Movie moguls sue Warner Brothers for “Hobbit” breach of contract
The contract says the Weinsteins and Miramax are owed receipts on the first motion picture based on each book, but not on remakes.
December 13, 2013 at 06:56 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
We all know The Hobbit, that Tolkien classic where a ragtag group of down-on-their-luck beings travel long ways to finally realize their dream and file a $75 million breach of contract claim in New York Supreme Court.
Haven't heard that version of the story? Well, movie moguls Harvey and Ben Weinstein are looking to change the narrative just as “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” hits movie theaters worldwide.
The Weinsteins and their former company Miramax Co., filed suit in court, saying that Time Warner Inc.-owned Warner Brothers owes them $75 million in damages for the final two “Hobbit” movies in the trilogy. Warner Brothers, meanwhile, claims that they do not owe any funds.
While headed by the Weinsteins, Miramax originally owned the big screen rights to both Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings tales. In 1998, the company decided to sell the rights to Warner Brothers for $11.8 million plus 5 percent of the movies' gross receipts. When the Weinsteins left Miramax and founded their own Weinstein Co., Miramax agreed to give half of those receipts to the two brothers.
Through the agreement, Miramax and the Weinsteins received $90 million for the Lord of the Rings movies and $25 million for the first Hobbit movie, according to The Wall Street Journal.
However, the disagreement comes within language of the payment contract. The contract says the Weinsteins and Miramax are owed receipts on the “first motion picture” based on each book, but not on “remakes.” However, nothing in the language stipulates what happens when a single book is split into multiple movies, such as what is happening with the Hobbit series.
Naturally, the Weinsteins want a piece of the action, but Warner Brothers views the second and third movies as remakes. According to the WSJ, Warner Brothers is attempting to keep the case out of court and have it be settled by an independent arbitrator.
Breach of contract suits are common in the legal industry, and InsideCounsel has the biggest ones covered:
IP: 3D printing can create trade secrets misappropriation opportunities
Compliance: Starbucks' expensive exit: A wake-up call to inside counsel
Starbucks to pay $2.79 billion over bagged coffee dispute
Litigation: The restrictive covenant and proper formation for enforceability and protection
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
