Author: Simon Stokes
Background to the case
Successful visual artists often operate through limited companies. This can have tax advantages. One such example was the leading British sculptor Lynn Chadwick, who died in 2003. From July 1973 he changed his status from a sole trader to becoming a director and employee of a company he and his wife owned and transferred his stock and trading business to the company at that time. However no written agreement dealing with the transfer of the (physical) property and copyright in his art works was executed. On the artist’s death a dispute arose as to where title to the property and copyright lay in his works of art created both pre and post 1973 – with the artist’s estate or with the company? His Will made no mention of the artist’s artworks or copyright in them. It should be noted that selling or transferring physical title to a work of art does not by itself transfer the copyright in it – so often physical title in a work and the copyright in it are in separate ownership.
On June 22, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Texas settled a conflict in appellate court rulings by holding there is no cause of action in Texas for intentional interference with inheritance. Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, writing for the majority, reasoned that existing remedies in probate law, such as claims of undue influence, duress, restitution through the imposition of a constructive trust, and evidentiary rules and procedures were adequate to protect the interests of a prospective beneficiary.
Author: Rose Kinrade
The long anticipated engagement of HRH Prince Harry and Rachel Meghan Markle was announced by Clarence House via Twitter on Monday morning with the couple being at the centre of a media frenzy ever since.
With the wedding date set for May 2018 there will be a long list of arrangements to be made and organising to be done. One of the most important questions to be asked will be whether Harry and Meghan enter into a pre-nuptial agreement or not.
Julie E. Randolph, Schnader’s Director of New Business Intake and Conflicts Counsel, authored the cover story in DRI’s For the Defense, “Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Mine an Asteroid: A Primer on Private Entities’ Rights to Outer Space Resources”.
Randolph writes: “This article gives the reader an overview of the issues, documents, and history needed to understand the current debates over private rights to outer space resources. To that end, it will discuss the Outer Space Treaty and other treaties that address property rights in outer space, provide a brief history of United States legislative and executive actions related to commercial space ventures, look at current national and international legislation and views on private property rights in outer space, and provide some insight into the future of extraterrestrial property rights. While this article does not purport to answer whether private companies have property rights in resources in space, it provides resources to assess that question—and others’ answers to the question.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Author: Rehnuma Binte Mamun
Sections 299 and 300 of the Penal Code, 1860, consecutively dealing with culpable homicide and murder, are notoriously known for confusing students, lawyers and judges. These sections are glaring example of legal texts being intricately complex. The demarcation point of the two offences is not discernible here because of the complex wording and construction of the sections. This paper examines the sections with a comparative analysis of the homicide law of the UK and USA to find the demarcation point between murder and culpable homicide in Bangladesh. Finally it attempts at proposing some reforms and/or suggestions to these existing penal provisions regarding the wordings and construction for a more precise and efficient legislation on murder and culpable homicide.