Scarlett Johansson’s lawyer blasts Disney for the’misogynistic assault’ against the actress…after the entertainment giant attempted to shift the case to arbitration
Scarlett Johansson‘s lawyer shared a sharply worded statement on Saturday morning attacking Disney for a late-night filing to move his client’s lawsuit to arbitration.
John Berlinski was Johansson’s chief lawyer. He claimed that the entertainment company tried to hide its misconduct from the public through arbitration.
Additionally, he called Disney’s initial response to the lawsuit by raising eyebrows a misogynistic attack.
Scarlett Johansson’s lead lawyer, Scarlett Johansson (36), lashed out at Disney for their’misogynistic attack’ on the actress Saturday. She also reacted to the move of the company to arbitrate her case; seen February 2020
He was responding on Friday evening to a motion filed by outside counsels for Walt Disney Company, Leah Godesky, Tim Heafner and Daniel Petrocelli at O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
Disney was urging the judge overseeing the case to move it to private arbitration, Deadline reported.
‘Periwinkle agreed that all claims “arising out of, in connection with, or relating to” Scarlett Johansson’s acting services for Black Widow would be submitted to confidential, binding arbitration in New York,’ read the motion.
Periwinkle was the company through whom Johansson contracted his acting services.
Conflict: Friday evening, Disney lawyers moved to have her case referred to arbitration. The plaintiff is suing Disney because Marvel’s Black Widow was simultaneously released on Disney+ and the theatre. She claims that this denied her bonuses based upon theatrical benchmarks.
The lawyers for Disney continued to argue that Johansson’s claims must be resolved in arbitration under the terms of their contract.
It is unclear whether Periwinkle’s claims against Disney are within that agreement’s scope. Periwinkle’s interference-and inducement claims stem from Periwinkle’s claim that Marvel violated the contract’s requirement for Black Widow to be released on “no less that 1,500 screens,” they said.
“The arbitration agreement’s plain language and broad interpretation easily covers Periwinkle’s Complaint.”
This motion took an antagonistic approach, reminiscent of Johansson’s early reactions to Johansson’s lawsuit. It called the actress’ legal strategy “gamesmanship”.
‘In a futile effort to evade this unavoidable result (and generate publicity through a public filing), Periwinkle excluded Marvel as a party to this lawsuit –substituting instead its parent company Disney under contract-interference theories,’ it read. “But, longstanding principles don’t permit such gamesmanship.”
According to the motion, Periwinkle was served with a request for confidential arbitration in New York by Marvel and Disney on August 10, 2021. Disney claims that Johansson’s attorneys have not yet replied.
In sharp words: Disney lawyers called the suit an example of “gamesmanship” and stated that her contract required arbitration. She also claims she is receiving compensation from Disney+ for views.
Disney now wants to hold a hearing on the issue of moving the case for arbitration to October 15.
Johansson claimed that Johansson was promised a movie release, but the media mogul resisted.
“Marvel and Disney share Periwinkle’s frustration at the difficulties associated with releasing movies during an ever-shifting health crisis. However, Periwinkle’s claims that Marvel violated the Agreement or that Disney caused that breach or interfered with it have no merit,” the motion stated.
The Agreement does not require that an exclusive theatrical release be a theatrical release.
According to the motion, the motion argues that theatrical distribution was not required by the contract.
Disney lawyers stated that the contract did not require theatrical distribution.
Johansson’s pay may be based on Disney+ rental fees, but the cost of renting a theatre would have been less for families than renting a movie theater. This may impact her earnings.
‘Moreover, the contract expressly provides that any theatrical-distribution obligations are satisfied by distribution on “no less than 1500 screens.” And even though Black Widow’s release coincided with a global public-health crisis, Marvel made good on its promises.’
Johansson claimed that Marvel had discussed the possibility of a digital and theatrical hybrid release prior to Black Widow premiere. The lawyers disagreed.
‘Marvel discussed the hybrid-release-pattern decision with Johansson in spring 2021, as the parties were conferring regarding the Picture’s release date,’ they claimed.
The actress will also be receiving digital receipts in addition to her box-office receipts, to aid her calculation of potential performance bonuses.
“Marvel assured Johansson she would be credit with 100 percent of Premier Access and PeHV receipts in order to determine any additional compensation, even though Marvel is not required to.
The statement ignores the fact that renting Black Widow from Disney+ was a significantly cheaper option.
Comparative: In an effort to minimize Johansson’s concerns, Disney said that Black Widow performed better than other Marvel films, Ant-Man, Guardians Of The Galaxy and Guardians Of The Galaxy in Black Widow’s opening weekend. This was seen in February 2020 with Colin Jost
A subscription was required to view the film and an additional $30 for renting it. However, the flat fee is a substantial discount for groups or families who watch the movie together rather than purchasing separate tickets in a theatre.
Johansson claimed that Disney+ had hurt Black Widow’s profit margins. To counter Johansson, Disney combined box office numbers with streaming revenue. This allowed Disney to argue that Black Widow earned more than many Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, such as Ant-Man, Ant-Man and The Wasp, Guardians Of The Galaxy, Thor: The Dark World, Guardians Of The Galaxy, Thor: The Dark World, Ant-Man, Ant-Man, Ant-Man And The Wasp, and Thor.
Johansson’s lawyer John Berlinski criticized the filing in an earlier statement on Saturday morning.
He said that Disney had initially responded to the litigation by launching a misogynistic attack on Scarlett Johansson. Now, he is trying to conceal its misconduct through a confidential arbitration.
“Why are you so scared of Disney litigating this matter in public?” He wondered out loud in reaction to Disney’s call for arbitration.
He claimed that Marvel’s promise to Black Widow a “typical theatrical” release, just like its other movies, was to ensure that Disney didn’t try to increase Disney+ subscriptions.
“Yet, that’s exactly what happened. We look forward to showing the overwhelming evidence.
Cannibalism. Johansson’s lawyer stated that Disney had promised to release a “typical theatrical” film, “like other films”, in order for his client to believe it would not cannibalize its box office with Disney+.
Publited Sat, 21 August 2021 at 19:08:47 +0000