pinterest-p mail bubble share2 google-plus facebook twitter rss reddit linkedin2 stumbleupon


The Premium The Premium The Premium

Judge dismisses another Stan Lee Media lawsuit against namesake

by  in Comic News Comment
Judge dismisses another Stan Lee Media lawsuit against namesake

In yet another legal blow to Stan Lee Media, a federal judge in California has dismissed its lawsuit against namesake and co-founder Stan Lee seeking billions in profits as well as ownership of the writer’s most famous co-creations.

Law 360 reports that while attorneys representing Lee, his POW! Entertainment and its subsidiary QED Productions had argued that the shareholder lawsuit was barred because an identical action filed in New York was dismissed in 2010, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson didn’t explain his decision to dismiss on Monday. A written order is expected later this week.

The failed-dot com has long claimed Lee improperly transferred rights to such characters as Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, the Avengers and Thor from Stan Lee Media to Marvel. The lawsuit is only part of a many-tentacled legal monster that was spawned in 1998, when Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter used bankruptcy procedures to end Marvel’s $1 million-a-year lifetime contract with Lee, negating Lee’s assignment to the company of his rights to his co-creations. It also freed Lee to form Stan Lee Entertainment (which later merged with Stan Lee Media) with now-infamous entrepreneur Peter F. Paul. The company filed for bankruptcy in February 2001, and emerged from protection in November 2006.

This lawsuit, like the one that came before it, hinged on a sequence of events that took place between August 1998, when Marvel terminated Lee’s employment, and November 1998, when Lee entered into a new agreement with the company and signed over his likeness, and any claims to characters. Representatives of SLM previously have claimed that on Oct. 15, 1998, Lee transferred to that company rights to his creations and his likeness.

Wilson had permitted Stan Lee Media to renew its claim in February 2011, with the plaintiffs hoping a loss three months ago with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals would help pave the way for the California action. Apparently it didn’t.

  • Ad Free Browsing
  • Over 10,000 Videos!
  • All in 1 Access
  • Join For Free!
Go Premium!

More Videos