Torchde Team | November 21, 2020
The Michael Jackson estate is suing HBO for $100 million, arguing that the network broke a 27-year-old non-disparagement agreement by releasing ‘Leaving Neverland‘. HBO is urging the court to throw out the lawsuit arguing that the agreement is expired. Here’s four more contradicting arguments made by HBO in their Michael Jackson Estate lawsuit.
No Breach of Estate Contract
The Michael Jackson estate lawsuit centers around giving HBO the rights to air Michael Jackson Live from Bucharest. In exchange HBO could not engage in non-disparaging activity regarding Jackson. Judge VanDyke and Judge Immergut questioned HBO’s lawyer Theodore Boutrous with hypothetical situations that would violate an agreement. One illustration: Let’s say Bucharest airs and then right after a promo for Leaving Neverland comes on. Boutrous admitted that this example would fall under the violation.
Another illustration was if someone taped Jackson privately during the filming of Bucharest and released disparaging footage today. Judge Immergut asked if this would be a cause for arbitration? To this Boutrous agreed that it would be. The contract wasn’t expired, HBO committed a combination of both hypothetical scenarios. Now they’ve indirectly admitted it. According to the Estate’s brief complaint, Jackson’s Dangerous Tour was also painted in a bad light in Leaving Neverland.
Avoiding Arbitration
Boutrous argued: “The court has a duty to interpret the contract to see if the dispute has its real substance in the contract. Consent is crucial. There was no agreement to arbitrate.” HBO is relentlessly trying to avoid going to arbitration despite the bulk of their arguments being made for an arbitration judge. Judge VanDyke stated: “You want us to decide about the non disparagement clause – What it means, how long it lasted” these are things the arbitration judge would have to consider.
Accusing the Michael Jackson Estate of Filing Lawsuit for Publicity
Boutrous claimed that the Estate has no merit and that they filed the lawsuit against them as a publicity stunt. It was HBO that aired Leaving Neverland, a film with no evidence, to gain publicity for their own platform. The Estate sent a letter to HBO before Leaving Neverland aired, alerting them to the facts of the case and lack of credibility by the accusers. HBO ignored the warning.
No Understanding of the Word ‘Disparagement’
Estate lawyer Jonathan Steinsapir contended: “Non Disparagement agreements are never limited in subject matter.” Another argument by HBO is that the contract should be more specific when using non-disparagement and list examples. Steinsapir countered that it would be unreasonable to outline specific comments or topics that one can’t discuss. I think it’s safe to say that HBO knows what disparagement means. Accusing someone of child molestation is beyond is the worse case scenario. Steinsapir also mentioned that HBO has great lawyers so how could anything in the contract be misconstrued and gone over their heads?