Author: Victoria Wells   The sudden death last month of former “Diff’rent Strokes” star Gary Coleman has highlighted the importance of having a valid Will, and keeping it up to date. Despite his showbiz background, Gary’s personal circumstances were in some ways not that different to many of us, with both an ex-wife and a former girlfriend on the scene, and the lack of clarity around his wishes has led - perhaps inevitably - to dispute between the two. There is also uncertainty about what to do with his ashes, surely a situation which none of us would want our loved ones to be left in. In his 1999 Will, Gary gave instructions about his funeral, that he wanted it conducted by people who had no financial ties to him and who “can look each other in the eyes and say they really cared personally for Gary Coleman”. He also in the Will appointed a close friend as his executor. In 2005 it appears that Gary made a new Will, in favour of his then girlfriend, Anna Gray. The Will specified that he did not want any sort of funeral service. Following his marriage to Shannon Price in 2007, he made a “homemade” Will, in which he named his wife as his sole beneficiary. Apparently this was signed, but not witnessed, so lacks full testamentary validity. They divorced in 2008. Perhaps inevitably, Ms Price and Ms Gray are now in dispute about who should administer Gary’s estate, and who is entitled to that estate. Ms Gray argues that they were together for eight years, and that the 2005 Will is the valid “last Will and Testament”. Ms Gray contends that, as they were still living together at Gary’s death, despite their divorce, she is entitled to be treated as his “wife”. A lawyer has now been appointed by the courts to sort out the mess, and in the meantime both Gary’s ashes and his estate remain in limbo. The heartache and expense of all of this could all have been avoided if Gary, following each major change of circumstance in his life, had taken professional advice to ensure that his latest Will matched his current situation and that his belongings and his funeral would be dealt with as he wished, by the people he wanted.

More:
TV Star’s Death Highlights Importance of Wills

Author: Nathanael Young   Attack and Counterattack Recent news stories have highlighted the lengths FIFA are prepared to go to in protecting its brand. Last Monday’s Holland v Denmark game saw 36 female supports wearing orange mini dresses participated in an ambush marketing stunt for the Dutch beer brand Bavaria. Ambush marketing, the practice of finding a way to promote a brand at a high profile event with out paying a sponsorship, has long been a marketing strategy of Bavaria. At the 2006 world cup in Germany, 1000 fans wearing branded underwear were denied entry to a Holland game, and more recently it has been targeting the Dutch national team matches. FIFA has promised to come down hard on any brand trying to highjack the tournament and this was the case last Monday. The group of women were ejected from the stadium and two of the 36 were later arrested. In addition to this, the ITV pundit Robbie Earl has been sacked by ITV as it has emerged that some of the tickets used by Bavaria were from the ex-Jamaica and Wimbledon midfielder’s  allocation;  which he was  prohibited from redistributing to third parties. Logo or No Logo With the world cup now in full swing, businesses around the country have included references to the event in their advertising and promotional activity in a bid to cash in on its popularity. Some of those are official sponsors, who have paid millions to be able to do so; however, a considerably large number of businesses haven’t paid for the privilege. They simply seek to associate their business  with the  pride and passion that the tournament evokes, with the ultimate aim of increasing sales. However it does come with some risks attached. Many business may not be aware of the extent to which FIFA have rights over and above ordinary trademark or copyright protection in South Africa.  FIFA has every motivation to stamp out such practices, which threaten the sponsorship revenues from their official partners. It already has trademark protection over a number of words, like ‘2010 FIFA World Cup’ and images, such as its official emblem for the tournament. The host country has gone so far to keep FIFA and its sponsors happy, it has created a new list of prohibited marks under special legislation, even including the use of ‘2010’ on its own, which is not a trademark.  For businesses operating in the UK, the situation is rather less draconian.  However,  there are reports that FIFA has obtained a ruling against a sports bar near the Loftus stadium using phrases such as ‘World Cup 2010’. Things to Remember…  The most important guidance is to always avoid the using of any FIFA artwork or branding – such as its logo or the ‘man kicking ball’ official 2010 world cup emblem. For more information and guidance about when you can cannot use World Cup related terms, FIFA has provided a Public Information Sheet which states what is acceptable and the terms of use. Use of the term ‘World Cup’ or similar phrases is less likely to be an issue, although each situation is different, so it is important to take legal advice in order to avoid prosecution.

Original post: 
We Was Robbed – FIFA clash with the Ambush Marketers

Author: Guy Thomas   An interesting piece from Business Advisory and Insolvency specialists BDO that reminds directors of football clubs that as the fans enjoy the thrill of the competition in South Africa, it shouldn’t distract them from their own issues closer to home. www.bdoadvisorybites.co.uk/index.php?id=298&uid=6270

See original here: 
Enjoy the Game…

Author: Guy Thomas In a dramatic turn of events, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have announced that they will not use the next listed hearing to pursue its challenge to the appointment of Administrators by Pointpin Limited, the British Virgin Island based company which is controlled by Mr. Chainrai. Although the hearing, scheduled to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Monday 15th March 2010, will still go ahead; the anticipated tussle will not be as spectacular as many had awaited. It has been further reported that “Despite HMRC continuing to have a number of remaining questions and concerns around the relationships of various parties, and a lack of detail of financial affairs, HMRC has now advised the Administrators that we will no longer challenge the validity of the Administrator’s appointment.” “This comes in light of the additional material now provided following the judge’s directions of 2 March 2010.” Portsmouth and its’ Administrators should not feel completely reassured by the further reporting that HMRC are “still not happy” but “do not see any benefit in continuing an expensive, long-running, legal protest against the club”.  What now? In no particular order, some of the things that are still to come in this administration include: 1. HMRC will keep a close eye on events; they can do this through a creditors committee (which is meant to oversee the actions and fees of the Administrator). 2. Unsecured creditors (like HMRC) put in their proof of debt to the Administrator setting out what they are owed [most creditors do this without taking legal advice]. 3. Statutory Investigations will be carried out by the Administrator into the conduct of the club, its directors and any who acted as if they were directors. The Administrator submits a “D” report to the Secretary of State for BIS. 4. The directors finalise their statement of affairs and a report goes out to creditors on the events that led to formal insolvency. This may include their view of when the club became insolvent. This is usually followed by a meeting of the creditors to vote on the housekeeping issues for the Administration. 5. The League will decide on the first part of the likely point’s deductions. Part “two” will depend on the outcome of any proposal to exit the Administration. The exit the League usually expects is a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement. 6. The Administrator will continue to look for savings in costs. Players are unlikely to be made redundant. The Professional Footballers’ Association has strong influence in this area. However that doesn’t exclude the likelihood that loan agreements will be cancelled to save the salary costs. It’s been reported Pompey having six temporary signings on their books. 7. The Administrator looks to realize assets for creditors and or raise finance to allow continuing trading. It has been reported that Mr Chainrai will provide the funding and the Administrator is looking for bids. Anyone got a spare £15 million?

Read the rest here:
Portsmouth FC continued: HMRC thow in the towel…but “still not happy”

Author: Guy Thomas There were six winding up petitions for football clubs in the High Court today. Two of them relate to Portsmouth! Hinckley United Football Club      Brighton Football Club Portsmouth City Football Club       Portsmouth City Football Club  (again!)     Southend United Football Club      Cardiff City Football Club       Cardiff & Southend have won a temporary reprise but Portsmouth’s problems have if anything intensified. Click here to view the article that appeared on the BBC website. I understand that Portsmouth have been asked to provide a ‘statement of affairs’ within the next week. Such a statement is drawn up by a specialist insolvency practitioner and will be very difficult to produce in such a short space of time, if that is the case the club looks set for administration. Given the minimum 10 point penalty that the Premier League may impose, it is highly likely that the club will , in the future, be preparing its finances on the basis it will be in the Championship next season. The statement of affairs will likely be made on the basis that Portsmouth is shortly going to be a Championship rather than Premier League club. Leeds, of all clubs, is actually a positive example for Portsmouth as they have managed to reduce long term overheads, such as player wages, and operate well as League One rather than Premier League club. Things may get worse before they get better, but the silver lining is that Portsmouth, like Leeds, has a large fan-base which virtually guarantees revenue over the next few years, and should enable them to bounce back. Depending on how things play out in the next couple of weeks in the Courts, next season looks likely to see a resurgent Leeds and a under pressure Portsmouth as competitors in the Championship seeking a return to top flight football. If HMRC is to maintain its new hard-line approach Portsmouth will not be the last Premiership club visiting the High Court in 2010. For too long, top flight clubs and their owners have been able to palm off their smaller and unsecured creditors but it looks like that is changing. The problem for clubs is that as soon as one creditor starts insolvency proceedings, as HMRC is, all the others, for example other clubs owed transfer fees, will follow suit. Many recent football insolvency (and near misses) in the lower leagues have been prompted by this change in stance by HMRC.

See original here: 
Six of the Best

Author: Laura Allen Diageo is in the process of taking legal action against Sainsbury’s for selling it’s own version of the gin-based drink called Pitcher’s. Sainsbury’s released Pitcher’s back in April this year stating that it was available in time for events such as Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon. Sainsbury’s has also advertised Pitcher’s as being cheaper than the branded equivalent, as well as saying that it has performed better in taste tests. Trademark experts say that Diageo is likely to be concerned that Sainsbury’s will be passing off the ‘copy’ drink as Pimm’s, as they have recently spent millions of pounds advertising their product using the catchphrase “it’s Pimm’s o’clock”. Comparisons can be drawn between the packaging of the two drinks, with both using red lettering in similar fonts, with a gold logo at the top of the label. This is not the first time that such matters have reached the courts, in 1997 Asda was found guilty of passing off its Puffin bars as United Biscuit’s Penguin biscuits. Brand owners will now be watching this matter carefully as it may encourage them to come forward if other retailers have ‘copycat’ items on their shelves. Diageo has admitted that it is taking legal proceedings in relation to an intellectual property matter, with Sainsbury’s saying that it will defend itself ‘vigorously’ against the allegations.

Read the rest here:
Protect your brand - Diageo and Sainsbury’s in legal battle over alleged copy of Pimm’s drink

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Terrence Trainor In a recent High Court decision a wife was successful in convincing a panel of three High Court Judges to increase maintenance of £113,000 per annum (this being a global sum for the wife and children) to £195,000 per annum. In this instance, the wife was successful in increasing her maintenance substantially in light of the husband’s increase in wealth combined with his income increasing significantly from £552,000 gross per annum to £1.86 million gross per annum in the same period.  Importantly, the Court concluded the increase in income for the husband appeared secure and was likely to continue into the foreseeable future.  It therefore raises the question as to whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion if they felt the husband’s future income was susceptible to risk. Lord Justice Thorpe said the most important factor was the “husband’s greatly increased income” in finding that the original sum awarded had in fact been too small.  Interestingly, the Court was of the view the wife had a responsibility to operate a prudent economy with her finances and she must also anticipate a possible future fall in maintenance if the husband’s career was to faultier in the future. This case raises interesting questions and it would seem in the current economic climate with incomes falling or staying stagnant it will continue to fuel the number of applications being made to the Court to re-consider the issue of maintenance.

The rest is here:
Wife Awarded Greater Share of Husbands Future Income

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation Claims UK

Author: Marilyn Bell On 27 April this year the family court doors were opened. Some would say this was just by a crack because of the reporting restrictions. The Justice Secretary Jack Straw is now proposing to improve the transparency of the family court  by relaxing the reporting restrictions.    So far so good but where will this take us. Cases involving children are some of the most sensitive.  There are two main kinds of proceedings involving children:  Private law proceedings involve disputes, usually between the parents, as to where the children shall live and how much contact they shall have with the non resident parent. Understandably pressure has come from Fathers who feel they have been denied contact with their children and opening up the family court is welcomed as long as the anonymity of the children can be assured. Public law proceedings usually involve children being removed from their parents and taken into the care of the local authority. Ultimately the children may return to their parents, or be fostered, or adopted. The media can now attend Court and hear the evidence. However, they are already realising that the main body of the evidence is contained in the detailed documentation usually running to many lever arch folders. How is this to be approached in the light of greater transparency? Reporters are already suggesting they should be able to read the experts reports, but the experts reports refer to the documents the experts has relied on. Should all these documents therefore be available? Parents may disagree with the experts, if so, should the media therefore have the parents statements as well?         These are just some of the questions that will have to be taken into consideration.

Go here to read the rest: 
Opening up our family courts

Author: Andrew Nellist Following the untimely death of Michael Jackson it emerged that he had, in his Will, nominated his mother as guardian for his children. In the event that his mother had predeceased him Diana Ross was nominated in her place. In England and Wales the appointment of Guardians and the rights they have are governed by Section 5 of the Children Act 1989.  A parent with Parental Responsibility may appoint a Guardian by Will or by a document which they date and sign and which provides that the appointment only takes effect on their death. A child’s mother acquires Parental Responsibility on the birth of their child which can only be removed in specific circumstances for example if the child is adopted. The husband of the mother at the time of the child’s birth automatically acquires Parental Responsibility as does a father named on a birth certificate after 1st December 2003. This applies even in situations where the child was born as a result of Artificial Insemination by a Donor (AID). The appointment of a Guardian under a Will only takes effect if:- (i) The Appointer has a sole residence order in their favour at the time of their death; or (ii) No parent with parental responsibility survived the Appointer. Even if these conditions are not fulfilled the Appointee will have parental responsibility by virtue of the nomination under the Will and will be entitled to apply to the Court to be appointed as the Guardian.  Where there was a sole Residence Order in favour of the Appointer at the time of their death and there is a surviving parent who either does nor does not have parental responsibility that person can seek to have the appointment of the Guardian revoked. Thus had Michael Jackson and his children been resident in England at the time of his death then unless there was a sole Residence Order in his favour at the time of his death his mother would have to have made an application to the Court to be appointed Guardian of his children.  In the absence of such an application the children would have to be returned to their mothers to care for them provided that they as surviving parents still had parental responsibility.

See more here:
Michael Jackson names his Mother as his children’s guardian in his Will - but what is the law regarding guardianship and parental responsibility…