Time Magazine 2010 Annual Report Download - page 118

Comics has had no right to create new Superboy works since the alleged October 17, 2004 termination by plaintiffs
of Siegel’s grants of rights to the Superboy character to DC Comics’ predecessor-in-interest. This lawsuit seeks a
declaration regarding the validity of the alleged termination and an injunction against future use of the Superboy
character. On March 23, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on termination,
denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and held that further proceedings are necessary to determine
whether the Company’s Smallville television series may infringe on plaintiffs’ rights to the Superboy character. On
July 27, 2007, upon the Company’s motion for reconsideration, the court reversed the bulk of its March 23, 2006
ruling, and requested additional briefing on certain issues, on which a decision remains pending.
On May 14, 2010, DC Comics filed a related lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster, the Siegel heirs, their attorney Marc Toberoff
and certain companies that Mr. Toberoff controls. The lawsuit asserts a claim for declaratory relief concerning the
validity and scope of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs, which, together with the
termination notices served by the Siegel heirs described above, purports to preclude DC Comics from creating new
Superman and/or Superboy works for distribution and sale in the United States after October 26, 2013. The lawsuit
also seeks declaratory relief with respect to, inter alia, the validity of various agreements between Mr. Toberoff, his
companies and the Shuster and Siegel heirs, and asserts claims for intentional interference by Mr. Toberoff with DC
Comics’ contracts and prospective economic advantage with the Shuster and Siegel heirs, for which DC Comics
seeks monetary damages. On September 3, 2010, DC Comics filed an amended complaint and on September 20,
2010, defendants filed motions to strike certain causes of action and dismiss the amended complaint under
California and federal laws.
On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and several other programming content providers (collectively,
the “programmer defendants”) as well as cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”),
alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between
and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per
channel (or “à la carte”) basis. In an order dated October 15, 2009, the court dismissed the third amended complaint
with prejudice. On October 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
On April 4, 2007, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against CNN America Inc.
(“CNN America”) and Team Video Services, LLC (“Team Video”). This administrative proceeding relates to CNN
America’s December 2003 and January 2004 terminations of its contractual relationships with Team Video, under
which Team Video had provided electronic newsgathering services in Washington, DC and New York, NY. The
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, under which Team Video’s employees were
unionized, initially filed charges of unfair labor practices with the NLRB in February 2004, alleging that CNN
America and Team Video were joint employers, that CNN America was a successor employer to Team Video,
and/or that CNN America discriminated in its hiring practices to avoid becoming a successor employer or due to
specific individuals’ union affiliation or activities. The NLRB complaint seeks, among other things, the
reinstatement of certain union members and monetary damages. On November 19, 2008, the presiding NLRB
Administrative Law Judge issued a non-binding recommended decision, finding CNN America liable. On
February 17, 2009, CNN America filed exceptions to this decision with the NLRB.
On March 10, 2009, Anderson News L.L.C. and Anderson Services L.L.C. (collectively, “Anderson News”)
filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several magazine
publishers, distributors and wholesalers, including Time Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, Time/Warner Retail
Sales & Marketing, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by
engaging in an antitrust conspiracy against Anderson News, as well as other related state law claims. Plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages. On August 2, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice, and on October 25, 2010, the court denied Anderson News’ motion for reconsideration of
106
TIME WARNER INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – (Continued)