Dude, you lost my 1.2 billion!
Attorney client privilege comes to the rescue in the MF Global debacle -- for now.
It appears the previous title of our blog entry, which was "Dude, where's my $1.2 billion?," is no longer apt. The Journal recently reported in Money From MF Global Feared Gone that the $1.2 billion has been lost and will not be found. So we have aptly changed our tune in this blog entry's title. In addition, we have a new main character in the debacle in addition to Mr. Corzine, and that is former FBI director Mr. Louis Freeh. He recently claimed attorney-client privilege to shield the gaze by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") into MF Global's affairs. Can he do that? Probably so.
Dude, where's my 1.2 billion?
Forgetting where you parked your car is one thing, but not knowing where your company parked $1.2 billion in customer money is another.
"Dude, where's my car?" This was the famous question asked by the stoners in the 2000 movie called Dude, Where's My Car? We ask the same question of Mr. Corzine: "Dude, where's my $1.2 billion?" According to the USA Today, he recently testified that "I simply do not know where the money is" in front of Congress. Of course, this may be true. But the question is whether that will be enough to get him off the hook for civil and/or criminal claims that may arise from the downfall of MF Global.
An offer you can't refuse.
Zynga's demand for a return of shares from pre-IPO employees will likely lead to headaches for the company down the line.
The WSJ recently reported in Zynga Leans on Some Workers to Surrender Pre-IPO Shares that the technology company is making certain employees an offer they can't refuse: cough up your pre-IPO stock options or your first born is dead. Well, not really. The threat is that the employee will lose his or her job. While it is understandable that the company doesn't want to have another Google cook who makes out like a bandit when Zynga goes IPO, it is also unclear whether Zynga's approach is either legal or wise.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
While graffiti has gained legitimacy in the art world, its standing in the legal world is still unclear.
Banksy and other graffiti artists are gaining increased commercial acceptance in the traditional art world. The Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art recently had an exhibition called Art in the Streets featuring artists such as Banksy and others. But whether such artists' works are protected by the Copyright Act, among other legal doctrines, is unclear. There is paltry case law on point. We recently found this out when researching the issue for a somewhat famous -- or some might say infamous -- New York graffiti legend.
What would Jimmy do?
Congress has the power to extend copyright to those artists currently unprotected by the Copyright Act.
In 1994, Congress extended copyright protection to foreign works of art that were not previously protected by the Copyright Act. You say: "so what?" Well, in so doing, Congress made it so that you have to pay to use certain works, such as "If I Had My Way," which were previously in the public domain. The debate has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where arguments were heard last week in Golan v. Holder on whether Congress has such power under the Constitution. Congress likely has such power, and there are good reasons why Congress would expand copyright protections to such works.