Archive for July, 2008

The Titanic Struggle For Stan Lee’s Rights to Spider Man et al Has Now Begun

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

The financial media, led by Barron’s, has finally begun to recognize the import of Stan Lee Media’s civil suit filed in April, 2007, in Manhattan federal court against Marvel Entertainment for 50% of all Marvel’s profits from Stan Lee’s billion dollar character franchises Spider Man, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, Ironman, et al.

These articles are beginning what will snowball into a media fury over the frauds that Marvel and Stan Lee (as directed by his personal Dr Doom- Arthur Lieberman) have committed against the shareholders and lenders of Stan Lee Media and Marvel Entertainment.

The regulatory agencies and the courts(that allowed a public company to hide its malfeasance in a settlement sealed by Court order from investors) have served as enablers of the largest entertainment industry frauds of the new millenium. The truth, when it emerges, will shake Wall Street all the way to Sunset Boulevard.

The Motley Fool wrote a pretty fair piece with links to pertinent documents on the public record- Today World Net Daily did a story copied below as well

Is Marvel a Villain?
By Tim Beyers July 7, 2008

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/07/07/is-marvel-a-villain.aspx?source=ihprlklca0000001

“If a recent Barron’s article is correct, Marvel Entertainment (NYSE: MVL) could owe millions to a bankrupt company originally co-founded by Spider-Man creator Stan Lee….

My research doesn’t necessarily disprove Nesfield and Paul’s claims. Marvel could be perpetrating a fraud, as the lawsuit asserts. If so, it would likely forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of intellectual property…”

 

Baron’s feature story and follow up on the Stan Lee Media v Marvel suit-

The Rage Offstage at Marvel

Lawsuits raise questions about Marvel Entertainment’s title to its billion-dollar character franchises, which include The Incredible Hulk.

Marvel Stock Falls after Barron’s Warning Shares of the cartoon-hero creator are falling amid concerns about a coming legal fight.

 

 


WND Exclusive
ALL THE EX-PRESIDENT’S SCANDALS
Fraud suit against Bill Clinton eyes Spider-Man
Related action claims rights to billion-dollar comic book icons

Marvel Entertainment, Spider Man and the Wrath of Peter Paul

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

Marvel Faces Hulk of Legal Battle

Marvel Faces Wrath of Peter Paul

Barron’s feature story June 28, “The Rage Offstage At Marvel” written by its senior editor William “Wild Bill” Alpert, starts off saying,

THE COMIC BOOK’S SPLASH page would show a close-up of Peter F. Paul brooding about Marvel Entertainment , its creative force Stan Lee and the Clintons.”

With that comic book flair, Barron’s reluctantly accepted the bona fides of the historic law suit filed by Stan Lee Media in 2007 against Marvel Entertainment for 50% of the copyright profits from Spider Man, The Incredible Hulk, Ironman and all of Stan Lee’s creations for Marvel.

However, while Barron’s admitted that Marvel could well have a serious legal battle on its hands over title tp 50% of its most important copyrights, it also enhanced Marvel’s efforts to characterize the battle as one between Marvel and Peter Paul. Paul is referred to as “spearheading” what amounts to the biggest legal assault ever made on Marvel, or any other Entertainment behemoth regarding ownership of 50% of its principal assets. The fact is that Paul is a witness/whistleblower, not a director in charge of anything related to Stan lee Media- and every effort made to focus on Paul diminishes the focus on the multiple frauds in plain view that have been perpetrated on Stan Lee Media and Marvel shareholders, creditors and lenders.

Barron’s followed its feature story with the sequel, Marvel Stock Drops After Barons Warning, taking credit for causing Marvel investors to suddenly become concerned enough about Stan Lee Media’s 2007 law suit that Marvel’s stock dropped in price. This second story also served to further attack the bona fides of the messenger/witness of Lee-Marvel misdeeds, Peter Paul, in a more aggressive way than Barron’s editor was comfortable with.Nothwithstanding all of the above, Barron’s online and magazine publications  provided the first Wall Street validation of Stan Lee Media’s case against Marvel for  ownership of Stan Lee’s co-creators rights to his Marvel characters. These rights were included in Lee’s October 15, 1998 comprehensive rights assignment to capitalize Stan Lee Media, where they remain today.

These rights were were hidden by Lee when he placed SLM in Chapter 11 Debtor in Possession protection in Bankruptcy in 2001 and by Marvel when they failed to defend Lee’s 2002 suit to enforce Lee’s fraudulently induced contract with Marvel in November,1998.

The article dramatizes the titanic struggle between Stan Lee Media and Marvel by focusing on Peter Paul’s efforts to expose the frauds he witnessed by various parties connected with Stan Lee Media, including Bill Clinton, short sellers, Stan Lee, Marvel Entertainment and Merrill Lynch, among others. Much was made of the fact that Paul is “spearheading” the litigation, which he is not, while he remains under house arrest on the SEC 10(b)5 violation he has pled guilty to in connection with the management of his margin accounts while under the supervision and control of Merrill Lynch.

What is particularly interesting about Marvel’s conduct in defending against Stan Lee Media ’s complaint is that it is using the Clinton playbook’s defense Paul’s civil fraud suit against them, attacking the messenger, Peter Paul, and obfuscating the message of their frauds. Marvel’s public explanations of the case to the Barron’s editor that wrote the story, and in a letter to Barron’s in response to the story, continue to mislead the public and shareholders about the facts that are contained in the public record, and violate the same SEC Rule 10(b)5 Paul stands accused of.

Stan Lee has in fact publicly claimed in sworn pleadings in federal court that he does have rights and claims to ownership of his co-creator’s rights in Marvel’s copyrights of his characters, yet Marvel has now publicly stated that he never made the very claims they paid him $10 million plus to settle! Their continuation of a pattern of public deceptions, omissions and intentional misstatements, detailed in Jim Nesfield’s SEC 13D filing in August 26, 2007, seems to be exempt from any regulatory scrutiny or accountability.

Barron’s pointed out that while Stan Lee swore in his complaint against Marvel in 2002 that he made a conditional assignment of his rights to his world famous characters to Marvel in November, 1998 with the expectation he would participate in the profits derived from their exploitation of his characters, he and Marvel now say (after a sealed settlement of Lee’s suit was made by Marvel for more than $10 million) that Lee’s characters were work for hire in which he never had any rights! If that isnt a claim to his Marvel characters, its hard to imagine what is. See Paragraphs 13, 14 and 39 in the Complaint.

The ongoing misrepresentations to Marvel shareholders and lenders by spokesmen and principals of Marvel, along with the numerous examples of misconduct by Lee and Marvel Chairman Perlmutter, detailed in Jim Nesfield’s 13D that has remained unchanged on the SEC’s web site since August, 2007, portend a very rocky road for the House of Ideas and those who have used villainous conduct to pillage shareholders and lenders.

And for Peter Paul, charged with causing his company with Stan Lee to collapse leaving shareholders with nothing, there well could be a vindication of Paul’s efforts to save the company through his stock manipulations while it was being wrested away from him and shareholders by the Super Villains that Stan Lee brought to life.