The Estate vs HBO

[NatureCriminal7896]

oooo I wonder what they have under their sleeve.

[myosotis]

From fans on twitter:

Today the MJ Estate reply brief was filed. It basically summarizes what happened in the original lawsuit.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4685...y-Brief-to-HBO









(Also with thanks to fans on Twitter: The Estate also filed a Supplemental excerpt of records, which holds most of the doc's already filed in the original lawsuit:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4685...rpts-of-Record )

[myosotis]

From fans on twitter (with thanks):

Re MJ Estate v HBO: HBO originally had 21 days from the filing of the answer brief by the Estate, to file a reply. That date would have been 7/29/20. HBO has asked for and received an extension. Their new reply date is by 8/31/20.

At the next hearing, there will be a panel of three judges, and each side will be allowed 15 mins of oral arguments.

[myosotis]

I'm seeing this on FB:

Update: MJ Estate v HBO.

Oral arguments are being considered for November, 2020. This is the last step in the appeals process before a decision about arbitration is made. Court will be held in Pasadena, not LA.

Hopefully the appeal panel will send this case on to arbitration, and not deny its progress.

Edited to add:

Oral arguments in the #MJEstatevHBO case will be on a single day in November in Pasadena. The open dates on the calendar are November 9-13 or 16-20.

Also:

August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO.

[NatureCriminal7896]

Reminder for the #MJEstatevHBO. August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO. It will probably be a rehash of the original lawsuit, but I will post on Scribd. In November, oral arguments will be made. And then we wait for a decision, probably early 2021.

— andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) August 8, 2020

[NatureCriminal7896]

Reminder for the #MJEstatevHBO. August 31st is the last day for the final reply to be filed by HBO. It will probably be a rehash of the original lawsuit, but I will post on Scribd. In November, oral arguments will be made. And then we wait for a decision, probably early 2021.

— andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) August 8, 2020

Look like we are doing this for a whole another year. ugh.

[myosotis]

HBO final reply brief here (Basically the same argument as before ie that the the 1992 contract did not create a perpetual non-disparagement obligation):

https://www.scribd.com/document/4743...ly-Brief-Final






We now wait for a date in November for the panel to decide whether the case should go to arbitration (on the basis of the 1992 non-disparagement clause) or not.

Oral arguments in the MJ Estate v HBO case will be on a single day in November in Pasadena. The open dates on the calendar are November 9-13 or 16-20.

(After the panel hearing, we will then have to wait some time for a decision. The losing party may then be able to appeal).

[Nantucket Cat]

"...the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

I'm not super well-versed in law, so I could be completely misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like their argument is basically "in 1992, we weren't expecting to ever show anything else about MJ, so since we didn't anticipate LN, it doesn't count." Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, it seems like a completely nonsensical argument, akin to "we didn't expect to get caught, so now it doesn't matter that we did."

[myosotis]

"...the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

I'm not super well-versed in law, so I could be completely misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like their argument is basically "in 1992, we weren't expecting to ever show anything else about MJ, so since we didn't anticipate LN, it doesn't count." Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, it seems like a completely nonsensical argument, akin to "we didn't expect to get caught, so now it doesn't matter that we did."

Yes, HBO are basically saying that the contract 'ended' in 1992 (because it was written to cover the MJ concert performance which was televised), but the relevant clause in the contract (which their lawyers signed) reads otherwise. Both sides are quoting relevant cases as precedent for their own argument, so the appeal panel has to decide if the case can go to arbitration (as the 1992 contract indicates that such a breach should).

It seems that when the MJJ Co. wrote the 1992 contract they were thinking of the future, and when HBO signed it, they were not.

(If HBO didn't like this contract clause in 1992, presumably they could have clarified it or asked to have it changed back then. )

[NatureCriminal7896]

what does arbitration means?

[ScreenOrigami]

Yes, HBO are basically saying that the contract 'ended' in 1992 (because it was written to cover the MJ concert performance which was televised), but the relevant clause in the contract (which their lawyers signed) reads otherwise. Both sides are quoting relevant cases as precedent for their own argument, so the appeal panel has to decide if the case can go to arbitration (as the 1992 contract indicates that such a breach should).

It seems that when the MJJ Co. wrote the 1992 contract they were thinking of the future, and when HBO signed it, they were not.

(If HBO didn't like this contract clause in 1992, presumably they could have clarified it or asked to have it changed back then. )

Just a thought, but if they didn’t breach the clause in 1993 and 2003–2005 even though they surely had plenty of opportunities to drag MJ through the mud like everyone else did at the time, I guess they were well aware that their contract hadn’t expired in 1992.

[myosotis]

what does arbitration means?

Same as last time you asked, on 20th September 2019 (p13)

[NatureCriminal7896]

Same as last time you asked, on 20th September 2019 (p13)

Thanks. i'm not always to remember stuff.

[elusive moonwalker]

.the parties in 1992 did not intend for this provision to apply to HBO's exhibition of Leaving Neverland in 2019 and thus this dispute is not arbitrable."

-------------

So what programmes did/would it apply to🤔

Stupid argument. A contract is pretty clear either it says we will air the concert and agree not to slag you off when promoting it or the contract says we agree NEVER to slag you off in the future. The contract should be pretty clear and if it's not then the lawyers were crap at their job.

[Mikky Dee]

I hope the Estate wins this. I think they have a good chance, to be honest. It will be a moral victory.