Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
October 28, 2011

Fox Film's Refusal to Return Initial Investment Isn't Breach of Co-Financing Agreement

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided that Twentieth Century Fox Film didn't breach a “Co-Financing/Co-Producing & First Look” agreement by refusing to return an initial payment it received from its deal partner. Smashing Pictures LLC v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., B227872. Smashing Pictures and Fox entered in an agreement covering as many as 20 teen-oriented movies, including four that were already completed and owned by Fox. Though it didn't pay Fox the full $25 million it promised to invest under the agreement, Smashing Pictures sued Fox in Los Angeles Superior Court for breach of contract, seeking return of the $8,618,151 it had paid. The trial court adopted a referee's report in favor of Fox. Affirming, the court of appeal observed in an unpublished opinion that Smashing Pictures argued that because it agreed to get “no interest in the films, then Fox must refund to Smashing the money it has already paid to Fox.” An amendment to the co-financing agreement negotiated after Smashing Pictures failed to pay the full $25 million “appears to address the very question facing the parties,” the court of appeal noted. The court added that the amendment “not only allocated Smashing's partial investment among the Inventory Pictures, but gave Fox 'sole discretion' to reallocate that investment if Smashing failed to provide full funding.”

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.