View Single Post
Old 02-23-2008, 12:37 PM   #84
ArathornJax
Haunting Spirit
 
ArathornJax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out West near a Big Salty Lake
Posts: 76
ArathornJax has just left Hobbiton.
New Line's Rights are they Miramax which are Zaentz which are UA

On page 7 and 8 of the compliant, the compliant traces the history of the rights from UA, to Zaentz to Miramax to New Line.

The compliant says, on point 27 on page 7
"In or about August, 1998, Zaentz consented to Miramax's assignment to defendant New Line of Miramax's rights and obligations under the Miramax agreement.

Pursuant to a written agreement effective May 9, 2000 between New Line and Zaentz (the "New Line/Zaentz Agreement"), New Line expressly assumed the obligations to pay plaintiffs their Gross Receipts Participation required by the 1969 Agreements with respect to any films based on the Literary Works produced by or pursuant to the authority of New Line. In sum, UA, Zaentz and Miramax are predecessors in interest of New Line and New Line "stands in their shoes." "

My question then is this. Is the compliant saying that New Line holds all the obligations and rights of the former holders, thus they must be held to them? I would assume that the answer is yes. Thus could you take say that later in the compliant, when the plaintiffs ask the court to rule on whether they have the right to cancel New Line's rights to making films on based on any of the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien, could the plaintiffs legal team argue that since New Line "stands in their shoes" (UA, Zaentz, Miramax) that this would also cancel the rights of Zaentz and MGM and give the rights back to them, the plaintiffs (especially since Zaentz agreed to to the transfer of rights from Miramax to New Line)? This would allow them to sell the rights again under more profitable terms and thus would be a further punitive damage to the parties concern (in addition to the money NL will have to pay to them)? I guess I'm asking that if a breech by New Line to the agreement, voids the agreement for all parties since New Line is "standing in their shoes?" Can that be argued and if so, what are the chances that a court would do that, restore all rights back to the plaintiffs?

Any clarification would be appreciated.
ArathornJax is offline   Reply With Quote