Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CASE CAPTION: The Weinstein Co. v. Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC350647.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Declaratory relief and an injunction.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Wang Bao Hsiang, known professionally as Wang Du Lee, was the author of a series of five books that included 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.' In December 2005, his heirs, as sole owners of all rights in the books, gave the plaintiff the option the acquire film and TV rights to them. The agreement was signed by Dr. Hong Wang for the heirs. Columbia claims that during 2005, it entered into an oral contract with Dr. Hong for those rights. The heirs deny that any such agreement was made. It would anyway be unenforceable under Section 204 of the U. S. Copyright Act that requires a written and signed agreement. Even if there was a written agreement signed by Hong, it couldn't be enforced in the absence of written authority from the heirs.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bertram Fields and Charles N. Shephard of L.A.'s Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).
CASE CAPTION: Pierre David and Lance Entertainment Inc. v. Michael Donovan and The Halifax Film Co. Ltd., L.A. Superior Court # BC350489.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; quantum meruit; promissory fraud; fraud by intentional misrepresentation; fraud by negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and declaratory relief.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff David is a film producer; Lance is his company. Defendant Donovan is a principal of Halifax. David previously lived in Rwanda and wanted to produce a film based on a 1994 genocide there. In early 2001, David began developing a film based on the book 'Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.' He worked closely with Donovan on the project from about April 2001 through June 2004. Donovan agreed that David would be paid and receive screen credit as a producer if the picture was made. David spent hundreds of hours on the project. Donovan orally agreed to a deal in which David would get 15% of the film's net profits. In June 2004, Donovan suddenly ceased all communication with David and in Jan. 2006 Donovan, through counsel, denied the existence of the agreement. The defendants are producing the film.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and a declaration that defendants are prohibited from releasing the film without compensating Lance for David's services and affording David credit as producer.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: David L. Burg and Travis A. Corder of L.A.'s Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (310-312-4000).
CASE CAPTION: David Joshua Paul, Sixth Way Productions Inc. and Wabi Pictures Inc. v. Craig Snider, Now Pictures LLC, Donald Zuckerman, Ze LLC, Suffering Fools LLC, Alan Cumming, David Matthews and Tina Snider, L.A. Superior Court # BC349944.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duties; breach of contract; intentional interference with contract; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and conversion.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In the spring of 2005, plaintiff Paul began development of a feature-length film in conjunction with co-defendant Cumming; In September, Sixth Way optioned the script for 'Suffering Man's Charity' for the project. Suffering Fools was formed to produce the project with ZE (Zuckerman's company) as one of its managers. Paul and his companies, Sixth Way and Wabi, were to provide production services and receive screen credit. Snider and Zuckerman terminated the plaintiffs as of March 24, 2006. Zuckerman took computer hard drives and video and sound tapes from Paul's office. The defendants wrongfully attempted to remove the plaintiff as a manager of Suffering Fools.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $1 million.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Joseph F. Hart of L.A.'s Donaldson & Hart (310-274-7157).
CAUSES OF ACTION: Intentional misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and rescission.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Producers Schamus and Linde got plaintiff Quaid to perform in the film 'Brokeback Mountain' by falsely representing it as a low-budget, art house film with no prospect of making any money. Yet the producers fully intended that the film wouldn't be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release and would be supported as a studio picture. Linde got Universal Pictures' backing for the film and made a presentation to his bosses at Universal saying the film was going to make money. Relying on the defendants' representations that the film would be made on a minimal budget and 'everyone was making sacrifices,' Quaid met with director Ang Lee in March 2004. Lee told Quaid that they couldn't pay anything and Quaid agreed to effectively donate his time. Industry guilds define a low-budget film as one with a budget of $500,000 to $7 million. The budget for 'Brokeback' was about $15 million. The film has grossed about $160 million. Other principals (producers and directors) got seven-figure salaries.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $10 million.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: C. Dana Hobart and DoHoang T. Duong of L.A.'s Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman (213-694-1200).
CASE CAPTION: The Weinstein Co. v. Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC350647.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Declaratory relief and an injunction.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Wang Bao Hsiang, known professionally as Wang Du Lee, was the author of a series of five books that included 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.' In December 2005, his heirs, as sole owners of all rights in the books, gave the plaintiff the option the acquire film and TV rights to them. The agreement was signed by Dr. Hong Wang for the heirs. Columbia claims that during 2005, it entered into an oral contract with Dr. Hong for those rights. The heirs deny that any such agreement was made. It would anyway be unenforceable under Section 204 of the U. S. Copyright Act that requires a written and signed agreement. Even if there was a written agreement signed by Hong, it couldn't be enforced in the absence of written authority from the heirs.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bertram Fields and Charles N. Shephard of L.A.'s
CASE CAPTION: Pierre David and Lance Entertainment Inc. v. Michael Donovan and The Halifax Film Co. Ltd., L.A. Superior Court # BC350489.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; quantum meruit; promissory fraud; fraud by intentional misrepresentation; fraud by negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and declaratory relief.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff David is a film producer; Lance is his company. Defendant Donovan is a principal of Halifax. David previously lived in Rwanda and wanted to produce a film based on a 1994 genocide there. In early 2001, David began developing a film based on the book 'Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.' He worked closely with Donovan on the project from about April 2001 through June 2004. Donovan agreed that David would be paid and receive screen credit as a producer if the picture was made. David spent hundreds of hours on the project. Donovan orally agreed to a deal in which David would get 15% of the film's net profits. In June 2004, Donovan suddenly ceased all communication with David and in Jan. 2006 Donovan, through counsel, denied the existence of the agreement. The defendants are producing the film.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and a declaration that defendants are prohibited from releasing the film without compensating Lance for David's services and affording David credit as producer.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: David L. Burg and Travis A. Corder of L.A.'s
CASE CAPTION: David Joshua Paul, Sixth Way Productions Inc. and Wabi Pictures Inc. v. Craig Snider, Now Pictures LLC, Donald Zuckerman, Ze LLC, Suffering Fools LLC, Alan Cumming, David Matthews and Tina Snider, L.A. Superior Court # BC349944.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duties; breach of contract; intentional interference with contract; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and conversion.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In the spring of 2005, plaintiff Paul began development of a feature-length film in conjunction with co-defendant Cumming; In September, Sixth Way optioned the script for 'Suffering Man's Charity' for the project. Suffering Fools was formed to produce the project with ZE (Zuckerman's company) as one of its managers. Paul and his companies, Sixth Way and Wabi, were to provide production services and receive screen credit. Snider and Zuckerman terminated the plaintiffs as of March 24, 2006. Zuckerman took computer hard drives and video and sound tapes from Paul's office. The defendants wrongfully attempted to remove the plaintiff as a manager of Suffering Fools.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $1 million.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Joseph F. Hart of L.A.'s Donaldson & Hart (310-274-7157).
CAUSES OF ACTION: Intentional misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and rescission.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Producers Schamus and Linde got plaintiff Quaid to perform in the film 'Brokeback Mountain' by falsely representing it as a low-budget, art house film with no prospect of making any money. Yet the producers fully intended that the film wouldn't be made on a low budget, would be given a worldwide release and would be supported as a studio picture. Linde got Universal Pictures' backing for the film and made a presentation to his bosses at Universal saying the film was going to make money. Relying on the defendants' representations that the film would be made on a minimal budget and 'everyone was making sacrifices,' Quaid met with director Ang Lee in March 2004. Lee told Quaid that they couldn't pay anything and Quaid agreed to effectively donate his time. Industry guilds define a low-budget film as one with a budget of $500,000 to $7 million. The budget for 'Brokeback' was about $15 million. The film has grossed about $160 million. Other principals (producers and directors) got seven-figure salaries.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $10 million.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: C. Dana Hobart and DoHoang T. Duong of L.A.'s Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman (213-694-1200).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.