An all too typical fact pattern involves a small-time ne’er-do-well infringing on the rights of a much bigger corporation. When the corporation is forced to bring a lawsuit, the “little guy” infringer cries poverty and seeks a settlement. An oft-used tactic of corporations is to settle the matter quickly (and before too much in attorneys’ fees has been incurred) for a relatively modest sum (or even no money at all) while also including a mechanism by which any breach of the settlement agreement triggers the filing of an agreed judgment for a large sum of money.
In an interesting case of intersection of insolvency and copyright laws, the Delhi High Court has held that the suit for alleged infringement of copyrights, arising out of and/or is in relation to the insolvency resolution plan of a corporate debtor must be adjudicated by the NCLT and that the proceedings in the Civil Court are barred. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court in view of Sections 230 and 231 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
As per Section 60 (5) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the jurisdiction of matters, inter alia, pertaining to Intellectual Property infringement by a corporate debtor is vested with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which is empowered by the IBC to entertain and dispose off any question of priorities or any question of law or fact, arising out of or concerning the insolvency resolution for liquidation proceedings.
We’ve all seen it. The business opportunity looks enticing but is laced with risk about a potential bankruptcy filing down the road. As bankruptcy lawyers we are often asked how deals can be structured to prevent a potential bankruptcy filing.
1 Loranger v Jones, 184 Cal App 4th 847 (3d Dist May 2010)
Jones, a licensed contractor, had a workers' compensation policy covering his employees. Jones unknowingly used an unlicensed subcontractor and knowingly permitted two minors without work permits, and another person without a contractor's license, to help perform work for Loranger. Loranger refused to pay the final invoice and Jones filed suit for breach of contract. Loranger cross-complained alleging defects and sought disgorgement of monies paid.
Mississippi bankruptcy court holds that agreement encompassing both settlement agreement resolving claims for past-due performance royalties and contemporaneously executed ASCAP licensing agreements is not a single agreement, permitting the debtor to assume the licensing agreements without paying-or curing any default on payment of $400,000 due under the settlement agreement.
This week we present for your consideration two cases: (a) an Eleventh Circuit decision upholding a copyright infringement award against a venue operator for playing five copyrighted songs without a license; and (b) an Alabama Supreme Court decision reversing damages awarded to a farmer for a claim of conversion against a foreclosing bank that took possession of harvested crops.
After filing more than 275 copyright infringement lawsuits, it now turns out that Righthaven was not the owner of the copyrights asserted in the lawsuit, and as a result is now on the verge of bankruptcy. The copyright infringement claims were made for reposting pictures and stories previously published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, owned by Stephens Media.
USCA Ninth Circuit, September 23, 2008