Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Bit Parts

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 Affirming, the court of appeal observed in an unpublished opinion that Smashing Pictures argued that because it agreed to get “no interest in the films, then Fox must refund to Smashing the money it has already paid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 Entertainment Law & Finance 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 Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.