using the products in specific situations. Given advances in technology today, litigation is often difficult to avoid and regardless of your industry, the potential of a lawsuit exists. Rely on our team of skilled and experienced Los Angeles business attorneys for outstanding legal advisement and to limit your liability.

More than two decades after ‘What About Bob’ came out, Richard Dreyfuss is taking Disney to court over what monies may be owed after accountants refused to take a look at Disney’s books to see what may be owed. Dreyfuss has sued Walt Disney Pictures for breach of contract and additional claims after Disney allegedly refused to let Robinson & Company perform an audit for Dreyfuss and the widow of Raymond Wagner, producer of Turner & Hooch.

Why will Disney not allow auditors to review the ledgers related to Turner & Hooch and What About Bob? According to news reports, Robinson & Company is a particularly aggressive and effective auditor who typically recovers large damages for clients, according to a recent article at Deadline Hollywood. The filing, which includes seven filings made by Dreyfuss, claims that Disney is hostile regarding audits in general, and will not allow Robinson & Company, the auditor chosen by Dreyfuss, to audit the film giants’ ledgers; therefore, accounting under the supervision of the court is warranted. According to Dreyfuss, Wagner, and other plaintiffs in the case, Disney does not understand the intricacies involved in Hollywood accounting and only wants to use PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst & Young, the largest and most well-known accounting firms in the nation.

The filing claims that historically, motions picture companies abhor having to pay net and gross profit participants significant amounts, and have withheld substantial profits from those participants. Auditing companies who audit the entertainment industry including television and motion picture industries often fine that profit participants are owed monies, which is the reason for profit participation auditors.

Although there is reportedly a three year waiting list to perform an audit on Disney properties, Dreyfuss has apparently decided that he is a large enough talent to attempt to collect what is rightfully his in terms of profits. According to news reports, Turner & Hooch generated $72 million in revenue in the U.S., with What About Bob? generating $64 million in revenues in the U.S. and Canada since its release in May of 1991. In addition to movie theater revenues, international sales and home videos are thought to add up to a substantial amount for the two films in one way or another.

In the end, Dreyfuss and Wagner believe they have an opportunity to explore issues including how net profits are calculated by raising the issues of auditors. The complaint claims that the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms named above have no competence or reputation relevant to auditing such big names as Disney; Robinson, the auditing firm hired by Dreyfuss, is reported to be results-driven, tenacious, and tough.

As reputable LA entertainment attorneys, the staff at Spotora & Associates realize there are many complexities involved when it comes to profit participants and the entertainment world. Auditing is one small nuance of the overall picture, however when you have issues regarding whether monies are being paid out fairly, it is important to choose a Los Angeles business lawyer who is highly experienced and capable in these matters.

Recently, it was announced that Two Toasters, a design and development agency for applications on Google and Apple platforms, was acquired by Ticketmaster, a divisions of Live Nation Entertainment. While Ticketmaster had little to say about the acquisition, it did confirm on the company’s website that the acquisition “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity.”

While the amount Ticketmaster paid to acquire Two Toasters was not disclosed in news reports, the American Tobacco Campus-based company will be known as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio, according to the Herald Sun. On Tuesday, March 31, Ticketmaster issued a statement saying that the acquisition of Two Toasters “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity and creating a truly end-to-end platform unlike any other in the live event and entertainment space.”

According to news sources, Two Toasters has been successful in the launch of more than 50 mobile applications for a wide array of companies, some of which include Regal Entertainment Group, Birchbox, Ebates, and Airbnb, among others. Two Toasters currently employs 32 individuals. The company was founded by Adit and Rachit Shukla, brothers. The deal is an important strategic undertaking for Ticketmaster, according to sources, who say the deal establishes a solid presence for Live Nation in the Triangle.

Two Toasters’ CEO Rachit Shukla said in the statement issued by Ticketmaster that, “We’ve assembled one of the best mobile teams in the region and Two Toasters has become a magnet for new talent.” Shukla went on to say that by Two Toasters joining Ticketmaster, the company’s visions has been expanded, and the talented team given the opportunity to take ownership and build a completely new mobile standard in the industry as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio.

Spotora & Associates is a talented team of Los Angeles business attorneys dedicated to achieving and exceeding your business goals. We specialize in mergers and acquisitions and successfully represent businesses in a wide array of industries; if you are in the process of acquiring a new entity or being acquired, we can help you ensure all bases are covered at every step. We know the complexities involved and will provide the expertise and knowledge essential to helping you make a smart and profitable business decision. Our primary goal is to obtain your objectives in business transactions from the simplest, to the most complex. Contact us to get started right away.

Recently it was announced that two giants in the food industry, Kraft and Heinz, would merge. Once combined into one company, Kraft Heinz will be the 5th largest food and beverage groups in the world, according to an article at the New York Times. In fact, the Kraft Heinz Company is expected to have a market value in excess of $80 billion. As you can imagine, this is the largest merger of 2015 thus far.

While Heinz focused primarily on condiments and canned goods such as ketchup, baby food, Classico spaghetti sauces, and other sauces, meals, and infant/nutrition, 3G Capital will take control of Kraft Foods, famous for Planters nuts, Jell-O, Mac and cheese, Oscar Mayer label meats, and other foods. 3G acquired Berkshire Hathaway, a companied formed by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, in 2013.

What is the intention of the merger? 3G, who took over beer giant Anheuser-Busch in 2008, intends to take ownership of iconic brands in an effort to expand the companies internationally, and drastically cut costs. According to news resources, Warren Buffett and 3G are hoping that combining Heinz and Kraft will result in steady growth of sales for such names as Velveeta, Lunchables, and Kool-Aid, just as the Heinz ketchup brand has risen in sales steadily since its acquisition in 2013.

Currently, the majority of Kraft products are sold in the U.S., while most of Heinz sales are generated abroad. 3G chairman of Kraft Heinz Alex Behring hopes that by merging, Kraft’s sales will expand into the global market. According to Behring, “Combining our two businesses, we’ll create the third-largest food and beverage company in North America, and the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.” Behring went on to say that the merger will enjoy a substantially enhanced scale at both the retail and food service channels in North America, its key market.

The merging of Heinz and Kraft has been in the works for years, however it wasn’t until the beginning of 2015, when John T. Cahill took over as CEO at 3G that Mr. Buffett approached Kraft about the two companies merging. In a statement, Buffett said that he was “delighted to play a part in bringing these two winning companies and their iconic brands together.” Buffett went on to reveal his excitement and anticipation of the opportunities possible for the newly combined organization.

At Spotora & Associates, our LA business merger attorneys know the complexities involved when two companies become one, and the potential pitfalls. Whether your company is small and local or known globally, work with a skilled and experienced Los Angeles business attorney to ensure positive, profitable results for your company.

At Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles mergers and acquisitions attorneys understand the complexities involved when one company acquires or merges with another.  Purchasing another company must be approached carefully and thoughtfully, with the assistance of a skilled lawyer.  Recently, El Segundo’s PCM Inc. purchased some of the assets of En Pointe Technologies Sales Inc., an IT firm who specializes in Microsoft products according to an article at the Los Angeles Business Journal.

PCM Inc. manufactures MacMall and PC Mall technology product catalogs in addition to information technology solutions designed for both local governments and businesses.  In acquiring specific assets from En Pointe Technologies Sales, PCM agreed to pay $15 million for the IT solutions acquired from En Pointe, a Gardena-based company.  Over the next three years, PCM will also pay 10% of certain agreed upon services revenues and 22 1/2% of the company’s future adjusted gross profit, according to a filing with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission.)

En Pointe is expected to retain its inventory and accounts receivable; this includes a $72 million contract over the next five years to provide more than 30 Los Angeles County departments with cloud-based software, a contract that was signed in June of 2014.  At the time the company’s year ended on September 30, 2014, revenue was reported to be $393 million.

The acquisition deal between PCM and En Pointe is scheduled to close on April 1st of this year, with PCM planning the creation of a new division which will assume the En Pointe name.

According to chairman and chief executive of PCM Frank Khulusi, the company feels that acquiring En Pointe will complement PCM’s commercial and public sector segments.  In addition, the 240 employees of En Pointe will be offered equivalent positions at PCM.

Bob Din, Chief Executive at En Pointe, founded the company more than two decades ago in 1993.  When the acquisition of En Pointe by PCM was announced on Monday, shares at PCM closed at $9.11, an increase of one percent.

We understand how difficult it can be in making a decision to acquire a company, and all of the issues involved including often times difficult negotiations, regulatory filings, reaching your objectives and goals, tax implications, and more.  At Spotora & Associates, our LA acquisition lawyers want to help ensure your decisions are solid, smart, and most important of all, that all transactions and strategies are sound, protecting you from potential litigation in the future.