[ad_1]
“The clear and expansive language of the arbitration agreement easily encompasses Pervenche’s complaint,” states a motion to compel arbitration. “In a futile effort to evade this inevitable outcome (and generate publicity through public filing), Periwinkle has excluded Marvel as a party to this lawsuit – instead replacing its parent company Disney under theories of ‘contract interference. But long-standing principles do not allow such a game. “
The decision to push arbitration is not unexpected, and while Disney documents for the first time detail the exact language of the arbitration provision (see here), lawyers for the company also make points that are less legally important at this stage but will certainly attract attention. .
For example, Disney says that Black Widow has been put on more than 9,000 screens in the United States, allegedly fulfilling its obligation to film over as many as 1,500 (again, Johansson says it had to be exclusive), and according to the latest filing, dated August 15th, Black Widow has grossed over $ 367 million in box office revenue worldwide and over $ 125 million in streaming and download revenue.
Disney compares the Black Widow released on other films in the Marvel Cannon, claiming the opening weekend’s take was “more than that of many other Marvel Cinematic Universe films, including Thor: The Dark World; The ant Man; Ant-Man and the Wasp; and guardians of the galaxy. “
“Despite Picture’s impressive projection during the pandemic era and the decision to credit Periwinkle with streaming and download receipts, Periwinkle was dissatisfied,” the motion continues.
While it probably isn’t necessary at this point, the legal documents also deal with Johansson’s contractual theories and the presentation of evidence, including one where a Marvel lawyer once told his lawyer about the case in writing. : “We fully understand that Scarlett’s desire to make the film and its whole business is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other images. “
While Periwinkle tries to challenge this unambiguous contractual language by citing a pre-pandemic 2019 email from a Marvel executive, the communication simply confirmed Marvel’s intention to honor the contract’s provision on the ‘theatrical release’ wide – which Marvel ultimately did, despite the drastically altered circumstances of a 2020-2021 global pandemic. “
This, of course, is subject to interpretation. The question at this point – a question which is not entirely unimportant and which may influence the course of future litigation – is whether it will be a judge or an arbitrator who will do the interpretation.
[ad_2]
Source link