Disney debuts Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow costume

“The clear and complete language of the arbitration agreement easily includes the periwinkle complaint,” said a request to enforce the arbitration. In a futile attempt to sidestep this inevitable outcome (and generate publicity via a public file), Pervenche has excluded Marvel as a party to this lawsuit – instead replacing his parent company Disney on theories of contract interference. allow such ingenuity.

move to promote arbitration Not unexpectedand while the Disney Papers describe for the first time the exact language of the arbitral award (look here), the company’s lawyers are also highlighting some legally minor points at this point, but it will certainly attract attention.

For example, Disney says that: Black Widow It has screened on over 9,000 screens in the United States and is expected to deliver on its promise of having at least 1,500 movie screens (again, Johansson insists it should be a movie. exclusive), and according to the last file, August 15. , Black Widow It has generated over $ 367 million in revenue worldwide and over $ 125 million in streaming and download revenue.

Disney equations Black Widow Against other films in the Marvel Cannon, which said the opening weekend was “more than many other Marvel Cinematic Universe films, including” Thor: The Dark World; the ant Man; Ant man and the wasp; In Guardians of the Universe. “

“Despite the impressive image of the pandemic era and the decision to credit Periwinkle with streaming and download coupons, Periwinkle was not satisfied,” the decision continues.

While it may not be necessary at this point, the legal documents also address Johansson’s contract theories and provide evidence, including one in which a Marvel attorney once told attorney in writing. the deal: “We fully understand Scarlett’s desire to film and the entire contract is on the assumption that the film will be released as widely as our other films. “

As Periwinkle tries to challenge the unmistakable language of the contract by citing the pre-pandemic period, a 2019 email from a Marvel executive simply confirmed Marvel’s intention to commit to abiding by the clause. The contract’s “theatrical release” – which Marvel ultimately did, despite the drastically altered circumstances of a 2020-2021 global pandemic. “

This is of course subject to interpretation. The question at the moment – which is not entirely trivial and may influence the course of future litigation – is whether a judge translator or an arbitrator will take over.