If there was an agreement in place, as the article states, and it outlined what Mike is claiming, why shouldn’t he be compensated?
The problem is often that an agreement/contract is set, and then someone moves on and the next person in charge feels like it doesn’t apply anymore, or they play loose and fast with it in the hope they don’t get challenged on it.
Nowadays it seems like far too many are sheep and just go along with whatever they are dealt. I imagine that in the entertainment industry, some might be afraid to fight because it could mean a loss of work down the road. Mike doesn’t come across as someone willing to just roll over.
The problem is, it will likely cost him the value of the contract in legal fees.