"Home Improvement" Team Sues Disney for Syndication Money
2/28/2013
by Matthew Belloni


The creative team behind "Home Improvement" has sued ABC parent company the Walt Disney Co. seeking millions of dollars in revenue for failing to properly exploit the hit 1990s sitcom.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Wind Dancer Production Group, writer-producers Matt Williams, Carmen Finestra, Tam O'Shanter and David McFadzean claim that Disney sold "Home Improvement" into syndication in New York "for no monetary consideration" and failed to consult with them about how the Tim Allen show would be exploited.

The plaintiffs also claim they haven't been paid their fair share of profits from a show that has generated $1.5 billion for Disney. They claim they are entitled to 75 percent of net profits generated by the show, an unusually high percentage.





This is actually the second time the "Home Improvement" crew has sued Disney.

They filed one of the first so-called "vertical integration" lawsuits in the mid-1990s seeking millions in revenue that the show generated from being exploited by Disney-affiliated companies in ways that underreported money owed to profit participants.

That case settled and helped change the ways that studios and networks deal with each other and with the talent that profit from successful shows.





The new suit claims Disney has caused "Home Improvement" to be syndicated "at well before the fair market value" and against the interests of the profit participants. It also claims that certain charges have been applied to the show improperly.

THR has reached out to Disney for comment and will update with a response.

The suit, filed by Marcia Harris and Yakub Hazzard of Robins Kaplan MIller & Ciresi, alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, unfair competition and accounting.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/home-improvement-team-sues-disney-425435

Disney Beats Lawsuit from "Home Improvement" Creators (Exclusive)
1/8/15
by Austin Siegemund-Broka


The Walt Disney Co. has struck a major blow in its long-running battle with the creators of the 1990s sitcom "Home Improvement".

At a hearing on Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court judge William Highberger fully granted the ABC parent company’s motion for summary adjudication against the claims filed by Matt Williams, Carmen Finestra and David McFadzean and their affiliated production companies.







In the lawsuit, the creators claimed Disney and its subsidiary Buena Vista had mishandled the hit sitcom, which ran on ABC for eight seasons, and failed to pay the plaintiffs their fair share of the profits.

The creators of the show starring Tim Allen alleged that Disney licensed the show for syndication in New York and other territories for less than the market value and didn’t consult with the show’s creators about its distribution as the contract required.

This was the second time that the "Home Improvement" creators raised hackles with how the show was licensed. An earlier lawsuit made its mark in the entertainment industry as one of the first "vertical integration" claims, taking aim at how Disney was licensing the show to its own affiliates to the disadvantage of profit participants.

This lawsuit filed in February 2013 was also about accounting. The creators claimed their cut of the profits wasn’t what it should have been due to alleged errors, although the plaintiffs said they were frustrated by Disney's non-cooperation with audit attempts as well as alleged failures to detail accounting practices from 2001 through 2005.







Disney and Buena Vista focused on that time frame in their motion for adjudication. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. The contracts at issue limit the time to two years in which the profit participants could dispute their participation statements.

In court, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Roman Silberfeld of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, argued for a different interpretation of the contract. The two-year limitation, he said, is for situations where the error in the profit participation statement is obvious, like a clear discrepancy with the contract or a clerical error.



If the dispute concerns unreported calculations that result in hidden errors, he believed that the clock starts from discovery of those discrepancies. He wanted a green light to proceed in the lawsuit.

“The only rational way to read these provisions is that we have two time periods, one for the simple stuff, which is two years, and one for the more complicated,” he said.



Dan Petrocelli at O’Melveny & Myers, attorney at defendants, responded that there’s no such interpretation to be found in the creators’ contracts.

Highberger sided with Disney and Buena Vista. In the judge’s tentative ruling, adopted at the hearing and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, he decides to hold the creators to the express terms of the contracts that were made.








In typical contract cases, it's the discovery of an error that begins the countdown of time by which a lawsuit must be filed, but the parties may agree to adjust the time frame. The judge notes a 2013 opinion by a California appellate court that concluded that contractual provisions altering the clock are valid and enforceable.

In coming to the same conclusion in this case, Highberger highlights the sophistication of the creators as they were well-known in the entertainment industry and presumably had good agents and lawyers representing them when the deals were made between 1989 and 1994.

"This was not a situation where talent had to passively accept an adhesion agreement forced on them by Disney," he writes.

Ultimately, the judge says he "agrees with Disney’s interpretation of the agreement that the summary participation statements provided... were sufficient presentations of the amounts conceded owed by Disney to the talent under the Operative Agreement and thus the incontestability term started to run..."









Even if this case concludes, however, the conflict between "Home Improvement’s" creators and Disney could still continue. The creators filed another lawsuit against the company and Buena Vista in January 2014. That action covers Disney’s accounting from 2006-2012. It has no proceedings currently scheduled.

The plaintiffs were represented by Silberfeld and Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi's Marcia Harris and Mark Passin. The same trio filed the creators' 2014 lawsuit.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/disney-beats-lawsuit-home-improvement-761887

no reunion?

no reunion?

watch?v=Zd0QgBeOs_U&list=PLNWUfP-SHYqntGM6rx4K0meG7SbGmqebn

PLEASE GET HOME IMPROVEMENT BACK ON TV I AM BEGGING YOU!!!

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is this the reason why the show is not being shown anymore on any station?

God bless you always!!! :) :) :)

Holly

I'm curious if this is the case too?

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is this the reason why the show is not being shown anymore on any station?

God bless you always!!! :) :) :)

Holly
I think the Home Improvement reruns are on hiatus right now and I hope it will return to the Hallmark Channel in January with the coming of Last Man Standing on Hallmark.

Home Improvement is now back on Hallmark Channel.

http://deadline.com/2017/03/disney-home-improvement-lawsuit-revived-profit-participation-1202048945/

By Dominic Patten on Mar 22, 2017 4:07 pm

Like a home improvement that you mistakenly thought was completed years ago, Disney saw some legal walls fall today after a California appeals court gave a Home Improvement profit-sharing lawsuit a brand new hammer. “The trial court accordingly erred in granting summary adjudication in favor of Disney,” 2nd District Appeals Court Justice Laurie Zelon wrote with the agreement of two other judges, setting the stage for a new round of action over the profits from the Tim Alle…

"Home Improvement" Creators Insist on Jury for $40 Million Trial against Disney
by Eriq Gardner
April 12, 2019


If James Madison were alive, the American founding father would probably have a strong view on whether the creators, writers and producers of "Home Improvement" are entitled to have a jury hear their claims of being denied a fair share of net profits earned by the series.

After all, Madison authored the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the right to jury trials in certain kinds of civil suits. In doing so, Madison stood up to Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams concerned about juries being overly sympathetic to debtors during post-colonial rule where the collection of taxes was needed.

This might all sound like ancient history, but echoes of the late 18th Century debate are certainly playing out as a 2013 profits lawsuit against Disney finally gets closer to trial.





Wind Dancer Production Group and writer-producers Matt Williams, Carmen Finestra, Tam O'Shanter and David McFadzean are suing with the allegation that they've been cheated from a show starring Tim Allen that has generated $1.5 billion for Disney.

The case has moved slowly thanks to an "incontestability" clause in the contract that required an objection within a specific time frame to profit participation statements. In a big decision that bolstered many "Hollywood accounting" cases, a California appeals court in 2017 revived the lawsuit with word that it was a triable issue as to whether Disney was prevented from asserting the incontestability clause due to such alleged conduct as delaying audits to prevent timely objection.





The case is now at the summary adjudication phase, and it's possible that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue may resolve everything herself sooner rather than later.

Otherwise, the plaintiffs may head to trial — currently scheduled to begin on June 3 — with claims that include Disney breaching a written agreement by licensing the series in syndication in New York for nothing, packaging the series and then failing to allocate reasonable license fees, improperly charging a 40% distribution fee on basic cable revenue and improperly treating subscription video-on-demand revenue.





In court papers this week, the plaintiffs finally identified a damages target.

"Plaintiffs' damages are in excess of $40 million, without interest," write attorneys at Robins Kaplan. "With respect to Plaintiffs' accounting claim, it is important to note that when Plaintiffs filed their lawsuits, many of Plaintiffs' audit claims were unquantified because Defendants refused to provide documents and information to Plaintiffs' auditors... Now, however, as a result of documents and information acquired since they filed suit and during discovery, Plaintiffs have been able to quantify the audit claims and intend to offer evidence at trial of Plaintiffs' damages."

That could be a significant passage.





Although the Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in civil suits, it's one of the last important amendments not "incorporated" so as to apply to states. Maybe the Supreme Court will one day tackle a change, but until then, Disney is free to argue in state court that as a matter of equity instead of a matter of law, a jury needn't be convened. What's the difference? An equitable claim often refers to performance with remedies that include injunctions, while legal claims often demand monetary damages.

The distinction, however, is not always clear and has been the source of significant fights. Going back to the days of Hamilton and Madison, many Anti-Federalists aimed to avoid as much as possible the system of equity commonly used by English Courts. And since then, plaintiffs typically like to be in state court because judges and juries are viewed as more plaintiff-friendly, but in doing so, they often have to wrestle with that equity issue that can deny them a jury.





James Madison might not care for Disney's argument.

"The gist of these consolidated cases is equitable, and should be tried to the bench," writes O'Melveny attorney Daniel Petrocelli. "As the very first paragraphs of Plaintiffs' complaints make clear, the ultimate issue in these cases is whether Disney 'failed to properly account to and pay Plaintiffs for their share of profits' from the Series.

Indeed, Plaintiffs readily concede that their claims cannot be adjudicated absent an accounting, and that an 'accounting is required to determine the amount of revenues derived from the distribution and exploitation of the Series in order to ascertain Plaintiffs' share of such revenues."





Au contraire, responds the other side.

"The fundamental questions to be decided in these cases are what are the terms of the parties' agreements, did Defendants breach those terms, and what are the Plaintiffs' damages," states the plaintiffs' brief. "These are legal, not equitable, issues, and give Plaintiffs the right to a jury trial."





The "Home Improvement" creators say they've now been able to quantify audit claims and have experts ready to testify about contractual interpretation.

Disney is "putting the cart before the horse," continues the plaintiffs. "Resolution of the contract questions dictate whether an accounting is necessary, not the other way around... Plaintiffs will be seeking a sum certain at trial and do not anticipate needing an accounting. Yet, to the extent an accounting may be needed, it cannot even be possible until after resolution of the breach of contract claims."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/home-improvement-creators-insist-jury-40-million-trial-disney-1201598

I hope everything goes well for them.

Disney Settles "Home Improvement" Profit-Sharing Suit after Six Years – Update
by Dominic Patten
July 24, 2019


Disney has settled a long-running profit-sharing lawsuit filed by producers of the 1990s ABC sitcom "Home Improvement". The case had been headed toward trial in the coming weeks.

Producers Matt Williams, Carmen Finestra, David McFadzean and their respective production companies first claimed in court in 2013 that Disney owed them money from syndication and other sources for the 1991-99 series that has made more than $1.5 billion for the company. The terms of the settlement have not been revealed.

https://deadline.com/2019/07/disney-home-improvement-lawsuit-revived-profit-participation-1202048945/

Disney Settles "Home Improvement" Profit-Sharing Suit after Six Years – Update
by Dominic Patten
July 24, 2019


Disney has settled a long-running profit-sharing lawsuit filed by producers of the 1990s ABC sitcom "Home Improvement". The case had been headed toward trial in the coming weeks.

Producers Matt Williams, Carmen Finestra, David McFadzean and their respective production companies first claimed in court in 2013 that Disney owed them money from syndication and other sources for the 1991-99 series that has made more than $1.5 billion for the company. The terms of the settlement have not been revealed.

https://deadline.com/2019/07/disney-home-improvement-lawsuit-revived-profit-participation-1202048945/

That's good news to hear.