|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 8 2009, 3:56pm
Post #1 of 14
(3636 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Potentially BIG News Regarding the Tolkien/New Line Lawsuit
|
Can't Post
|
|
New Line has now filed a motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiff's cause of action seeking the right to terminate New Line's future rights to make the Hobbit films (or other Tolkien films). In other words, they are asking to have that claim be dismissed entirely.
New Line asserts three different argument to support this motion, all of which appear to me to have some merit (of course I've only read New Line's argument so far since they just filed the motion; I'll have to see what the plaintiffs' responses are). The first argument is that since the plaintiffs explicitly are only seeking termination of New Line's rights, while leaving the rest of the 1969 agreements intact, what they are seeking is a partial revocation of the contracts, and that is not allowed by law. The second argument is that what the plaintiffs are really seeking to do is to terminate New Line's agreement with third parties (Zaentz and Miramax), and that they do not have standing to that. The final argument is the one that I have been saying all along; that the attempt to terminate the rights is not ripe, because the agreements specifically state that the agreements cannot be subject to termination or revocation until a final determination has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction that a sufficiently significant breach has occurred, and a final determination would not occur until any appeals are finally decided.
I am cautiously optimistic that there is a good chance this motion will be granted, removing the potential obstacle to the Hobbit films, regardless of what happens at trial (if there is a trial). Of course, that optimism might be lessened once I read the plaintiff's arguments. The hearing is scheduled to be heard on September 15.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
Jul 8 2009, 10:38pm
Post #3 of 14
(1440 views)
Shortcut
|
Im a bit stumped as to why they would take this action prior to any decisions being made yet on the determination and outcome of the Agreements? Isn't this jumping to conclusions on the part of New Line, or is this being put in place now so as it is determined when the decisions come down?
Either way, Im not sure you could just go through a documnet and say 'I dont like this bit can we have this removed'?
Maybe New Line are trying to buy time?
Im not as optomistic as you VtF, Im not seeing that this will be considered.
Im not sure the Tolkien Estate would be happy if this is taken out and dealt with seperately.
It would be like saying that the Tolkien Estate could counteract this by asking if they could still have the right to stop the Hobbit being made if the determination of the Agreements weren't in their favour ...
Law! Sheesh! LOL!!
Thanks VtF for all you do keeping us informed of the legal side of this - wonderful! 
Cheers
Elven x
Swishtail.
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
Avatar: Liberace - The other Lord of the Rings.
Quote of The Week: The thing is I always write in the morning, and I know that if I go to the Net I won’t write ... you can start in the most scholarly website and end up at Paris Hilton dot com .. GdT
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 8 2009, 11:26pm
Post #4 of 14
(2048 views)
Shortcut
|
Im a bit stumped as to why they would take this action prior to any decisions being made yet on the determination and outcome of the Agreements? Isn't this jumping to conclusions on the part of New Line, or is this being put in place now so as it is determined when the decisions come down? They are taking this action now so that they can, they hope, remove the spectre of the plaintiffs being granted the right to terminate the agreements, so that they can proceed with the Hobbit films without worrying about it, regardless of what happens on the breach of contract claim.
Either way, Im not sure you could just go through a documnet and say 'I dont like this bit can we have this removed'? That's not at all what New Line is doing. In fact, a major part of New Line's argument is that it is the plaintiffs that are trying to pick and choose to suit themselves. The law says that if one party to an agreement breaches that agreement in a sufficiently material way, the other party can revoke or terminate the agreement. The whole agreement. But that is not what the plaintiffs here are trying to do. They are trying to only terminate one part of the agreement, the part that currently gives New Line rights to make further films, while keeping the agreement otherwise intact, so that they can continue to have the benefit of the rest of the agreement. New Line is saying that they can't do that, and subject to seeing what the plaintiffs say in response, I think they have a good argument. Further, New Line is saying that since the plaintiffs have specifically stated that they only intend to gain the right to revoke New Line's rights, and not to effect the rights of any third parties (e.g., Zaentz or Miramax), what they are really trying to do is revoke New Line's agreements with those third parties, and they have no right to do that. Again, I think it is a good argument. Finally, they are saying, as I have said before, that the specific language in the agreement about revocation and termination doesn't give the plaintiffs the right to revoke or terminate the agreement if their is a breach (they already have that right under the common law), it limits when the plaintiffs would have any right to do that to the point where there is a final determination regarding a breach. That's not trying to have a bit removed from the agreement; that's following what the agreement actually says.
Maybe New Line are trying to buy time? No, this wouldn't buy them any time. Rather, they are trying to get some clarification on an issue that is purely a legal dispute. There are no triable issues of fact related to this cause of action, really, the facts are not in dispute. Only the legal interpretation of how the law should be applied to those facts are at issue. A motion for summary adjudication is appropriate in those circumstances.
Im not as optomistic as you VtF, Im not seeing that this will be considered.
Im not sure the Tolkien Estate would be happy if this is taken out and dealt with seperately. On what do you base your lack of optimism? Certainly the Tolkien Estate would not be happy if this was decided against them. Any more than they were happy that the court ruled to strike their claim for punitive damages, or to dismiss their claim for reformation of the contracts to make them more consistent with how they wanted them to be interpreted. But the court found that the law required those decisions, and so it made them. If the court decides that the law requires that it summarily adjudicate the cause of action seeking the right to termination New Line's future film rights, than it will do so, whether the Tolkien Estate likes it or not.
It would be like saying that the Tolkien Estate could counteract this by asking if they could still have the right to stop the Hobbit being made if the determination of the Agreements weren't in their favour ... How so? There are no legal arguments that could possibly be made to support such an assertion. In contrast, New Line has some very solid legal arguments in favor of its motion for summary adjudication.
Is that at all clearer?
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 9 2009, 12:46am
Post #5 of 14
(1388 views)
Shortcut
|
through these legal steps VtF. I would have pretty much ignored knowledge of the law suits as an unknowable background noise, but your explanations make it easier to understand what's going on.
So thanks for your efforts on this. :)
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
Jul 9 2009, 2:59am
Post #6 of 14
(1344 views)
Shortcut
|
for such a huge response in reply to my questions. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain that side of things ..
Now I just have to go over it all with a fine tooth comb to get my head around some of those responses - not as simpple as I thought!
You're a great gift to us! Thankyou!
Cheers
Elven x
Swishtail.
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
Avatar: Liberace - The other Lord of the Rings.
Quote of The Week: The thing is I always write in the morning, and I know that if I go to the Net I won’t write ... you can start in the most scholarly website and end up at Paris Hilton dot com .. GdT
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 9 2009, 3:37am
Post #7 of 14
(1346 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Don't hesitate to ask more questions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The only stupid question is one that someone never gets the answer to because they thought it was too stupid to ask in the first place. 
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Doriath
Jul 9 2009, 5:32am
Post #8 of 14
(1340 views)
Shortcut
|
Without you and your updates and especially your explanations, we would be lost!
As much as I wish the Tolkien Estate a success, I have to admit in that case I hope your interpretation of the facts is right, as I want the Hobbit to be made. The way you explained it, New Line really seems to have a point.
It's really interesting to watch the lawsuit unfold over time, as we have you to keep us updated what's happening and to explain all the fine details only a lawyer truly understands. Thank you so much!
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
TORn Link Collection
|
|
|
Pandæmonium
Lindon
Jul 9 2009, 10:31am
Post #9 of 14
(1481 views)
Shortcut
|
How can you be cautiously optimistic about the Tolkien Estate getting ripped off by New Line? While I want a Hobbit film as much as anybody the fact remains that New Line have been criticised when it comes to all the money made by the LoTR films and if they haven't paid the Tolkien Estate what they're owed then I hope the Hobbit is cancelled until this is sorted out.
Shame on anybody who's putting their selfish desire to see a film over some pretty serious legal issues.
(This post was edited by Hengist on Jul 9 2009, 1:57pm)
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 9 2009, 1:16pm
Post #10 of 14
(1331 views)
Shortcut
|
This is a family board.
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks? ' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.
NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows
|
|
|
Jettorex
Menegroth
Jul 9 2009, 1:56pm
Post #11 of 14
(1283 views)
Shortcut
|
In terms of the big picture I have several questions: 1.)What do you think is the most likely outcome of all this? I have thought all along that in the end this will be settled out of court and TH movie will continue to be made(in parallel to the legal proceedings) as scheduled. 2.) How much does MGM/New Line owe the Tolkien Estate for LoTR movies? 3.) Does not MGM/New Line also owe the Tolkien Estate proceeds from TH once its released?
Thanks in advance!
- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Elvenhome
Jul 9 2009, 2:20pm
Post #12 of 14
(1280 views)
Shortcut
|
I'll only admit to understanding about every 15th word, but I feel reassured that the filming of The Hobbit is relatively safe and that this is going to be a long haul. I'm going to read these through again and really try to digest it, but I appreciate you taking the time to keep up posted. *bows deeply*
"There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West."
~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 9 2009, 2:28pm
Post #13 of 14
(1287 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You're welcome! And some answers
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1.)What do you think is the most likely outcome of all this? I have thought all along that in the end this will be settled out of court and TH movie will continue to be made(in parallel to the legal proceedings) as scheduled.
I have always thought it most likely that the case would settle. Most cases do. Of course, the closer we get to the trial date, the less likely that becomes, although many cases settle on the eve of trial. I haven't reviewed the competing accounting claims, and even if I did, I wouldn't have the expertise to judge, but it is very difficult for me to believe that the New Line didn't owe the Estate and other plaintiffs any money. So I think that one way or the other, it will most likely end up with New Line paying some money to the Estate and other plaintiffs, but with the Hobbit films still good to go.
2.) How much does MGM/New Line owe the Tolkien Estate for LoTR movies?
Well, that is the main issue that they are arguing over. New Line claims that once all of their expenses are figured in, they don't owe anything, because the "artificial payment level" was never reached. The plaintiffs claim that New Line owes them $220 million dollars, as of September of 2007 (if I remember correctly).
3.) Does not MGM/New Line also owe the Tolkien Estate proceeds from TH once its released?
Yes, basically the same royalty provision apply to the Hobbit films. Presumably, if there were a settlement, it would include establishing guidelines to avoid the same kind of disputes arising over The Hobbit. And, presumably, if the case is actually resolved in a trial, that would also establish guidelines for how New Line would have to account for expenses and pay royalties.
Presumably.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 9 2009, 3:02pm
Post #14 of 14
(1413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not saying I don't think New Line should pay the Estate what it is rightfully owed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Of course not. I definitely think that New Line should be held accountable for failing to meet its obligations, assuming that it is shown that they have in fact failed to meet their obligations (which I think is likely).
But I also don't think that the Tolkien Trust and other plaintiffs should be able to hold New Line hostage over the new films, if in fact they don't have the legal right to do so in the way that they are trying to do. And, to the best of my judgment at this point, they do seem to be overstepping what they are legally able to do. That opinion may change once I've had an opportunity to review their own legal arguments opposing the motion.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Jul 9 2009, 3:06pm)
|
|
|
|
|
