Courthouse Steps

CASE CAPTION: Marvel Enterprises Inc. and Marvel Characters Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., The Walt Disney Studios Inc., BVS Entertainment, BVS International N.V. and ABC Family Worldwide, L.A. Superior Court # BC318855.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; accounting; unfair business practices; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and fraud.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Disney's accounting statements claim that series using Marvel characters continue to lose money and that Marvel is not entitled to any profit distribution despite increased demand for telecasts and home videos because of hit movies produced by studios other than Disney. Disney hadn't produced books and records, blaming poor record keeping by its predecessor, Fox Family. Disney overpaid for Fox Family by billions of dollars and failed to develop a viable marketing strategy for the valuable intellectual property of Marvel that it acquired. Fox made sweetheart deals with corporate affiliates and Disney continues to exploit them to support its claim that none of the series have recouped their costs and shown any profit. Disney has also failed to market the properties to avoid competition with its own animated programming. Disney has refused to allow Marvel to audit accountings through 2003 until disputes to 2002 have been resolved, in order to conceal handsome profits made when it repackaged and re-released “Spider-Man” videos to coincide with the May 2002 Sony “Spider-Man” movie release. The series feature “The Incredible Hulk,” “X-Men” and Spider-Man. Disney acquired some of them with Fox Family in 2001. (Disney got X-Men in an agreement with Saban Entertainment and Saban International in 1993.) Disney has refused to credit Marvel with nearly $16 million due under the Spider-Man agreement first made with Fox Family.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Carole E. Handler, Sharon A. Urias and Chanda R. Weber of Los Angeles' Thelen Reid & Priest (213-576-8000).

CASE CAPTION: Giuseppe “Beppe” Canterelli v. EMI Music Publishing, a division of EMI Group Plc., L.A. Superior Court # BC318286.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violations of Calif. Business and Profession Code Sec. 17200 et seq. (unfair business practices); constructive trust; and accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff class is made up of songwriters and their successors-in-interest to whom EMI is required to account for royalties and who haven't been paid for more than 6 months since July 10, 2000. EMI has used an “unallocated database” (also known as a suspense file, unapplied account or cash deferred). EMI doesn't process royalty money unless it believes it has sufficient information to allocate it to a particular song. A substantial number of items have been held in the unallocated database for many years, despite its obligation to pay writers within 6 months of receipt. If EMI doesn't get a document specifically stating what writer and what song the money is for, EMI transfers it to the unallocated database and “treats the money as its own.” EMI also doesn't share advances on royalties with writers until it gets a royalty statement from the payor. EMI sometimes issues group synchronization licenses for a number of different songs and places the money for those in the unallocated account, often for years or never accounted for.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Restitution and an accounting; an injunction against failing to make proper payments.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Geoffrey Spellberg and Anthony Kornarens of San Francisco's Spellberg & Kornarens (415-837-0456), and Kevin J. Holl and Jeremy Sugarman of San Francisco's Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl & Sugarman (415-421-3100).

CASE CAPTION: NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Pat O'Brien, Standing Pat Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corp., L.A. Superior Court # BC318353.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of duty of loyalty; interference with and inducing breach of contract; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: O'Brien, co-host of the TV entertainment show “Access Hollywood,” is under contract with KNBC through Aug. 31, 2004, and KNBC continues to pay his full salary even he hasn't co-anchored the show since June 18. The contract expressly prohibits O'Brien from rendering his services to anyone else or permitting use of his name and likeness for promotion without KNBC's consent. However, he has been working actively with Paramount to promote “The Insider,” a program he will begin hosting in September that will directly compete with “Access Hollywood.” O'Brien has also been actively soliciting current “Access Hollywood” employees to leave the show and work for him at Paramount. Paramount has acknowledged that it is aware of O'Brien's contract but as recently as July 9, expressly refused to stop using O'Brien's services or to stop using his name and likeness.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction prohibiting O'Brien from violating his contractual obligations; unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Glenn D. Pomerantz, Lawrence C. Barth and Marc A. Becker of Los Angeles' Munger, Tolles & Olson (213-683-9100).

CASE CAPTION: Phil Spector v. Robert L. Shapiro; Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro LLP; and The Law Offices of Robert L. Shapiro P.C., L.A. Superior Court # BC317958.

CAUSES OF ACTION: A declaration that the retainer is unconscionable and that Spector should get most of his money back; unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Shapiro, a “celebrity lawyer,” attached himself to Spector a number of years ago and developed a personal relationship. As a friend, Shapiro knew that Spector was under the care of a mental health professional and was prescribed medications to stabilize his mental condition. Spector turned to Shapiro for help after police found the body of Lana Clarkson at Spector's Alhambra, CA home in February 2003. Spector was arrested on suspicion of murder. Spector turned his criminal defense over to Shapiro and his firm. Shapiro took advantage of his friendship and position of trust for a financial windfall and to garner publicity for himself. Shapiro prepared and presented Spector an engagement letter, the terms of which were ambiguous and confusing. According to the defendants, its terms required Spector to immediately pay $1.5 million into an income account. They also claim this amount is non-refundable and deemed “earned.” Despite this claim, the letter, insofar as it is enforceable, is for an hourly retainer. The letter also violates a California rule by failing to set forth how the fees will be divided between the Christensen firm and the Law Offices of Robert Shapiro. When Spector signed the letter, “he was laboring under a tremendous amount of mental stress” and hadn't taken his medication for several days. Shapiro took a $1 million check from Spector, deposited into his personal account, not a client trust account, and after that didn't spend much time actually working on the case. After Spector discharged the defendants, he got back a case file less than a quarter-inch thick containing just a single memorandum from Shapiro and a billing statement that showed only $95,407.50 in billable time.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Breach of fiduciary duty; conversion; constructive fraud; unjust enrichment; claim and delivery; money had and received; constructive trust; rescission and restitution; and declaratory relief.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Raymond P. Boucher and Michael C. Eyerly of Beverly Hills' Kiesel, Boucher & Larson (310-854-4444).

CASE CAPTION: Marvel Enterprises Inc. and Marvel Characters Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., The Walt Disney Studios Inc., BVS Entertainment, BVS International N.V. and ABC Family Worldwide, L.A. Superior Court # BC318855.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; accounting; unfair business practices; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and fraud.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Disney's accounting statements claim that series using Marvel characters continue to lose money and that Marvel is not entitled to any profit distribution despite increased demand for telecasts and home videos because of hit movies produced by studios other than Disney. Disney hadn't produced books and records, blaming poor record keeping by its predecessor, Fox Family. Disney overpaid for Fox Family by billions of dollars and failed to develop a viable marketing strategy for the valuable intellectual property of Marvel that it acquired. Fox made sweetheart deals with corporate affiliates and Disney continues to exploit them to support its claim that none of the series have recouped their costs and shown any profit. Disney has also failed to market the properties to avoid competition with its own animated programming. Disney has refused to allow Marvel to audit accountings through 2003 until disputes to 2002 have been resolved, in order to conceal handsome profits made when it repackaged and re-released “Spider-Man” videos to coincide with the May 2002 Sony “Spider-Man” movie release. The series feature “The Incredible Hulk,” “X-Men” and Spider-Man. Disney acquired some of them with Fox Family in 2001. (Disney got X-Men in an agreement with Saban Entertainment and Saban International in 1993.) Disney has refused to credit Marvel with nearly $16 million due under the Spider-Man agreement first made with Fox Family.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Carole E. Handler, Sharon A. Urias and Chanda R. Weber of Los Angeles' Thelen Reid & Priest (213-576-8000).

CASE CAPTION: Giuseppe “Beppe” Canterelli v. EMI Music Publishing, a division of EMI Group Plc., L.A. Superior Court # BC318286.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violations of Calif. Business and Profession Code Sec. 17200 et seq. (unfair business practices); constructive trust; and accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff class is made up of songwriters and their successors-in-interest to whom EMI is required to account for royalties and who haven't been paid for more than 6 months since July 10, 2000. EMI has used an “unallocated database” (also known as a suspense file, unapplied account or cash deferred). EMI doesn't process royalty money unless it believes it has sufficient information to allocate it to a particular song. A substantial number of items have been held in the unallocated database for many years, despite its obligation to pay writers within 6 months of receipt. If EMI doesn't get a document specifically stating what writer and what song the money is for, EMI transfers it to the unallocated database and “treats the money as its own.” EMI also doesn't share advances on royalties with writers until it gets a royalty statement from the payor. EMI sometimes issues group synchronization licenses for a number of different songs and places the money for those in the unallocated account, often for years or never accounted for.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Restitution and an accounting; an injunction against failing to make proper payments.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Geoffrey Spellberg and Anthony Kornarens of San Francisco's Spellberg & Kornarens (415-837-0456), and Kevin J. Holl and Jeremy Sugarman of San Francisco's Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl & Sugarman (415-421-3100).

CASE CAPTION: NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Pat O'Brien, Standing Pat Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corp ., L.A. Superior Court # BC318353.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of duty of loyalty; interference with and inducing breach of contract; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: O'Brien, co-host of the TV entertainment show “Access Hollywood,” is under contract with KNBC through Aug. 31, 2004, and KNBC continues to pay his full salary even he hasn't co-anchored the show since June 18. The contract expressly prohibits O'Brien from rendering his services to anyone else or permitting use of his name and likeness for promotion without KNBC's consent. However, he has been working actively with Paramount to promote “The Insider,” a program he will begin hosting in September that will directly compete with “Access Hollywood.” O'Brien has also been actively soliciting current “Access Hollywood” employees to leave the show and work for him at Paramount. Paramount has acknowledged that it is aware of O'Brien's contract but as recently as July 9, expressly refused to stop using O'Brien's services or to stop using his name and likeness.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction prohibiting O'Brien from violating his contractual obligations; unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Glenn D. Pomerantz, Lawrence C. Barth and Marc A. Becker of Los Angeles' Munger, Tolles & Olson (213-683-9100).

CASE CAPTION: Phil Spector v. Robert L. Shapiro; Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro LLP; and The Law Offices of Robert L. Shapiro P.C., L.A. Superior Court # BC317958.

CAUSES OF ACTION: A declaration that the retainer is unconscionable and that Spector should get most of his money back; unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Shapiro, a “celebrity lawyer,” attached himself to Spector a number of years ago and developed a personal relationship. As a friend, Shapiro knew that Spector was under the care of a mental health professional and was prescribed medications to stabilize his mental condition. Spector turned to Shapiro for help after police found the body of Lana Clarkson at Spector's Alhambra, CA home in February 2003. Spector was arrested on suspicion of murder. Spector turned his criminal defense over to Shapiro and his firm. Shapiro took advantage of his friendship and position of trust for a financial windfall and to garner publicity for himself. Shapiro prepared and presented Spector an engagement letter, the terms of which were ambiguous and confusing. According to the defendants, its terms required Spector to immediately pay $1.5 million into an income account. They also claim this amount is non-refundable and deemed “earned.” Despite this claim, the letter, insofar as it is enforceable, is for an hourly retainer. The letter also violates a California rule by failing to set forth how the fees will be divided between the Christensen firm and the Law Offices of Robert Shapiro. When Spector signed the letter, “he was laboring under a tremendous amount of mental stress” and hadn't taken his medication for several days. Shapiro took a $1 million check from Spector, deposited into his personal account, not a client trust account, and after that didn't spend much time actually working on the case. After Spector discharged the defendants, he got back a case file less than a quarter-inch thick containing just a single memorandum from Shapiro and a billing statement that showed only $95,407.50 in billable time.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Breach of fiduciary duty; conversion; constructive fraud; unjust enrichment; claim and delivery; money had and received; constructive trust; rescission and restitution; and declaratory relief.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Raymond P. Boucher and Michael C. Eyerly of Beverly Hills' Kiesel, Boucher & Larson (310-854-4444).