Dark horse
1/3/13
By Caitlin Tremblay
The HBO horse racing drama "Luck" with Dustin Hoffman was
canceled last March after three horses used in the series were
injured and died. Now the network is being sued over the
controversy by Barbara Casey, the former director of production
in the American Humane Association's film and television unit,
writes The Hollywood Reporter.
In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Casey, who
was fired from her AHA job in January 2012, claims the network
tried to cover up animal abuse on the set of "Luck" and that HBO
pressured the organization into letting it break some rules and
regulations in caring for the animals on set. She also claims
she was fired for attempting to expose the animal abuse and is
suing for alleged wrongful termination by the AHA.
HBO denies the allegations and tells The Hollywood Reporter,
"We took every precaution to ensure that our horses were treated
humanely and with the utmost care, exceeding every safeguard of
all protocols and guidelines required of the production." Casey
was not an employee of HBO, and any questions regarding her
employment should be directed to the AHA, it said. The AHA did
not comment.
Sacred text, the backlash
1/3/13
By Dan Brillman
You make an anti-Constitution omelet, you gotta crack a few
eggs. Earlier this week, Georgetown law prof Louis Michael
Seidman penned an Op-Ed in The New York Times suggesting, quite
provocatively, that Americans should abandon the U.S. Constitution. Seidman may have suspected the piece would stir up
controversy, but perhaps he did not count on receiving more than
700 emails in response -- many of them threatening and many of
them anti-Semitic, Seidman tells The Wall Street Journal. One,
he says, even arrived with the subject line: "I know where you
live see ya."
"My inbox may never recover," says Seidman.
In the pundit class, too, the professor's idea is being
skewered. The New York Sun bashes the messenger in an editorial
"The Times Gives Up." The Sun calls Seidman's argument "bizarre"
in its logic and of a piece with The Grey Lady's
anti-Constitution agenda.
Johnathan Adler, in Volokh, says the amendment process
provides all the proof needed that the Constitution is not an
unchangeable binding document. He disagrees with Seidman's
argument that Americans should be able to do the moral thing
without being burdened by arcane and outdated rules. "Our
political history shows quite clearly that the political process
is more than willing to trample such principles, often with
substantial popular support even with a constitutional
obligation to respect," Adler writes.
Seidman's colleagues at Georgetown have been less caustic,
he tells the Journal. Though none agreed with him, they say they
applaud his right to express his idea.
One upside to the backlash: It could help Seidman sell his brand new book. The First Amendment at work, ladies and gents.
Show us the money
1/3/13
By Eileen Daspin
Fee requests from the law firms and restructuring businesses
advising Dewey & LeBoeuf in bankruptcy proceedings are piling
up, reports The American Lawyer Daily.
Between May 28, when Dewey filed for Chapter 11 protection,
and the end of October, the advisors submitted bills totaling
$14.8 million.
At the top of the heap is lead Dewey bankruptcy counsel,
Togut, Segal & Segal, which has submitted a $4.7 million
request. The lion's share of that work was split between name
partner Al Togut, who billed 943 hours at $935 an hour, and
partner Scott Ratner, who billed 1,218 hours at $800 an hour.
(Here is a breakdown: $1.4 million on litigation, $674,083 on
partner settlement talks and $21,843 in photocopies.)
In second place on the list of advisors is Zolfo Cooper, the
restructuring firm, which is asking for $3.6 million.
Brown Rudnick, legal counsel to the unsecured creditors,
wants $2 million, while Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman,
legal counsel to the official committee of former partners, is
seeking $1.3 million. According to AmLaw, "Kasowitz's role in
the case has been challenged by the Dewey estate, which pushed
late last year to disband the former partner group because of
what the advisers called its drain on the estate's funds and
lack of 'productive' contributions to the case."
Sweet stuff
1/3/13
By Eileen Daspin
In the latest trademark battle to consume the sweets
business, Nestle has won a fight preventing Cadbury from copying
the four-fingered shape of Nestle's KitKat candybar, reports the
Financial Times. KitKat's shape was registered in 2006, but
Cadbury applied to invalidate it shortly thereafter, and the two
confectionary companies have been wrangling over the issue ever
since.
The shape and color of candy increasingly are treated as
important assets by manufacturers, especially as consumers cut
back on spending, the FT says. In December, for example, a
German court ruled that chocolate bears made by Lindt and Sprugli infringed on Haribo's trademark for the gummy versions.
That spat followed an effort by Cadbury to register the color
purple of its packaging.
Now the board of appeals at the European Union's Community
Trade Mark Office has overruled an earlier finding that the
KitKat shape was not distinctive. But Cadbury could appeal again
to Europe's General Court, says the FT. "We are still studying
this ruling and considering our position, although we do not
have any plans to launch such a product in the UK anyway,"
Cadbury said on Wednesday.
Summary Judgments for January 2
Summary Judgments for December 31
Summary Judgments for December 28
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook