This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Civil Petition
Refund Clause

Studiocanal Pty Limited v. IF Entertainment, LLC, Fallen Holdings, LLC, and Lotus Media LLC

Published: Dec. 21, 2018 | Result Date: Oct. 11, 2018 | Filing Date: Jul. 12, 2017 |

Case number: BS170203 Arbitration –  $1,920,023

Arbitrator

Eve H. Wagner

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Petitioner

Max J. Sprecher
(Law Office of Max J. Sprecher)


Respondent

Robert F. Marshall
(Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger LLP)


Facts

Petitioner Studiocanal Pty Limited obtained distribution rights for the motion picture "Fallen" from respondents for the Australian/New Zealand territories. The distribution agreement provided for a refund of the license fee paid by petitioner in the event no United States theatrical release occurred by the date designated in the distribution agreement. After the deadline for the theatrical release passed, without the required release, petitioner demanded a refund from the respondents, i.e., the producer, the sales agent, and a third-party guarantor.

Arbitration was initiated with the Independent Film and Television Alliance, and the arbitration concluded with a five-day contested hearing. The arbitrator granted the relief requested by petitioner and petitioner filed its petition to confirm the award.

Contentions

PETITIONER CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended respondents failed to abide by the terms of a settlement by which the petition to confirm was dismissed with the court reserving jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, petitioner sought reactivation of the action and entry of judgment of the arbitration award pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 664.6.

Petitioner contended that the refund clause was fully enforceable and that respondents were jointly and severally liable for all monies paid to the financing bank pursuant to the distribution agreement and related financing assignment.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Respondents contended that the refund clause was not enforceable on various grounds, including among other theories, waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.

Result

Judgment for $1,920,023, reflecting refund damages of $1.7 million, plus arbitral costs, attorney fees, and interest, minus agreed upon credits.

Length

five days


#130347

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390