Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courthouse Steps
CASE CAPTION: The Weinstein Co. (TWC) v. Nu-Image Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC360233.
CAUSE OF ACTION: Injunctive relief in aid of arbitration.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Under a written contract created as of Nov. 4, 2004, Double Life Produc-tions Inc. purchased certain rights in the proposed film 'Rambo IV' from Miramax Film Corp. and Hardware Distribution Inc. Nu-Image is the successor-in-interest to Double Life. The plaintiff is the successor to the sellers. The agreement provided for disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration and gave certain exclusive first-negotiation rights to the plaintiff. If Nu-Image proposed to license or sell the exploitation rights, it was obligated to notify TWC in writing and thereafter negotiate in good faith for 15 days with respect to the grant of the rights to TWC. Instead, Nu-Image, allegedly without notice to the plaintiff, entered into negotiations with third parties to license or sell the distribution rights. Nu-Image has purported to comply with the TWC agreement by making an unreasonable and bad-faith proposal.
RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction enjoining Nu-Image from negotiating or agreeing with any third party for the license or transfer of the exploitation rights without first giving TWC its first-negotiation rights.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bertram Fields, Jeffrey Spitz and Cambra E. Sklarz of L.A.'s Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger (310-553-3610).
CASE CAPTION: Christian Bradley Call v. Digital Domain Inc.; Wyncrest DD Holdings Inc.; John Textor; Jon Teaford; and Carl Stork, L.A. Superior Court (Santa Monica) # SC091347.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written employment agreement; fraud in the inducement; breach severance agreements; breach of oral agreement; violation of Calif. Labor Code; wrongful termination; unfair business practices; and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Stork, Teaford and Textor were all principals of Wyncrest, a holding company formed to acquire Digital Domain. They allegedly met with unsophisticated investors through GunnAllen Financial because more sophisticated financial institutions were unwilling to invest. The defendants also told the plaintiff, who was president and chief operating officer of Digital Domain, that they wouldn't acquire the company unless he agreed to remain; and they promised him a salary increase, bonuses, stock and stock options. This was done to stop the plaintiff from exercising severance rights under his current employment agreement and release his rights to profits from D2 Software Inc., a software subsidiary started by the plaintiff. The defendants also needed management in place to get the financing from GunnAllen and Falcon Investors. The deal closed in May 12, 2006. The plaintiff subsequently raised a number of concerns about revenue projections and promised capital contributions by the defendants. Stork and Textor angrily stated that they weren't making any contributions and that their only priorities were to make certain they had no personal liability for the acquisition. The plaintiff's authority was diminished and he was terminated in August 2006. He didn't get his stock and options.
RELIEF SOUGHT: More than $3.5 million.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Gary A. Wexler of L.A.'s Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen (310-478-5656).
CASE CAPTION: Digital Domain Inc. v. Christian Bradley Call, L.A. Superior Court # BC360007.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of duty of loyalty.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Call abused the trust and confidence of Digital Domain by systematically attempting to poison the attitude of the plaintiff's employees toward the new owner of the company by disseminating outlandish and damaging theories concocted by him about the new owner's alleged intentions with respect to the company. This included encouraging employees to negotiate higher compensation packages and encouraging others to leave the company.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Chad S. Hummel, Rebecca L. Torrey and Joanna Hooper of L.A.'s Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (310-312-4000).
CASE CAPTION: The Weinstein Co. (TWC) v. Nu-Image Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC360233.
CAUSE OF ACTION: Injunctive relief in aid of arbitration.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Under a written contract created as of Nov. 4, 2004, Double Life Produc-tions Inc. purchased certain rights in the proposed film 'Rambo IV' from Miramax Film Corp. and Hardware Distribution Inc. Nu-Image is the successor-in-interest to Double Life. The plaintiff is the successor to the sellers. The agreement provided for disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration and gave certain exclusive first-negotiation rights to the plaintiff. If Nu-Image proposed to license or sell the exploitation rights, it was obligated to notify TWC in writing and thereafter negotiate in good faith for 15 days with respect to the grant of the rights to TWC. Instead, Nu-Image, allegedly without notice to the plaintiff, entered into negotiations with third parties to license or sell the distribution rights. Nu-Image has purported to comply with the TWC agreement by making an unreasonable and bad-faith proposal.
RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction enjoining Nu-Image from negotiating or agreeing with any third party for the license or transfer of the exploitation rights without first giving TWC its first-negotiation rights.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bertram Fields, Jeffrey Spitz and Cambra E. Sklarz of L.A.'s
CASE CAPTION: Christian Bradley Call v. Digital Domain Inc.; Wyncrest DD Holdings Inc.; John Textor; Jon Teaford; and Carl Stork, L.A. Superior Court (Santa Monica) # SC091347.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written employment agreement; fraud in the inducement; breach severance agreements; breach of oral agreement; violation of Calif. Labor Code; wrongful termination; unfair business practices; and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Stork, Teaford and Textor were all principals of Wyncrest, a holding company formed to acquire Digital Domain. They allegedly met with unsophisticated investors through GunnAllen Financial because more sophisticated financial institutions were unwilling to invest. The defendants also told the plaintiff, who was president and chief operating officer of Digital Domain, that they wouldn't acquire the company unless he agreed to remain; and they promised him a salary increase, bonuses, stock and stock options. This was done to stop the plaintiff from exercising severance rights under his current employment agreement and release his rights to profits from D2 Software Inc., a software subsidiary started by the plaintiff. The defendants also needed management in place to get the financing from GunnAllen and Falcon Investors. The deal closed in May 12, 2006. The plaintiff subsequently raised a number of concerns about revenue projections and promised capital contributions by the defendants. Stork and Textor angrily stated that they weren't making any contributions and that their only priorities were to make certain they had no personal liability for the acquisition. The plaintiff's authority was diminished and he was terminated in August 2006. He didn't get his stock and options.
RELIEF SOUGHT: More than $3.5 million.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Gary A. Wexler of L.A.'s Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen (310-478-5656).
CASE CAPTION: Digital Domain Inc. v. Christian Bradley Call, L.A. Superior Court # BC360007.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of duty of loyalty.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Call abused the trust and confidence of Digital Domain by systematically attempting to poison the attitude of the plaintiff's employees toward the new owner of the company by disseminating outlandish and damaging theories concocted by him about the new owner's alleged intentions with respect to the company. This included encouraging employees to negotiate higher compensation packages and encouraging others to leave the company.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Chad S. Hummel, Rebecca L. Torrey and Joanna Hooper of L.A.'s
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
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
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.