"MacGyver" Spin-off Sparks Profits Suit
by Ashley Cullins
Dec. 21, 2018


In the era of reboots and revivals, a lawsuit over the new MacGyver series is exploring the definition of "spin-off".

Hanzer Holdings, the successor in interest to Major Talent Agency, and Arlita, another successor to MTA, are suing CBS for breach of contract. They claim MTA's work as a packaging agent in connection with the original "MacGyver" entitled it to a cut of the new series.





According to the complaint, in 1984 Paramount entered into an agreement with the loan-out companies of Henry Winkler and John Rich and CBS is the successor in interest to the studio's rights and liabilities under the contract.

That deal included a package commission agreement between MTA and Paramount, which Hanzer and Alita claim included a percentage of gross broadcast network license fees for any spin-off series.





"At the time of the 1984 Agreement, the term 'spin-off,' unless further defined, was broadly understood in the industry to mean a television series that is based on, comes out of, or otherwise derives from an earlier television series, including what are referred to today as, among other things, 'reboots,' 'revivals,' 'remakes,' 'sequels,' and 'spin-offs,'" writes attorney Ariel Neuman in the complaint.

"There is no requirement in the 1984 Agreement that MTA perform any services, or be requested to perform any services, in order to receive the payments."



Hanzer and Arlita say they contacted CBS prior to the September 2016 premiere of "MacGyver", but the studio has refused to make any payments. They're seeking actual and compensatory damages.

CBS did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/macgyver-spinoff-sparks-profits-suit-1171522

Anything to get this awful new MacGyver off the air!

CBS Studios Slams “Fatally Flawed” Lawsuit over "MacGyver": “Remakes Are Not Spinoffs”
by Erik Pedersen
April 3, 2021


More than two years after CBS Studios was sued over the current "MacGyver" series, the company has hit back, claiming that the case “suffers from fatal, incurable deficiencies.”

“Most fundamentally,” the CBS Studios response says, “their contract claims fail because neither CBS Studios nor its predecessor in interest, Paramount, has ever had any contractual relationship with either plaintiff. Paramount/CBS never had any contractual relationship with Hanzer Holdings, and never even heard of plaintiff Arlita, Inc. until it filed this lawsuit.

Second, even assuming arguendo that such a contractual relationship existed (it never did), they premise their entire case on an allegation that the 2016 MacGyver remake is somehow a ‘spinoff’ under a written contract which does not even apply to remakes.

Odder still, Plaintiffs were unable to state in deposition which version of the agreement they claim applies here and, to this very minute, they do not know.

Finally, even assuming a contractual relationship which would apply to the Remake, Plaintiffs admittedly were and are unable to perform, making it impossible for them to meet an essential element of their claim performance. Plaintiffs have resisted discovery at every turn for a very simple reason – their allegations are belied by the evidence.”




The filing adds: “Having engaged in a highly misleading corporate shell game, and having collected agency commissions from Paramount on MacGyver to which they were never entitled, Plaintiffs are stopped from asserting that they are the successors-in-interest to the real MTA.”

https://deadline.com/2021/04/macgyver-lawsuit-response-cbs-studios-macgyver-remakes-are-not-spinoffs-1234727212/

the only way to resolve this may be to take it to the supreme court and finally determine once and for all if Good Times is actually a spin-off of Maude, thereby determining a definitive legal basis for the terms "spin-off" and "re-make"

CBS Loses Bid to Deep-Six "MacGyver" Profits Suit; Case Set for Trial Next Month
by Dominic Patten, Erik Pedersen
February 23, 2022


MacGyver famously can fix anything with two pieces of tape, a paper clip and some balsa wood, but CBS can’t save itself from having to go to trial in two months over profits from the revived series.

Even though the network’s rebirthing of the Lucas Till-led "MacGyver" wrapped last April, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has rejected CBS’ move to blow up the 2018 commissions lawsuit over the show.




“CBS has not shown that there are no triable issues of material fact,” Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said after a summary judgment hearing Tuesday.

She added that lawyers for plaintiffs Hanzer Holdings and Arlita Inc. have put forth “sufficient evidence to show that there are triable issues of material facts as to whether there was a contract and whether there was a meeting of the minds.”

Duffy-Lewis set an April 18 trial date. CBS declined comment, citing the pending litigation.

https://deadline.com/2022/02/macgyver-lawsuit-trial-set-cbs-loses-bid-to-dismiss-case-1234958767/

“CBS has not shown that there are no triable issues of material fact,” Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said after a summary judgment hearing Tuesday.

Duffy-Lewis set an April 18 trial date. CBS declined comment, citing the pending litigation.

https://deadline.com/2022/02/macgyver-lawsuit-trial-set-cbs-loses-bid-to-dismiss-case-1234958767/

If this lawsuit was to go in front of a jury and I was a member of said jury, I would have to side with CBS because this 2016 series has strayed so far from the true spirit of MacGyver that I cannot consider it to be a legitimate reboot, remake, spinoff, revival or sequel of the original series. :D