Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:39 pm 
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 11962
Disney can't escape a lawsuit that contends the studio has concealed profits from the 1989 Tom Hanks comedy Turner & Hooch. In a decision issued on Friday that sets the stage for a trial, a judge has ruled that Christine Wagner, whose late husband produced the film, can move forward on her fraud claim. Wagner alleges the film, which grossed $71 million at the box office and more in home entertainment, was profitable as early as 1991, but that Disney misrepresented this in profit participation statements in the past decades. Wagner asserts she should be seeing more royalties.

On summary adjudication, Disney argued that an incontestability provision in documents between the parties barred claims. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner finds that an incontestability clause was indeed incorporated in a 1986 agreement for the film and throws out contract claims related to the movie's earliest finances. However, when it comes to Disney's other argument that statute of limitations bars later accounting claims, the judge says it's Disney's burden to establish an absence of fraud that would undercut delayed discovery. "Defendant provides no basis for why the receipt of a participation statement showing no profits would put Plaintiff Wagner's successor on notice that the participation statement was fraudulent," writes Jessner.

Disney does defeat a novel claim related to the choice of auditor. In the original lawsuit (which once included actor Richard Dreyfus), the plaintiff raised a fuss over how Disney refused plaintiff's choice of Robinson Inc., founded by David J. Robinson. The judge says the agreement provided a right to an examination by a "national firm of reputable CPA's," and that Disney is correct that Robinson didn't qualify. Summary adjudication is granted with respect to contract claims over the auditor provision.

However, Robinson has asserted intentional interference with the right to pursue a profession and the judge rules there is a triable issue as to whether Robinson suffered damages as a result of the rejection. The trial is scheduled for July 19. Neville Johnson is representing the plaintiff while Daniel Petrocelli is handling Disney.
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... ts-1109326


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group