Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Walt Disney have reached a settlement to end a high-profile state lawsuit over the control of the special district that includes Walt Disney World in Orlando, the company said on Wednesday.

Florida governor, Disney reach settlement in lawsuit over special district | Reuters

A Gov. Ron DeSantis-backed board and Disney settled lawsuits Wednesday over who controls the governing district of Disney World’s theme parks and resorts.

Disney, Florida settle lawsuits over tourism district – Orlando Sentinel

The settlement ends a two-year fight between the entertainment giant and the Florida governor over control of a state tax district near Orlando that encompasses Walt Disney World.

Disney and DeSantis Settle Suit Over Florida Special District - The New York Times

The Walt Disney Company is facing accusations that its programming has intentionally alienated its customer base by pushing a &quot;woke&quot; political agenda on multiple shows.

Disney accused of misleading shareholders with ‘woke political agenda’ | Fox News

The Walt Disney Company announced today the official launch of Hulu on Disney+ in the U.S. for Disney Bundle subscribers, bringing together the extensive Disney+ and Hulu libraries – including beloved characters, award-winning films and series, and 100 years’ worth of inspiring stories ...

Hulu on Disney+ Launches Today in the U.S. for Disney Bundle Subscribers | Disney Plus Press

Walt Disney completed the addition of the general-audience-focused Hulu streaming service to the family friendly Disney+ on Wednesday, putting titles such as &quot;The Bear&quot; and &quot;American Horror Story&quot; in the same app as &quot;Moana&quot; and &quot;Frozen.&quot; The combination, which the company started testing last ...

Hulu launches on Disney+ in bid to boost streaming use

Commissioners in Orange County will decide Tuesday whether to send a plan for an affordable housing project that would be built by Walt Disney World on to the next step.

Orange County leaders brace for contentious hearing on Disney affordable housing project

Hollywood stocks from Walt Disney and Fox to Warner Bros. Discovery had a mixed 2023, while shares of Netflix, Spotify and Lionsgate rose sharply.

Netflix, Spotify, Lionsgate Stocks Jump in 2023, While Disney Ekes Out a Gain

After sharing on TikTok that her family mistakingly purchased $10K in Disney+ gift cards, Andie Coston and her loved ones have finally made it to Walt Disney World.

Family Who Accidentally Bought $10K in Disney+ Gift Cards for Vacation Finally Make It to Disney World

Disney says a "personal agenda" against Bob Iger by ousted exec Ike Perlmutter is fueling an activist investor’s fight.

Ike Perlmutter v. Bob Iger: Ousted Marvel Mogul Fuels Disney Fight – The Hollywood Reporter

Walt Disney

waltdisney

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 12. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Scarlett Johansson hereby demands a trial by jury in this matter. Dated: July 29, 2021 Los Angeles, CA KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 12 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Scarlett Johansson hereby demands a trial by jury in this matter. Dated: July 29, 2021 Los Angeles, CA KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Demand for Jury Trial

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 11 of 12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendant as follows: For monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial;


For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;


That Plaintiff be awarded all pre-judgment interest allowable by law;


That Plaintiff be awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs; and


For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: July 29, 2021 Los Angeles, CA KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 11 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 11 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendant as follows: For monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; That Plaintiff be awarded all pre-judgment interest allowable by law; That Plaintiff be awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs; and For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. For monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; That Plaintiff be awarded all pre-judgment interest allowable by law; That Plaintiff be awarded all pre-judgment interest allowable by law; That Plaintiff be awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs; and That Plaintiff be awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs; and For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: July 29, 2021 Los Angeles, CA KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Prayer for Relief

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 10 of 12. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Inducing Breach of Contract 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 55. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 56. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 57. As set forth above, Marvel breached the Agreement, including its implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. 58. Disney intended to influence, direct, induce, or cause Marvel to commit the above described breaches because Disney knew it would benefit from such breaches. Among other benefits, Disney benefited by driving would-be theatre-goers to its wholly owned streaming platform, Disney+, allowing Disney to profit not only from the $30 Premier Access fee for the Picture but also from the subscription revenue derived from customers who either subscribed for the first time or maintained their existing subscriptions in order to watch the Picture from their own homes the same day it was released in theatres. Disney will continue to profit from those subscribers who maintain their subscriptions in order to retain access to the Picture after purchasing it via Premier Access. 59. Through its conduct, Disney caused Marvel to breach the Agreement as set forth above. But for the influence or direction of Disney, Marvel would have had no incentive, basis, and/or ability to collude with Disney; rather, absent such collusion, Marvel’s intent and desire would have been to release the Picture exclusively in theatres for an amount of time that would have maximized the box office receipts of the Picture. 60. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, inducing acts that cannibalized box office receipts for the Picture and thereby reduced Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 61. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 62. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 10 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 10 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Inducing Breach of Contract 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 55. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 56. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 57. As set forth above, Marvel breached the Agreement, including its implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. 58. Disney intended to influence, direct, induce, or cause Marvel to commit the above described breaches because Disney knew it would benefit from such breaches. Among other benefits, Disney benefited by driving would-be theatre-goers to its wholly owned streaming platform, Disney+, allowing Disney to profit not only from the $30 Premier Access fee for the Picture but also from the subscription revenue derived from customers who either subscribed for the first time or maintained their existing subscriptions in order to watch the Picture from their own homes the same day it was released in theatres. Disney will continue to profit from those subscribers who maintain their subscriptions in order to retain access to the Picture after purchasing it via Premier Access. 59. Through its conduct, Disney caused Marvel to breach the Agreement as set forth above. But for the influence or direction of Disney, Marvel would have had no incentive, basis, and/or ability to collude with Disney; rather, absent such collusion, Marvel’s intent and desire would have been to release the Picture exclusively in theatres for an amount of time that would have maximized the box office receipts of the Picture. 60. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, inducing acts that cannibalized box office receipts for the Picture and thereby reduced Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 61. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 62. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

How Disney Strong Armed Marvel Into Breaking Its Contract Agreements with Scarlet Johansson

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 9 of 12. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 48. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 49. On information and belief, Disney intentionally and improperly induced Marvel to breach its agreement with Plaintiff by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. But for Disney’s actions, Marvel would not have breached the Agreement. 50. Through the conduct described above, Disney intended to disrupt or prevent Marvel’s performance under the Agreements, and did disrupt or prevent that performance. 51. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, cannibalizing box office receipts for the Picture and reducing Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 52. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 53. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 9 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 9 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 48. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 49. On information and belief, Disney intentionally and improperly induced Marvel to breach its agreement with Plaintiff by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. But for Disney’s actions, Marvel would not have breached the Agreement. 50. Through the conduct described above, Disney intended to disrupt or prevent Marvel’s performance under the Agreements, and did disrupt or prevent that performance. 51. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, cannibalizing box office receipts for the Picture and reducing Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 52. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 53. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson Puts Disney on Blast for Intentionally Interfering With Her Contract

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 12. E. Marvel’s Breach is the Direct Result of Disney’s Tortious Interference 37. Why would Disney forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in box office receipts by releasing the Picture in theatres at a time when it knew the theatrical market was “weak,” rather than waiting a few months for that market to recover? On information and belief, the decision do so was made at least in part because Disney saw the opportunity to promote its flagship subscription streaming service using the Picture and Ms. Johansson, thereby attracting new paying monthly subscribers, retaining existing ones, and establishing Disney+ as a must-have service in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Ms. Johansson, and the express promises that Marvel had made to her concerning WWBO bonuses and a “traditional” theatrical release “like our other pictures,” were simply collateral damage. By interfering with the Agreement and inducing Marvel to breach it, Disney not only increased the value of Disney+, but it also intentionally saved Marvel (and thereby itself) what Marvel’s itself referred to as “very large box office bonuses” that Marvel otherwise would have been obligated to pay Ms. Johansson. 38. Disney unquestionably understood how it would benefit from inducing a breach of the Agreement. When he announced the release of another Disney film, Mulan, on Disney+ Premier Access, Mr. Chapek noted that “under a premiere access offering, not only does it get us revenue from our original transaction of [Premium Video on Demand], but it’s a fairly large stimulus to sign up for Disney+.” 39. Moreover, Disney knew that the availability of the Picture on Disney+ would dissuade a number of would-be moviegoers, including many would-be repeat moviegoers, from paying to see the Picture in theatres. When Disney first announced its plan to release the Picture on Premier Access, no less than the New York Times described it as “a move that will likely hurt cinemas (lower ticket and concession sales) while helping Disney (higher streaming revenue).” Similarly, one Hollywood trade journal opined on January 11, 2021 that “it’s insurmountably more challenging for a film the size and scale of ‘Black Widow’ to become profitable without a traditional theatrical window.” On June 10, 2021, one month before the release of the Picture, another prominent Hollywood trade journal reported that with respect to Disney’s day-and-date strategy, “[t]he whole game now is to bring subscribers into the Disney+ ecosystem and keep them there,” and that this “has been damaging for talent” who are compensated by sharing in the box office receipts from a film. Just as these news outlets predicted and Ms. Johansson feared, the Picture’s box office receipts for its opening weekend were significantly below the opening weekend performance of Marvel’s previous films and have “suffered [a] steeper-than-normal decline[]” since then. In short, Disney’s strategy to lure viewers away from the theatres and toward Disney+ worked. 40. There can be no doubt that Disney’s conduct was knowing and intentional. Indeed, as recently as March 1, 2021, Mr. Chapek publicly acknowledged that shortening or eliminating the standard exclusive theatrical window could “cut the legs off a theatrical exhibition run.” Yet he and Disney have done just that, notwithstanding (and in disregard of) Marvel’s contractual promises. 41. This negative impact upon traditional WWBO receipts is exacerbated by the Disney+ Premier Access model, which will allow viewers who pay the Premier Access fee to rewatch the Picture an unlimited number of times so long as they remain subscribed to Disney+. 42. Traditionally, if a moviegoer enjoyed a film enough to see it a second time, he or she would have to either buy another theatre ticket or wait to buy the film on home video, electronic-sell-through (iTunes), or some other form of distribution after the theatrical window concluded. And historically there was no shortage of Marvel superfans willing to do so. Indeed, movie-ticket service Fandango announced that in the first week alone, Avengers: Endgame saw 85% more repeat viewers than Avengers: Infinity War. Marvel itself has banked on these repeat viewers in the past, having re-released Avengers: Endgame with seven minutes of additional footage in an explicit bid to draw in enough additional ticket sales to make the film the highest grossing of all time. In fact, the Guinness World Record for the most times seeing the same film in theaters is held by a Marvel fan who saw Avengers: Endgame 191 times in theatres; the previous record was held by a fan who saw Avengers: Infinity War 103 times. 43. But with Premier Access, there are no repeat ticket sales. Subscribers pay a onetime fee to view the Picture as many times as they want. It is tantamount to handing each moviegoer a free DVD on their way out of the theatre. On top of that, unlike in the theatres, a single Premier Access purchase of the Picture can be shared with tens if not hundreds of would-be paying moviegoers whose ticket buying would have generated WWBO. Still other viewers will forego the theatre and the $30 Premier Access fee because they know they can simply wait what is widely expected to be just 90 days to access the Picture on Disney+ through a regular $8 monthly subscription. And millions of others who would have watched in the theatres will instead view the Picture on perfect digital pirated copies—all made possible by Disney’s decision to release the Picture “day-and-date” on Disney+. Indeed, Black Widow was the No. 1 pirated title of the July 19 week, per the news site TorrentFreak. All of this has undermined the consideration promised to Ms. Johansson in her Agreement and ignores Marvel’s recognition that her “whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures.” 44. Adding insult to injury, Ms. Johansson has spent the last several months fulfilling her own obligation under the Agreement to promote the Picture—and therefore, by association, its release on Disney+. In other words, Disney has enjoyed the benefits of having one of Hollywood’s top actresses promote its wholly owned subscription service at no additional cost to Disney, and with the intended effect of taking money out of that actress’ own pocket. 45. On information and belief, Marvel’s decision to release the Picture simultaneously in theatres and on Disney+ Premier Access—if it can be called Marvel’s decision at all—was the direct result of Disney’s tortious interference with the Agreement. Absent this interference, it was Marvel’s intent and desire to release the Picture exclusively in theatres at a time that would have maximized box office receipts and, therefore, Marvel’s and Ms. Johansson’s profits from the Picture. The only reason Marvel did not wait for a more opportune time to release the Picture exclusively in theatres as intended is because it was induced or forced by Disney to release it dayand-date on Disney+ Premier Access to drive profits to Disney at Ms. Johansson’s expense. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 8 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here E. Marvel’s Breach is the Direct Result of Disney’s Tortious Interference 37. Why would Disney forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in box office receipts by releasing the Picture in theatres at a time when it knew the theatrical market was “weak,” rather than waiting a few months for that market to recover? On information and belief, the decision do so was made at least in part because Disney saw the opportunity to promote its flagship subscription streaming service using the Picture and Ms. Johansson, thereby attracting new paying monthly subscribers, retaining existing ones, and establishing Disney+ as a must-have service in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Ms. Johansson, and the express promises that Marvel had made to her concerning WWBO bonuses and a “traditional” theatrical release “like our other pictures,” were simply collateral damage. By interfering with the Agreement and inducing Marvel to breach it, Disney not only increased the value of Disney+, but it also intentionally saved Marvel (and thereby itself) what Marvel’s itself referred to as “very large box office bonuses” that Marvel otherwise would have been obligated to pay Ms. Johansson. 38. Disney unquestionably understood how it would benefit from inducing a breach of the Agreement. When he announced the release of another Disney film, Mulan, on Disney+ Premier Access, Mr. Chapek noted that “under a premiere access offering, not only does it get us revenue from our original transaction of [Premium Video on Demand], but it’s a fairly large stimulus to sign up for Disney+.” 39. Moreover, Disney knew that the availability of the Picture on Disney+ would dissuade a number of would-be moviegoers, including many would-be repeat moviegoers, from paying to see the Picture in theatres. When Disney first announced its plan to release the Picture on Premier Access, no less than the New York Times described it as “a move that will likely hurt cinemas (lower ticket and concession sales) while helping Disney (higher streaming revenue).” Similarly, one Hollywood trade journal opined on January 11, 2021 that “it’s insurmountably more challenging for a film the size and scale of ‘Black Widow’ to become profitable without a traditional theatrical window.” On June 10, 2021, one month before the release of the Picture, another prominent Hollywood trade journal reported that with respect to Disney’s day-and-date strategy, “[t]he whole game now is to bring subscribers into the Disney+ ecosystem and keep them there,” and that this “has been damaging for talent” who are compensated by sharing in the box office receipts from a film. Just as these news outlets predicted and Ms. Johansson feared, the Picture’s box office receipts for its opening weekend were significantly below the opening weekend performance of Marvel’s previous films and have “suffered [a] steeper-than-normal decline[]” since then. In short, Disney’s strategy to lure viewers away from the theatres and toward Disney+ worked. 40. There can be no doubt that Disney’s conduct was knowing and intentional. Indeed, as recently as March 1, 2021, Mr. Chapek publicly acknowledged that shortening or eliminating the standard exclusive theatrical window could “cut the legs off a theatrical exhibition run.” Yet he and Disney have done just that, notwithstanding (and in disregard of) Marvel’s contractual promises. 41. This negative impact upon traditional WWBO receipts is exacerbated by the Disney+ Premier Access model, which will allow viewers who pay the Premier Access fee to rewatch the Picture an unlimited number of times so long as they remain subscribed to Disney+. 42. Traditionally, if a moviegoer enjoyed a film enough to see it a second time, he or she would have to either buy another theatre ticket or wait to buy the film on home video, electronic-sell-through (iTunes), or some other form of distribution after the theatrical window concluded. And historically there was no shortage of Marvel superfans willing to do so. Indeed, movie-ticket service Fandango announced that in the first week alone, Avengers: Endgame saw 85% more repeat viewers than Avengers: Infinity War. Marvel itself has banked on these repeat viewers in the past, having re-released Avengers: Endgame with seven minutes of additional footage in an explicit bid to draw in enough additional ticket sales to make the film the highest grossing of all time. In fact, the Guinness World Record for the most times seeing the same film in theaters is held by a Marvel fan who saw Avengers: Endgame 191 times in theatres; the previous record was held by a fan who saw Avengers: Infinity War 103 times. 43. But with Premier Access, there are no repeat ticket sales. Subscribers pay a onetime fee to view the Picture as many times as they want. It is tantamount to handing each moviegoer a free DVD on their way out of the theatre. On top of that, unlike in the theatres, a single Premier Access purchase of the Picture can be shared with tens if not hundreds of would-be paying moviegoers whose ticket buying would have generated WWBO. Still other viewers will forego the theatre and the $30 Premier Access fee because they know they can simply wait what is widely expected to be just 90 days to access the Picture on Disney+ through a regular $8 monthly subscription. And millions of others who would have watched in the theatres will instead view the Picture on perfect digital pirated copies—all made possible by Disney’s decision to release the Picture “day-and-date” on Disney+. Indeed, Black Widow was the No. 1 pirated title of the July 19 week, per the news site TorrentFreak. All of this has undermined the consideration promised to Ms. Johansson in her Agreement and ignores Marvel’s recognition that her “whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures.” 44. Adding insult to injury, Ms. Johansson has spent the last several months fulfilling her own obligation under the Agreement to promote the Picture—and therefore, by association, its release on Disney+. In other words, Disney has enjoyed the benefits of having one of Hollywood’s top actresses promote its wholly owned subscription service at no additional cost to Disney, and with the intended effect of taking money out of that actress’ own pocket. 45. On information and belief, Marvel’s decision to release the Picture simultaneously in theatres and on Disney+ Premier Access—if it can be called Marvel’s decision at all—was the direct result of Disney’s tortious interference with the Agreement. Absent this interference, it was Marvel’s intent and desire to release the Picture exclusively in theatres at a time that would have maximized box office receipts and, therefore, Marvel’s and Ms. Johansson’s profits from the Picture. The only reason Marvel did not wait for a more opportune time to release the Picture exclusively in theatres as intended is because it was induced or forced by Disney to release it dayand-date on Disney+ Premier Access to drive profits to Disney at Ms. Johansson’s expense. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson's Lawsuit Claims Disney's Tactics Hurt 'Black Widow' Box Office

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 7 of 12. D. In Blatant Breach of Marvel’s Promises to Ms. Johansson, Disney Gives the Picture a Day-and-Date Release on Disney+ 30. The Picture was initially scheduled to be released on May 1, 2020. However, its release was delayed several times during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of September 2020, the Picture was scheduled to be released exclusively in theatres on May 7, 2021. 31. By early 2021, industry commentators began speculating about the possibility that the Picture’s release might be delayed again, or, in the alternative, that it might be released simultaneously in theatres and on Disney+ for a premium price. 32. When asked by an industry publication in January 2021 if the Picture would “stick to a theatrical release or go to Disney+,” Marvel’s President, Kevin Feige, was noncommittal. But he admitted that parent company Disney—not Marvel—was calling the shots when it came to Marvel Studios’ content on Disney+ and in the theatres, and that the intent was for the MCU’s “storytelling” to continue to unfold both in theatres and on Disney’s flagship streaming platform, stating: All I can tell you is that for the past three years since Bob Iger brought me into his office and talked about a streaming platform that would become Disney+ and asked us to start working on programs for it. [sic] Our long lead plan was to have the MCU and the storytelling woven between weekly episodic big swings on Disney+ and into the feature big swings in theaters. 33. Speaking about the Picture on a February 11, 2021 earnings call, Mr. Iger’s successor, Bob Chapek, stated that “We are still intending it to be a theatrical release,” but declined to clarify if it would be released on May 7 as scheduled or delayed again. In a February 12 article, Variety reported that Marvel’s Mr. Feige “was opposed to a hybrid rollout,” but that “the powers that be” from Disney could still “convince Feige to change his mind—or overrule him completely.” 34. On March 17, 2021, Disney’s Mr. Chapek cleared up any remaining doubt that it was Disney, not Marvel, calling the shots, telling Bloomberg Television that “We’ll make the call probably at the last minute in terms of how these films come to market, whether it’s Black Widow or any other title. . . . We’ll be watching the call carefully and make the call when we have to.” Days later, on March 23, 2021, Disney announced that, instead of having a traditional exclusive theatrical release to maximize WWBO receipts, the Picture would get a “day-and-date” release on July 9, 2021 and be released simultaneously both in theatres and on Disney+ Premier Access. 35. As previously stated, Disney+ Premier Access is available only to customers who pay for a Disney+ subscription. Those customers can then pay an additional $30 fee to unlock access to a new release that they could otherwise only see in theatres. Unlike traditional premium video-on-demand releases, which typically give the viewer a 48-hour window to watch the content they have purchased, once a Disney+ Premier Access film is unlocked, the customer can watch it as many times as she wants for no additional fee as long as she remains a subscriber. 36. On May 24, 2021, Disney’s Mr. Chapek openly admitted that the theatrical market was “still fairly weak” from the pandemic and predicted that “the marketplace will recover more fully and that type of exclusive [theatrical] distribution will make more sense” by the time other Disney movies, such as Free Guy and Shang-Chi, are released in August and September. He offered no explanation for why Black Widow—a guaranteed box office smash in a pre-pandemic world—was still scheduled for an early July release. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Lead image by Thibault Penin on Unsplash Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 7 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 7 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here D. In Blatant Breach of Marvel’s Promises to Ms. Johansson, Disney Gives the Picture a Day-and-Date Release on Disney+ 30. The Picture was initially scheduled to be released on May 1, 2020. However, its release was delayed several times during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of September 2020, the Picture was scheduled to be released exclusively in theatres on May 7, 2021. 31. By early 2021, industry commentators began speculating about the possibility that the Picture’s release might be delayed again, or, in the alternative, that it might be released simultaneously in theatres and on Disney+ for a premium price. 32. When asked by an industry publication in January 2021 if the Picture would “stick to a theatrical release or go to Disney+,” Marvel’s President, Kevin Feige, was noncommittal. But he admitted that parent company Disney—not Marvel—was calling the shots when it came to Marvel Studios’ content on Disney+ and in the theatres, and that the intent was for the MCU’s “storytelling” to continue to unfold both in theatres and on Disney’s flagship streaming platform, stating: All I can tell you is that for the past three years since Bob Iger brought me into his office and talked about a streaming platform that would become Disney+ and asked us to start working on programs for it. [sic] Our long lead plan was to have the MCU and the storytelling woven between weekly episodic big swings on Disney+ and into the feature big swings in theaters. 33. Speaking about the Picture on a February 11, 2021 earnings call, Mr. Iger’s successor, Bob Chapek, stated that “We are still intending it to be a theatrical release,” but declined to clarify if it would be released on May 7 as scheduled or delayed again. In a February 12 article, Variety reported that Marvel’s Mr. Feige “was opposed to a hybrid rollout,” but that “the powers that be” from Disney could still “convince Feige to change his mind—or overrule him completely.” 34. On March 17, 2021, Disney’s Mr. Chapek cleared up any remaining doubt that it was Disney, not Marvel, calling the shots, telling Bloomberg Television that “We’ll make the call probably at the last minute in terms of how these films come to market, whether it’s Black Widow or any other title. . . . We’ll be watching the call carefully and make the call when we have to.” Days later, on March 23, 2021, Disney announced that, instead of having a traditional exclusive theatrical release to maximize WWBO receipts, the Picture would get a “day-and-date” release on July 9, 2021 and be released simultaneously both in theatres and on Disney+ Premier Access. 35. As previously stated, Disney+ Premier Access is available only to customers who pay for a Disney+ subscription. Those customers can then pay an additional $30 fee to unlock access to a new release that they could otherwise only see in theatres. Unlike traditional premium video-on-demand releases, which typically give the viewer a 48-hour window to watch the content they have purchased, once a Disney+ Premier Access film is unlocked, the customer can watch it as many times as she wants for no additional fee as long as she remains a subscriber. 36. On May 24, 2021, Disney’s Mr. Chapek openly admitted that the theatrical market was “still fairly weak” from the pandemic and predicted that “the marketplace will recover more fully and that type of exclusive [theatrical] distribution will make more sense” by the time other Disney movies, such as Free Guy and Shang-Chi, are released in August and September. He offered no explanation for why Black Widow—a guaranteed box office smash in a pre-pandemic world—was still scheduled for an early July release. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com Lead image by Thibault Penin on Unsplash Lead image by Thibault Penin on Unsplash Thibault Penin on Unsplash

How Disney's Streaming Strategy Clashed with Scarlett Johansson's 'Black Widow' Release

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 12. C. Disney Announces the Launch of Streaming Platform Disney+, Leading Marvel to Further Clarify Its Promises to Ms. Johansson 25. On August 8, 2017, Disney announced its plans to launch “a new Disney-branded direct-to-consumer service in 2019.” This then-unnamed service would eventually become Disney+, a SVOD platform that is wholly owned by Disney and features films and television series from an array of Disney brands. 26. By the time Disney+ launched on November 12, 2019, it was competing with a number of other major subscription streaming platforms, including but not limited to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, CBS All Access, HBO Now, and Apple TV+. With an initial subscription fee of $7 per month, which was thereafter increased to $8 per month, Disney+ needed premium content to convince potential customers to dig into their wallets and shell out for yet another premium SVOD service. 27. At a shareholder meeting on March 7, 2019, Disney’s then-CEO Bob Iger announced that Disney’s entire feature film library would be made available on Disney+. He also signaled that Disney’s 2019 theatrical releases, beginning with MCU entry Captain Marvel, would debut on Disney+ for streaming after their theatrical runs. Finally, Mr. Iger indicated that Disney+ would have its own slate of original films and series. 28. In light of these announcements, Ms. Johansson’s representatives reached out to Marvel to confirm that the launch of Disney+ would not impact the exclusive, wide theatrical release that Ms. Johansson had bargained for in the Agreement. Dave Galluzzi, Marvel’s Chief Counsel, responded on March 20, 2019: Further [to] our conversation today, it is 100% our plan to do a typical wide release of Black Widow. We have very high expectations for the film and are very excited to try to do for Black Widow what we’ve just done with Captain Marvel. We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses. (Emphases added.) Mr. Galluzzi attached a fully executed copy of the Agreement to this email. 29. Thus, Mr. Galluzzi, on Marvel’s behalf, communicated his understanding that Ms. Johansson’s WWBO bonus was her primary consideration under the Agreement, that the Picture would be “widely theatrically released,” and that this release would be “like our other pictures,” meaning exclusively to theatres for between 82 and 159 days, with an average uninterrupted window of 117 days. Moreover, Mr. Galluzzi acknowledged on behalf of Marvel that any change in that planned theatrical release would materially and adversely impact the value of the Agreement to Ms. Johansson and thus the deal would need to be renegotiated to account for the reduction in her promised backend compensation. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 6 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here C. Disney Announces the Launch of Streaming Platform Disney+, Leading Marvel to Further Clarify Its Promises to Ms. Johansson 25. On August 8, 2017, Disney announced its plans to launch “a new Disney-branded direct-to-consumer service in 2019.” This then-unnamed service would eventually become Disney+, a SVOD platform that is wholly owned by Disney and features films and television series from an array of Disney brands. 26. By the time Disney+ launched on November 12, 2019, it was competing with a number of other major subscription streaming platforms, including but not limited to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, CBS All Access, HBO Now, and Apple TV+. With an initial subscription fee of $7 per month, which was thereafter increased to $8 per month, Disney+ needed premium content to convince potential customers to dig into their wallets and shell out for yet another premium SVOD service. 27. At a shareholder meeting on March 7, 2019, Disney’s then-CEO Bob Iger announced that Disney’s entire feature film library would be made available on Disney+. He also signaled that Disney’s 2019 theatrical releases, beginning with MCU entry Captain Marvel , would debut on Disney+ for streaming after their theatrical runs. Finally, Mr. Iger indicated that Disney+ would have its own slate of original films and series. Captain Marvel 28. In light of these announcements, Ms. Johansson’s representatives reached out to Marvel to confirm that the launch of Disney+ would not impact the exclusive, wide theatrical release that Ms. Johansson had bargained for in the Agreement. Dave Galluzzi, Marvel’s Chief Counsel, responded on March 20, 2019: Further [to] our conversation today, it is 100% our plan to do a typical wide release of Black Widow. We have very high expectations for the film and are very excited to try to do for Black Widow what we’ve just done with Captain Marvel. typical wide release typical wide release We totally understand that Scarlett’s willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures . We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses. her whole deal her whole deal like our other pictures like our other pictures the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses. the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses. (Emphases added.) Mr. Galluzzi attached a fully executed copy of the Agreement to this email. 29. Thus, Mr. Galluzzi, on Marvel’s behalf, communicated his understanding that Ms. Johansson’s WWBO bonus was her primary consideration under the Agreement, that the Picture would be “widely theatrically released,” and that this release would be “like our other pictures,” meaning exclusively to theatres for between 82 and 159 days, with an average uninterrupted window of 117 days. Moreover, Mr. Galluzzi acknowledged on behalf of Marvel that any change in that planned theatrical release would materially and adversely impact the value of the Agreement to Ms. Johansson and thus the deal would need to be renegotiated to account for the reduction in her promised backend compensation. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

The Email That Set Off Scarlett Johansson's Dispute with Marvel Over Disney+

ইমেল যা ডিজনি+ নিয়ে মার্ভেলের সাথে স্কারলেট জোহানসনের বিরোধ বন্ধ করে দেয়

Die E-Mail, die Scarlett Johanssons Streit mit Marvel über Disney+ auslöste

El correo electrónico que desencadenó la disputa de Scarlett Johansson con Marvel por Disney+

L'e-mail qui a déclenché le différend entre Scarlett Johansson et Marvel à propos de Disney+

वह ईमेल जिसने स्कारलेट जोहानसन और डिज़्नी+ को लेकर मार्वल के बीच विवाद को जन्म दिया

スカーレット・ヨハンソンとマーベルがディズニー+をめぐって争うきっかけとなったメール

Disney+를 두고 Marvel과 Scarlett Johansson의 분쟁을 촉발한 이메일

O e-mail que desencadeou a disputa de Scarlett Johansson com a Marvel pela Disney +

Письмо, которое положило начало спору Скарлетт Йоханссон с Marvel из-за Disney+

Scarlett Johansson'un Marvel ile Disney+ Konusunda Anlaşmazlığını Başlatan E-posta

Email gây ra tranh chấp giữa Scarlett Johansson với Marvel về Disney+

这封电子邮件引发了斯嘉丽·约翰逊与漫威关于 Disney+ 的争执

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 5 of 12. B. The Agreement 21. The Agreement, dated May 9, 2017, sets forth the understanding between Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. (referred to therein as “Lender”) and Marvel (referred to therein as “Producer”) concerning Ms. Johansson’s (referred to therein as “Artist”) services in connection with the Picture. Paragraph 2, titled “ENGAGEMENT,” states: Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens). (Emphasis added.) 22. At the time the Agreement was entered, it was well understood by the parties and Disney that a “theatrical release” referred to an exclusive release in theatres for an extended period of time that was roughly 90-120 days. With the exception of certain less-valuable, direct-to-video releases, it has long been custom and practice in the film industry for feature films to have at least a 90-day exclusive theatrical release before they are released on home video. Although some films have started to see shorter theatrical windows, Marvel Studios’ previous films have generally had theatrical windows consistent with the industry standard, and sometimes even longer. Specifically, Marvel Studios’ previous feature films had uninterrupted theatrical windows between 82 and 159 days, with an average uninterrupted window of 117 days. Of the seven Marvel Studios’ films in which Ms. Johansson starred prior to the Picture—for which Ms. Johansson also received certain bonuses tied to box office receipts—none had a theatrical window shorter than 96 days. And none included “day-and-date” releases on streaming platforms as would come to pass with Black Widow; rather, in connection with those films, it took six to eight months before Marvel Studios’ films would be available for streaming on an SVOD service like Disney+. 23. In further recognition of the importance of a traditional and exclusive theatrical release, the Agreement also grants Ms. Johansson “the right to full and meaningful consultation in good faith with [Marvel] as to the . . . initial release pattern of the Picture[.]” 24. These promises concerning the Picture’s release—including the language requiring a “wide theatrical release,” set forth on the very first page of the Agreement and in the same paragraph that establishes Ms. Johansson’s role and services—were material and essential to the Agreement. That is because in addition to certain fixed compensation, Ms. Johansson was to receive was deferred compensation and bonuses directly tied to the amount of worldwide box office (“WWBO”) receipts for the Picture. The greater the WWBO, the more Ms. Johansson stands to earn. In other words, Ms. Johansson’s compensation for the Picture hinges upon WWBO receipts—and, by extension, a traditional exclusive theatrical release, consistent with Marvel’s past theatrical releases, that would allow her to realize the full value of her bargain. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 5 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 5 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. The Agreement 21. The Agreement, dated May 9, 2017, sets forth the understanding between Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. (referred to therein as “Lender”) and Marvel (referred to therein as “Producer”) concerning Ms. Johansson’s (referred to therein as “Artist”) services in connection with the Picture. Paragraph 2, titled “ENGAGEMENT,” states: Lender shall furnish Producer the services of Artist to perform the role of ‘Black Widow’ / ‘Natasha Romanova’ in the theatrical motion picture currently entitled ‘Black Widow’ (‘Picture’). For the avoidance of doubt, if Producer in its sole discretion determines to release the Picture, then such release shall be a wide theatrical release of the Picture (i.e., no less than 1,500 screens). wide theatrical release wide theatrical release (Emphasis added.) 22. At the time the Agreement was entered, it was well understood by the parties and Disney that a “theatrical release” referred to an exclusive release in theatres for an extended period of time that was roughly 90-120 days. With the exception of certain less-valuable, direct-to-video releases, it has long been custom and practice in the film industry for feature films to have at least a 90-day exclusive theatrical release before they are released on home video. Although some films have started to see shorter theatrical windows, Marvel Studios’ previous films have generally had theatrical windows consistent with the industry standard, and sometimes even longer. Specifically, Marvel Studios’ previous feature films had uninterrupted theatrical windows between 82 and 159 days, with an average uninterrupted window of 117 days. Of the seven Marvel Studios’ films in which Ms. Johansson starred prior to the Picture—for which Ms. Johansson also received certain bonuses tied to box office receipts—none had a theatrical window shorter than 96 days. And none included “day-and-date” releases on streaming platforms as would come to pass with Black Widow; rather, in connection with those films, it took six to eight months before Marvel Studios’ films would be available for streaming on an SVOD service like Disney+. 23. In further recognition of the importance of a traditional and exclusive theatrical release, the Agreement also grants Ms. Johansson “the right to full and meaningful consultation in good faith with [Marvel] as to the . . . initial release pattern of the Picture[.]” 24. These promises concerning the Picture’s release—including the language requiring a “wide theatrical release,” set forth on the very first page of the Agreement and in the same paragraph that establishes Ms. Johansson’s role and services—were material and essential to the Agreement. That is because in addition to certain fixed compensation, Ms. Johansson was to receive was deferred compensation and bonuses directly tied to the amount of worldwide box office (“WWBO”) receipts for the Picture. The greater the WWBO, the more Ms. Johansson stands to earn. In other words, Ms. Johansson’s compensation for the Picture hinges upon WWBO receipts—and, by extension, a traditional exclusive theatrical release, consistent with Marvel’s past theatrical releases, that would allow her to realize the full value of her bargain. theatrical theatrical Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

The Contract Clause That Sparked Scarlett Johansson's Lawsuit Against Disney

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 4 of 12. A. Ms. Johansson is Cast in the Role of Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow 18. Ms. Johansson is an esteemed and versatile actress with over 25 years of Hollywood acting experience. Her credits include lead roles in critically-acclaimed films such as Lost in Translation, Match Point, The Prestige, The Other Boleyn Girl, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Her, Don Jon, Chef, Hail, Caesar!, The Jungle Book, Isle of Dogs, Marriage Story, and Jojo Rabbit. She is a two-time Academy Award nominee, a five-time Golden Globe nominee, winner of a BAFTA award, and winner of the 2010 Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. She will be honored later this fall as the 35th recipient of the American Cinematheque Award. 19. In 2010, Ms. Johansson made her debut in the MCU in Iron Man 2, and she would go on to star in six additional MCU films between 2012 and 2019. The MCU began as a connected series of films about individual superheroes who would come together to form the Avengers superhero team, which initially consisted of Marvel superheroes Iron Man, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow, played by Ms. Johansson. Over time, the MCU grew in scope, introducing other superheroes and teams from Marvel Comics and culminating in two crossover films, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, which brought all of these characters together. 20. Black Widow, also known as Natasha Romanoff or Romanova, is an elite spy and assassin. She is a notable member of the Avengers, not only for being the only woman in the initial lineup, but also because she does not have superhuman abilities. Whereas, for example, Captain America obtained extraordinary strength and athleticism from an experimental “supersoldier” serum, and Thor is the god of thunder who fights with a hammer forged by dwarves in the heart of a dying star, Black Widow relies solely upon her wits and her extraordinary skills, including expertise in hand-to-hand combat. Ms. Johansson accordingly prepared for the role with months of strength training as well as extensive training in stunts, hand-to-hand combat, and weapons combat. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 4 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 4 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. Ms. Johansson is Cast in the Role of Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow 18. Ms. Johansson is an esteemed and versatile actress with over 25 years of Hollywood acting experience. Her credits include lead roles in critically-acclaimed films such as Lost in Translation, Match Point, The Prestige, The Other Boleyn Girl, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Her, Don Jon, Chef, Hail, Caesar!, The Jungle Book, Isle of Dogs, Marriage Story, and Jojo Rabbit. She is a two-time Academy Award nominee, a five-time Golden Globe nominee, winner of a BAFTA award, and winner of the 2010 Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. She will be honored later this fall as the 35th recipient of the American Cinematheque Award. Lost in Translation, Match Point, The Prestige, The Other Boleyn Girl, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Her, Don Jon, Chef, Hail, Caesar!, The Jungle Book, Isle of Dogs, Marriage Story, Jojo Rabbit. 19. In 2010, Ms. Johansson made her debut in the MCU in Iron Man 2, and she would go on to star in six additional MCU films between 2012 and 2019. The MCU began as a connected series of films about individual superheroes who would come together to form the Avengers superhero team, which initially consisted of Marvel superheroes Iron Man, the Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow, played by Ms. Johansson. Over time, the MCU grew in scope, introducing other superheroes and teams from Marvel Comics and culminating in two crossover films, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers : Endgame , which brought all of these characters together. Infinity War Avengers Endgame 20. Black Widow, also known as Natasha Romanoff or Romanova, is an elite spy and assassin. She is a notable member of the Avengers, not only for being the only woman in the initial lineup, but also because she does not have superhuman abilities. Whereas, for example, Captain America obtained extraordinary strength and athleticism from an experimental “supersoldier” serum, and Thor is the god of thunder who fights with a hammer forged by dwarves in the heart of a dying star, Black Widow relies solely upon her wits and her extraordinary skills, including expertise in hand-to-hand combat. Ms. Johansson accordingly prepared for the role with months of strength training as well as extensive training in stunts, hand-to-hand combat, and weapons combat. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson's Iconic Role as Black Widow in the MCU

Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 12. III. PARTIES 16. Plaintiff Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Scarlett Johansson is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in the county of Los Angeles. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was and is the “loan-out” company through which Scarlett Johansson provided her acting services in connection with the Picture. 17. Defendant The Walt Disney Company, on information and belief, is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware doing business throughout the United States, including at its offices in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 3 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. PARTIES 16. Plaintiff Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc., f/s/o Scarlett Johansson is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in the county of Los Angeles. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was and is the “loan-out” company through which Scarlett Johansson provided her acting services in connection with the Picture. 17. Defendant The Walt Disney Company, on information and belief, is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware doing business throughout the United States, including at its offices in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Stories, News & Mentions about WALTDISNEY

Waltdisney’s Stories on HackerNoon

Waltdisney's News & Mentions