Time Magazine 2012 Annual Report Download - page 120

TIME WARNER INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – (Continued)
such, DC 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 October 25, 2011, defendants’ motion to strike certain causes
of action was denied. On November 2, 2011, defendants appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. On July 16, 2012, DC Comics filed a motion for partial summary judgment on two of its asserted
claims – the validity of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs and that the agreements
referenced above interfered with DC Comics’ rights under the copyright termination provisions. On August 20,
2012, defendants also filed a motion for partial summary judgment on these two claims, as well as on DC
Comics’ asserted claim concerning the scope of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs. On
October 17, 2012, the district court granted DC Comics’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding that,
among other things, the Shuster heirs’ termination notice is invalid, and denying defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment. On December 11, 2012, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s ruling with
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
104