The California federal suit which is exposing the frauds that Stan Lee,Arthur Lieberman, and POW Entertainment have engaged in in looting Stan Lee Media and illegally assigning copyrights to their new public company, POW Entertainment, is preparing to proceed in California
Original Title
Lee, POW v Nesfield, Belland- Garbus Status Report to J Wilson April, 2009 Belland Status Report
The California federal suit which is exposing the frauds that Stan Lee,Arthur Lieberman, and POW Entertainment have engaged in in looting Stan Lee Media and illegally assigning copyrights to their new public company, POW Entertainment, is preparing to proceed in California
The California federal suit which is exposing the frauds that Stan Lee,Arthur Lieberman, and POW Entertainment have engaged in in looting Stan Lee Media and illegally assigning copyrights to their new public company, POW Entertainment, is preparing to proceed in California
MARTIN GARBUS
EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
3 Park Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10016
qelenhone! (212) 561-3625
Fax: (212) 779-9928
Attorneys for Defendants
CHRISTOPHER BELLAND and
JOHN PETROVITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
QED PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a | CASE NO. CV 07-00225 SVW (SSx)
Delaware limited liability company; | [Related Case No. CV 07-4438 SVW
POW! ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,a | (SSx)]
Delaware corporation; STAN LEE, an
individual,
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT
JAMES NESFIELD, an individual; et
al,
Defendants.
STAN LEE MEDIA, INC., a Colorado
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
STAN LEE, an individual, et al.,
Defendants.Sec wmrIr AH RYne
PRR NYKNHNNRNRERE Se ee eee
BRRRBRERBRESVSRSWIABDEBSHE
Defendants John Petrovitz. and Christopher Belland (“Defendants”) hereby
submit the following status report to the Court regarding an action recently filed
and “low numbered” to this Court titled Jose Abadin v. Stan Lee, Case No. CV 09-
2340 SVW.
In an Order dated January 20, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment and finding that “Plaintiff QED did not acquire an interest in
the Properties by virtue of a transfer from the bankruptcy court because any such
transfer was done in violation of the automatic stay, and was therefore void as a
matter of law.” (1/20/2009 Order at p.14:6-17) This Court went on to rule that
there remained additional factual issues relating to whether Plaintiff QED owned
the Properties at issue by virtue of Mr. Stan Lee terminating an October 15, 1998
Employment Agreement shortly before the bankruptcy filing of Stan Lee Media,
Inc., a Colorado Corporation (“SLMI-CO”). (See 1/20/2009 Order at pp.12:18-
13:5)
‘After making this finding, this Court noted that there was no one that could
“speak on behalf” of SLMI-CO. ‘Thus, this Court stayed these related actions
because the resolution of the remaining factual issues required such a person or
entity. (Jd. at 12:16; Order dated January 27, 2009)
‘The instant status report is to advise this Court that, as of the present, there is
still no one qualified to speak on SLMI-CO’s behalf because the company has
neither a board nor officers. An attempt failed in Colorado to constitute a quorum
to elect a board to, among other things, authorize SLMI-CO to proceed with the
related actions. The delay in electing a board is preventing the resolution of the
critical question of the ownership of many properties that — the shareholders
contend — should be found to belong to SLMI-CO.
Indeed, my office brought a shareholder’s derivative action in the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 09 Civ. 0715 (PAC)), to address the issues of theFS ear ,HeRwoHHE
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ownership of the properties. That action is currently stayed for reasons similar to
those set forth by this Court in its 1/20/09 and 1/27/09 Orders.
Because this Court has already resolved a critical issue in this dispute, many
of SLMI-CO’s shareholders believe that a shareholders suit should be brought in
the Central District of California to litigate the remaining factual issues until such
time as a board may be constituted that would allow SLMI-CO to conduct the
litigation directly on its own behalf. As referenced above, such an action has been
filed (Jose Abadin v. Stan Lee, Case No. CV 09-2340 SVW), and has been already
assigned to this Court.
Dated: April 8, 2009
EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP
MARTIN GARBUS
4
Martin Garbus, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants Belland and
Petrovitz