Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historical Overview & Timeline: The Legal Battle for Ownership of Stan Lee Superheroes
slm inc website ^ | 7-2011

Posted on 07/07/2011 8:25:02 AM PDT by doug from upland

 

Home / ABOUT SLMI

Historical Overview & Timeline

Stan Lee is world renowned as a creative genius responsible for creating Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, and many other comic book icons.[link] In 1998, Lee co-founded a company that later became Stan Lee Media, Inc. (“SLMI”).

In July 1998, Bankruptcy Court records show that Marvel rejected and repudiated Lee’s employment contract during Marvel’s bankruptcy.[link][link] After Marvel rejected Lee’s contract, Lee was free to exploit his characters. As a result, Lee invested and assigned all of his intellectual property to SLMI in order to exploit the characters he created in new and traditional comic book media.

In October 1998, Lee executed an assignment[link] of all his intellectual property to SLMI, including his name and any rights to characters he had previously created – such as Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and X-Men (the “October 1998 Assignment”).[link]

In exchange for the October 1998 Assignment,[link] Lee received SLMI shares and a lifetime salary.

From the beginning, SLMI operated under the “direction” of Lee – and Lee was SLMI’s Chairman, Chief Creative Officer, and largest shareholder.[link]

In order to attract shareholder investment in SLMI, Lee executed a ratification[link] of the October 1998 Assignment in October 1999. SLMI filed the October 1999 ratification[link] with the SEC when SLMI initiated its “IPO” (initial public offering), and SLMI investors poured millions into SLMI.

The October 1998 Assignment[link] to SLMI is the only assignment of Lee’s rights recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office. Under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 205(d), the first-in-time recorded assignment prevails in a case of competing assignments.

Lee continued to direct and control SLMI and was the Company’s controlling shareholder when SLMI achieved a $300 million market cap on NASDAQ.[link]

SLMI’s SEC disclosures filed in 2000, signed by Lee as Chairman of the Company, contained the October 1998 Assignment and the October 1999 Ratification.[link]

Shortly thereafter, SLMI spiraled out of control under Lee’s direction, and SLMI’s management (with Lee’s knowledge and approval) put SLMI into bankruptcy on February 16, 2001.[link][link]

Thereafter, while Lee still maintained control of the Company, the SEC delisted SLMI,[link] the State of Colorado administratively dissolved the Company, [link] and Lee and others emptied the Company of its assets.

Under the October 1998 Assignment,[link] SLMI’s assets include the right to commercialize Lee’s name and image. When SLMI entered bankruptcy, its assets included all of Lee’s intellectual property and other assets such as Conan the Barbarian.[link][link] During SLMI’s bankruptcy, neither the October 1998 Assignment nor the October 1999 Ratification was disclosed in the company’s asset schedules.

Notwithstanding the October 1998 Assignment and the “stay” imposed by the United States Bankruptcy Code on claims to a bankrupt company’s assets during the SLMI bankruptcy, Lee commercialized his name on various projects such as “Stan Lee’s Stripperella.”

In 2002, Lee sued Marvel in a lawsuit known as Lee v. Marvel[link] to obtain the profits from Spider-Man, the movie.

In Lee v. Marvel[link], Lee claimed that he assigned the rights to Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, X-Men and others to Marvel in November 1998.[link]

In 2006, the bankruptcy court dismissed the SLMI bankruptcy case.[link]

After years of shareholder activism (commencing in 2007 after the bankruptcy court dismissed SLMI’s bankruptcy case), on May 27, 2010 the Colorado Court of Appeals handed SLMI shareholders a victory defeating attempts by Lee and others to block SLMI from electing an independent Board of Directors to act in the best interest of SLMI’s shareholders.[link]

Lee sought to overturn the Court of Appeals decision and lost.[link]

Meanwhile, in federal court in California, Lee and his company POW! Entertainment suffered a major setback when federal Judge Stephen V. Wilson in January 2009 voided Lee’s previous attempt to remove SLMI assets out of the SLMI bankruptcy.[link]

Shareholders were not successful in a New York action challenging Lee’s management due to lack of standing. [link]

Lee controls POW! Entertainment and, in turn, POW! employs former SLMI officers who acted at Lee’s direction during the SLMI bankruptcy and remain loyal to Lee.[link][link][link]

On July 8, 2010, SLMI’s Board of Directors retained the law firm of Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP as Company counsel to investigate SLMI’s claims and identify the extent of its missing assets.[link]

SLMI is now asserting ownership of Lee’s rights in the characters Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, X-Men and many others in an action in New York. [link] [link][link]

SLMI is also pursuing its rights under the October 1998 Assignment from Lee to SLMI in California before the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson.[link]

 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: disney; marvel; stanlee; stanleemedia
CAVEAT: I am involved in this saga and have attended several hearings in Los Angeles. This is the largest battle ever fought over intellectual property rights. It is a case of competing contracts, questionable reporting to the SEC, and possible bankruptcy fraud.

YOU TUBE OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

1 posted on 07/07/2011 8:25:08 AM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Interesting video. I hope I understood the video correctly. How could Stan Lee knowingly assign rights a month apart to two different entities? Is something missing from all the information presented so far? Thanks for the links.


2 posted on 07/07/2011 8:45:36 AM PDT by sand88 (Sarah Palin announces her run: August 12, 2011 11:10am ET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sand88

does stan lee even own stan lee?

it would seem betting against the “any character for a dime” would be a safe bet.

Besides, Disney now owns Marvel and the characters. The Disney lawyers have only lost the winnie the pooh case.


3 posted on 07/07/2011 8:55:22 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Disney didn’t lose Winnie the Pooh. The judge got mad that the rightsholders fished file evidence out of Disney dumpsters and handed the decision to Disney.


4 posted on 07/07/2011 9:03:20 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

thanks.

I don’t think stan lee will have much of a chance here with our without Disney in the case.


5 posted on 07/07/2011 9:09:02 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sand88

Stan Lee could not, of course, assign the same rights. The question will someday perhaps be answered under oath in court by the attorney advising him at the time.


6 posted on 07/07/2011 9:12:37 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
If I understand the video, Disney may find Marvel doesn't own what it thought it owned. That's hard to imagine considering the due diligence involved in such an acquisition and Disney's presumed competence.

A fascinating and ugly story.

7 posted on 07/07/2011 9:16:08 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Does Disney really own the characters as successor of Marvel’s interest? A court may have something to say about that.

Lee has publicly disavowed this effort by the investors of Stan Lee Media, Inc. and has said that his work was always a work for hire. But why did he take a different position when he sued Marvel for movie profits? In that case, he used language claiming that he “allowed” Marvel to exploit his characters.

You may find the video and all the exhibits quite interesting.


8 posted on 07/07/2011 9:16:58 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"Don't even think it."
9 posted on 07/07/2011 9:18:56 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Disney may indeed find out that they don’t own what they thought they owned. That is my ideal result.

The Los Angeles federal court has ruled that Stan’s company POW! Entertainment had no right to exploit characters that they took during the Stan Lee Media bankruptcy. Those characters did not belong to POW! During the BK, Stan got court approval to transfer characters to a new company, SLC LLC, for the benefit of investors and creditors. He never formed that company. Instead, he secretly transferred the assets to his new company, POW!


10 posted on 07/07/2011 9:26:51 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

http://stanleemediainc.com/wp-content/uploads/files/114-2010-12-14.pdf

A year after the execution of the agreement with SLMI, Stan ratified the agreement, such ratification being posted with the SEC. As the head of the company, he told potential investors that the contract with SLMI was still in effect. Quite amazing, huh? Who was giving Stan legal advice?


11 posted on 07/07/2011 9:33:51 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

NOTE: QED, mentioned in the suit, is another entity controlled by Lee.

In this release, — http://www.scribd.com/doc/16498288/POW-Press-Release-2005-Re-Accuser-Drifter-Sprint-Mobil — POW! Entertainment tells the public of the deal with Vidiator, purporting the ownership of The Accuser and The Drifter. The Los Angeles fed court ruled that he company did not own those properties.


12 posted on 07/07/2011 9:50:33 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

7th Portal characters were created by Lee during his employment with SLMI =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPekTDmT-ck&NR=1

7th Portal became amusement park rides =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJBhWkEmopo&NR=1


13 posted on 07/07/2011 10:09:00 AM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Click the Flames
Your Conservative Source of News and Information
Stop the FReepathon
Donate

14 posted on 07/07/2011 10:10:26 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Why would the judge have considered dumpster diving pertinent at all to the matter of who owns Pooh? There could be contempt of court sanctions or recommendation of criminal charges, but the facts about the owners’ rights are the facts and no crime committed by the owner can change that.


15 posted on 07/07/2011 10:29:49 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

After this, maybe someone can figure out how much the estate of Jack Kirby is owed...


16 posted on 07/07/2011 4:10:31 PM PDT by Brian Mosely (A government is a body of people -- usually notably ungoverned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

Kirby’s estate has a pending lawsuit.


17 posted on 07/07/2011 9:11:01 PM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

A guy named Slesinger optioned Pooh in the 1930s from A.A. Milne. In the fifties, he sold off rights to Disney in return for a share of the profits. Pooh has consistently been a Disney best-seller.

Slesinger died and his wife and daughter inherited his interest in Pooh. In the eighties, they sued for back profits. The files taken from a dumpster proved Disney knew they owed the Slesingers the money — they were mad that they still hadn’t managed to acquire all the rights after all these years, and had simply decided that they had paid the Slesingers enough.

I still don’t understand why the judge sided with Disney.

In a separate decision a couple years ago, a different judge ruled that Disney owns the Pooh trademark and copyright, but has to split future royalties with the Slesingers. I don’t understand the distinction there, but that’s where it stands now.


18 posted on 07/08/2011 12:06:51 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson