Stan Lee Media sues Marvel
Oh, how I love financial and legal shenanigans. Stan Lee Media has one of the messier histories in the dot-com boom and bust, with tales of stock manipulation and attempted bribes to Bill and Hillary Clinton by partner Peter Paul. And it looks like we aren’t done yet.
Fresh out of bankruptcy, Stan Lee Media, Inc. filed a $5 billion lawsuit against Marvel Entertainment yesterday in US District Court in NY. In the suit, as reported by Marvel, Stan Lee Media claims it is shares co-ownership of some of Marvel’s superhero characters. Marvel says the suit is without merit.
The suit claims that Stan Lee throughout his employment with Marvel retained the co-creator rights to all his characters, and in August 1998 when Marvel terminated Stan’s employment, he regained those rights. Stan then went and formed the dotcom firm Stan Lee Media as a way to tap into the Internet boom, and on October 15, 1998, he signed over not only his creations to the new firm, but his likeness as well. Then in November, 1998, Lee individually entered an employment agreement with Marvel, signing over his Marvel characters and likeness to Marvel, despite having already signed over the rights to Stan Lee Media. The suit claims Stan Lee Media informed Marvel of their contract and that Marvel "independently and/or in collusion with Stan Lee, intentionally concealed the material terms" of Marvel’s new agreement from Stan Lee Media, the public and its own shareholders, and that Stan Lee Media is entitled to 50 percent of all revenue going back three years and going forward 50 years. (By law, they can only go back three years, not as far as 1998.)
To make matters even more confusing, Stan the Man himself is no longer affiliated with the recently emerged from bankruptcy Stan Lee Media. In fact, Stan and his current company, POW Entertainment (makers of Who Wants To Be A Superhero?) is suing the principals in Stan Lee Media alleging that they illegally took over his former company and infringed on his trademarks and copyrights. Stan has said that, “I do not support this action and believe the suit to be baseless.”
Here is the latest. On July 9, 2007, Stan Lee and POW! were sued in Federal District Court in Los Angeles for bankruptcy fraud. Here is a scan of the cover sheet of the filing – http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863321/…
Whereas we are aware of the filing, we are attempting to gather more information from sources better than — and in our opinion, less prejudiced than — Free Republic.
What a lame comment, Mike. I provided you information directly from the complaint. I made no conservative vs liberal spin. By all means, go do what I did. Read the 100+ pages of the complaint and exhibits. Spend many hours at the bankruptcy court reading the files. Speak to the Trustee if she will speak with you. This is a report on the filing of a lawsuit. How does referencing it on FreeRepublic without political commentary make it prejudiced? Because you would rather shoot off your mouth instead of doing some investigating, here are a few things you need to know. In 2002, Stan signed a court-approved agreement to remove properties for development from the BK free and clear of debt. He signed on behalf of SLC LLC. Do the search to confirm if you like, but I will tell you that SLC LLC was never formed by him. Go prove me wrong. There are recorded documents (part of the exhibits) showing a transfer of the assets a few months prior to the BK dismissal, which was late in 2006. It was signed by the debtor in possession in favor of another insider, and the assets went to QED, a subsidiary of POW!. It would cost you over $20,000 to have all the documents copied from this bankruptcy. I'll save you the time and expense. Nowhere in the entire BK will you find any authority given or agreement signed allowing the assets to be transferred to QED. The judge didn't know about it. The Trustee didn't know about it. And the creditors didn't know about it. Whether the first report of this filing was made on FreeRepublic doesn't matter. You will be seeing this from a mainstream media reporter within a few days. Mr. Lee and his associates have some explaining to do. In the $5 billion dollar suit against Marvel, both he and Marvel have some explaining to do about the contract signed by Lee with SLM in October 1998 and the nearly identical one signed by Lee with Marvel a month later.
I wasn't attacking you, DFU. I was telling you our thought process ("our" meaning Glenn Hauman and me) when we decided not to go with the story solely based upon the comments in FreeRepublic.Here's a clue: if you're doing a story about somebody suing Stan Lee and you tie that story into Bill Clinton at the very beginning, you're probably carrying around a political agenda. And, yes, I'd feel exactly the same way if I heard the same story on, say, Air America and they set up a connection to Dick Cheney.But…FAR more important…ALL of your comments come from the complaint. That's ONE side of the argument. Only one. In our judicial system, we attempt to let defendants answer complaints. Then the whole thing goes to court. Or not, depending upon legal mechanics. What you are reporting is not fact, it's just the complaint. When you say various parties knew nothing of Stan's activities, what you are saying may not be accurate or may not be the whole story. I have no doubt Stan's lawyers have another point of view and will make that known at the proscribed time.That doesn't mean Stan Lee is innocent of the charges in this civil suit. It means Stan Lee gets his turn at bat. It's the American way.Or at least it used to be before assholes like FreeRepublic started putting dictators in office.
Whew. I was worried there for a minute, but it looks like Christmas was saved!