X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Walt Disney Co. and several subsidiaries have agreed to pay $50 million in prejudgment interest to a British company that helped create the hit television show, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” But the fight over the stunning $269 million verdict in the case isn’t over yet. Celador International Ltd. won the verdict on July 7 in a breach-of-contract case against Disney and subsidiaries ABC Television, Buena Vista Television and Valleycrest Productions Ltd. over licensing rights to the show. With the prejudgment interest, Celador has received more than $319 million in damages. Both parties stipulated to the prejudgment interest on Friday and a federal judge issued the award on Monday. Celador originally sought more than $100 million in prejudgment interest, said Roman Silberfeld, managing partner of the Los Angeles office of Minneapolis-based Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. In reaching the stipulation, both parties agreed not to litigate the matter, be said. “Our clients are satisfied with an agreement at $50 million,” he said. “It avoids what we think is an unnecessary fight. It avoids an appeal of that issue. There’s still going to be an appeal of everything else, but at least we’ve taken one issue out of the remaining disputes, and we regard that as a good step.” Several disputes remain. Both sides are seeking costs associated with the litigation, and on Friday Disney filed motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Disney said “the cumulative impact of a series of evidentiary and other legal errors allowed Plaintiff to paint a fundamentally distorted picture of the facts and then deprived the jury of much-needed legal guidance, leaving it to render a verdict based on an unmoored hindsight inquiry into the outcome it believed to be fair. Particularly in combination, these mutually reinforcing errors demand a new trial.” Disney added that the $269 million verdict is “utterly without record support.” Additionally, Disney said, “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for plaintiff Celador International Ltd. on its claims for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Disney’s lead counsel Martin Katz, a partner at Los Angeles-based Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, did not return a call for comment. Celador’s opposition papers are due on Oct. 4. Silberfeld said that the Disney defendants unsuccessfully have brought up the alleged errors before and that “there clearly was ample evidence on all claims. The verdict is very well supported by the evidence.” A hearing on both motions was scheduled for Oct. 25.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.