The Estate vs HBO

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
Mikky Dee;4303348 said:
I hope the Estate wins this. I think they have a good chance, to be honest. It will be a moral victory.

I concur, there’s no way HBO’s gonna win, there’s no expiration date to the “non-disparagement” contract at all, even when Michael died.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,684
Points
38
PoP;4303366 said:
I concur, there’s no way HBO’s gonna win, there’s no expiration date to the “non-disparagement” contract at all, even when Michael died.

In my layperson’s opinion, to win this case HBO would actually have to pinpoint the exact moment they believe the contract was fulfilled. It’s obviously absurd to claim it has been completely fulfilled right after they aired the concert, because then the non-disparagement clause would have been entirely meaningless. So, when exactly did the clause expire, and why? That’s the question they will have to answer, and I don’t think there’s a reasonable answer to that.
 
Last edited:

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,684
Points
38
NatureCriminal7896;4303431 said:
Win what? where we stand now?

There’s going to be another hearing in November, and then the judge will have to decide whether or not the 1992 arbitration agreement covers the LN broadcast dispute. We hope the judge decides that the 1992 agreement covers the current situation, of course.

It’s still a long time before the whole case is won, but this is the next step that’s going happen.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
ScreenOrigami;4303369 said:
In my layperson’s opinion, to win this case HBO would actually have to pinpoint the exact moment they believe the contract was fulfilled. It’s obviously absurd to claim it has been completely fulfilled right after they aired the concert, because then the non-disparagement clause would have been entirely meaningless. So, when exactly did the clause expire, and why? That’s the question they will have to answer, and I don’t think there’s a reasonable answer to that.
I would make HBO pay for the fact they took the word of two perjury men who lies in LN are being revealed over and over and their lies they told even in LN can be proven yet HBO ignored all this evidence before they fact check this so called Documentary. They deserve to lose and need to pay the Estste since they promoted this lying LN all over the world as fact which it was not
 
Last edited:

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
From fans on Twitter:
(It sounds as if this is the panel date, but it's not yet clear whether atty's for both sides will need to speak in person or by video or if the whole thing will be done from the submissions made by both sides. All the arguments are in the paper submissions.)

After the panel, we may not hear the decision for weeks to months.

Don't forget that the decision will be 'whether the case can proceed to arbitration or not'. If it can, there will be a whole further arbitration step/ process before the actual decision on the case.

Re: #MJEstatevHBO
Oral arguments will be heard on Thursday, November 19, at 1 pm.
The judge has not decided whether arguments should be heard, but if so, this would be the date. Also, arguments could be held remotely.
 
Last edited:

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,398
Points
83
Wade has changed his story again! Saying him and his SISTER st stayed in mj bed
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
8701girl;4303805 said:
Wade has changed his story again! Saying him and his SISTER st stayed in mj bed

He’s full of bull$#|^.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,310
Points
0
HBO urged an appeals court on Thursday to throw out a lawsuit brought by the Michael Jackson estate over the “Leaving Neverland” documentary.

The estate sued HBO for $100 million, arguing that the network broke a 27-year-old promise not to disparage the late pop star by accusing him of child sexual abuse.

The estate has also argued that the subjects of the documentary — Wade Robson and James Safechuck — had a financial incentive to fabricate their allegations. Jackson died in 2009, and so HBO cannot be sued for defaming him. Instead, the estate has invoked a non-disparagement provision from a contract for a 1992 concert film from Jackson’s “Dangerous” tour.

In September 2019, Judge George Wu sided with the Jackson estate, granting a request to take the case to arbitration. HBO appealed the ruling, claiming that the “Leaving Neverland” dispute had nothing to do with the 1992 contract.

Theodore Boutrous, arguing for HBO, urged a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court ruling on Thursday. He argued that the Jackson estate had filed the case as a “publicity stunt,” and that HBO would never have given Jackson and his heirs a perpetual veto over the network’s First Amendment rights.

“That is on its face absurd,” Boutrous argued. “There is nothing that suggests HBO intended that.”

Jonathan Steinsapir, arguing for the Jackson estate, countered that Jackson was the biggest star in the world at the time, and had the leverage to bargain for a strong non-disparagement provision.

Jackson “had been the subject of some extremely ridiculous tabloid reporting,” Steinsapir said. “It’s not crazy he would want that in an agreement.”

The judges seemed somewhat open to Boutrous’ argument that the 1992 contract is “far afield” from the “Leaving Neverland” dispute.

“This is pretty remote, isn’t it?” Judge Lawrence VanDyke asked Steinsapir.

But VanDyke also seemed inclined to leave the interpretation of the contract up to an arbitrator. Boutrous urged the panel instead to decide the case on its own.

“The court has a duty to interpret the contract to see if the dispute has its real substance in the contract,” Boutrous argued. “Consent is crucial. There was no agreement to arbitrate.”

read://https_www.yahoo.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fentertainment%2Fhbo-asks-appeals-court-toss-200631878.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dsocial-sh%26soc_trk%3Dtw%26tsrc%3Dtwtr
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
Not Budapest you idiots, Bucharest! Those idiot judges can’t get the name of the show right.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,310
Points
0
We still got a long way to go. but this is good news. it's pretty much over for HBO. keep having the faith.
 

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,303
Points
63
analogue;4312920 said:
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-lawsuit-appeal-1234853036/

Michael Jackson Estate Wins Appeal in HBO ‘Leaving Neverland’ Suit


[FONT=&amp]An appeals court on Monday handed a victory to the estate of [/FONT]Michael Jackson[FONT=&amp] in its battle over the 2019 [/FONT]HBO[FONT=&amp] documentary “[/FONT]Leaving Neverland[FONT=&amp],” which accused the late singer of sexually abusing two young boys.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Jackson estate sued HBO for $100 million, arguing that the documentary violated a 27-year-old non-disparagement clause from a 1992 concert film from the “Dangerous” tour. HBO has argued that the clause is irrelevant to the present dispute and accuses the Jackson estate of seeking to silence victims of sexual abuse.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Last year, a lower court granted the estate’s motion to take the dispute to arbitration, as provided by the contract. HBO appealed, but on Monday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lower court ruling. The judges conceded that the suit may be “frivolous,” as HBO has claimed, but said it will be up to an arbitrator to make that call.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“The contract contained a broad arbitration clause that covers claims that HBO disparaged Jackson in violation of ongoing confidentiality obligations,” the panel ruled. “We may only identify whether the parties agreed to arbitrate such claims; it is for the arbitrator to decide whether those claims are meritorious.”
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]HBO had sought to avoid arbitration, saying that the network had never intended to grant Jackson and his heirs a veto over anything the network might ever want to say about him. The network’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, also argued that the 1992 contract had effectively expired once each side fulfilled its obligations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The panel — Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Lawrence VanDyke and District Judge Karin Immergut — rejected that argument.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“An arbitration clause can still bind the parties, even if the parties fully performed the contract years ago,” they ruled.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The network could appeal the panel’s ruling to the full 9th Circuit, or now make its argument before an arbitrator.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Jackson’s attorneys, Howard Weitzman and Jonathan Steinsapir, issued a statement praising the ruling.
[/FONT]

“The trial judge and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have unanimously rejected HBO’s arguments,” they said. “In the court’s own words, HBO ‘agreed that it would not make any disparaging remarks concerning Jackson.’ It’s time for HBO to answer for its violation of its obligations to Michael Jackson.”
 
Last edited:

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
CherubimII;4312935 said:


[FONT=&]An appeals court on Monday handed a victory to the estate of [/FONT]Michael Jackson[FONT=&] in its battle over the 2019 [/FONT]HBO[FONT=&] documentary “[/FONT]Leaving Neverland[FONT=&],” which accused the late singer of sexually abusing two young boys.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The Jackson estate sued HBO for $100 million, arguing that the documentary violated a 27-year-old non-disparagement clause from a 1992 concert film from the “Dangerous” tour. HBO has argued that the clause is irrelevant to the present dispute and accuses the Jackson estate of seeking to silence victims of sexual abuse.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]Last year, a lower court granted the estate’s motion to take the dispute to arbitration, as provided by the contract. HBO appealed, but on Monday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lower court ruling. The judges conceded that the suit may be “frivolous,” as HBO has claimed, but said it will be up to an arbitrator to make that call.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]“The contract contained a broad arbitration clause that covers claims that HBO disparaged Jackson in violation of ongoing confidentiality obligations,” the panel ruled. “We may only identify whether the parties agreed to arbitrate such claims; it is for the arbitrator to decide whether those claims are meritorious.”
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]HBO had sought to avoid arbitration, saying that the network had never intended to grant Jackson and his heirs a veto over anything the network might ever want to say about him. The network’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, also argued that the 1992 contract had effectively expired once each side fulfilled its obligations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The panel — Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Lawrence VanDyke and District Judge Karin Immergut — rejected that argument.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]“An arbitration clause can still bind the parties, even if the parties fully performed the contract years ago,” they ruled.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The network could appeal the panel’s ruling to the full 9th Circuit, or now make its argument before an arbitrator.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Jackson’s attorneys, Howard Weitzman and Jonathan Steinsapir, issued a statement praising the ruling.
[/FONT]

“The trial judge and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have unanimously rejected HBO’s arguments,” they said. “In the court’s own words, HBO ‘agreed that it would not make any disparaging remarks concerning Jackson.’ It’s time for HBO to answer for its violation of its obligations to Michael Jackson.”

YES!!!
giphy.gif


giphy.gif


Suck it HBO!!!
giphy.gif
 

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
3,700
Points
63
HUGE victory for the Estate! We aren't out of the woods yet, but the clouds have parted quite a bit!
 

Thriller_MJ

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,836
Points
63
Have to say i felt a weight had been lifted when i read the estate won. The media are already spinning it that the estate want it done privately and fans on twitter are hounding them saying the estate want it done in public.
 
Top