The legal machinations
between Laura Siegel, Marc Toberoff and DC Comics hit a whole new level in the
past week. Documents filed in the Court
Of Appeals shows that DC Comics are standing firm with their claim that a deal
had been struck on the 19th of October 2001 and that the same deal
was allegedly soured by the interference of Marc Toberoff. This time they’re not just relying on the
court to agree with them even though they're still throwing out the usual lines about work-for-hire, they’ve now stated that, “Under the deal, Larson
would receive tens of millions of dollars in cash and future royalties, which
DC has fully reserved and remains ready to pay. DC would receive peace with
Larson and certainty in its Superman rights.
The deal went bad only when - and only because - Hollywood
businessman Marc Toberoff entered the picture, seeking to reopen the dispute
and obtain the Superman rights himself.”
This stance everyone is aware of now and DC have made sure of that by
taking Toberoff to task in a separate case.
In recent times DC has merely
hinted about the amounts of money that Laura Siegel stands to gain for settling
the suit and signing with them. The
hints have always been in the wording of ‘tens of millions of dollars’, but
finally DC have announced the amount that is sitting aside for her. Buried in a footnote to a line about accounting
and reservation of amounts due, DC have stated that, “…the record fact remains
that a reserve was set; it totals more than $20 million, and the funds will be
paid to Larson if this Court enforces the 2001 agreement. Larson gets all of
this money, though Marks may have a claim to 5%; only Toberoff loses his
improperly obtained 40% (or more) cut.”
Thus the actual amount is still yet to be revealed, but that equates to
roughly $2,000,000 per year since the accounting period began in 2001. That’s a lot of money for anyone to turn
their back on and when you consider that the deal included such benefits as
health insurance – a brilliant carrot to dangle in the USA – then it
would give people pause and have them ask, what exactly was wrong with the deal
in the first place.
There are those who claim to
know what was wrong. Those people state
that the deal was ‘changed’ considerably, and Joanne Siegel even hinted at
this. However with the thousands of pages
that has been filed in all of the cases, no amended deal has been
supplied. You would assume that if the
deal that DC offered had been altered then surely it would have surfaced by
now, but no. As it stands the only
people who know exactly why the deal was rejected appear to be Laura Siegel and
Marc Toberoff, and they’re being very coy with the reasons, but more on that
later this week when I open the Pandora’s Box on the correspondence between all
parties. Until then have a read of DC
latest Reply Brief and ask yourself this – if you were as impoverished as Laura
Siegel (and Marc Toberoff) claims she is, could you turn your back on that much
money? And, if the case is not about money, then what is it about?






























1 comment:
That was fascinating! I can't wait to see where this case goes next; it seems difficult to refute most of what is presented here.
Post a Comment