The United States District Court, Central District of California, released a finding today in the case of Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson vs. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Time Warner Inc. and DC Comics Inc.
According to the court document: "The question of 'whether the license fees paid' by Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. to its corporate sibling, DC Comics, for the audiovisual rights to the Superman copyright pursuant to various licensing agreements entered into during the 1999 to 2002 period 'represents the fair market value therefor, or whether the license for the works between the related entities was a sweetheart deal.’"
After a 10-day trial, the court determined there is "insufficient evidence that the Superman film agreement between DC Comics and Warner Bros., whether judged by its direct economic terms or its indirect ones, was consummated at below its fair market value." The court also ruled that "the non-exclusive rights conveyed by DC Comics to Warner Bros. in the Smallville television agreement was not for below fair market value and, therefore, finds for the remaining defendants on this point as well."
During the trial, several statements came up that shed some light on the staus of a potential sequel to "Superman Returns."
Regarding the current development of the movie, the document says that Alan Horn -- referred to as "the head of Warner Bros." -- testified that "aside from his 'hopes' to develop the Superman character, at present the property is not under development at Warner Bros. No script has been written, filming has not commenced, and the earliest a Superman film could be theatrically released would be 2012. As Mr Horn explains 'we had hopes to keep the [superman] character alive and to once again reinvent Superman. We are -- our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again. What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie ... did not get the critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with superman that concern us.'"
However, the lawsuit also details why it is in the company's interest to get moving on another Superman movie:
"Given that Mr. Horn testified that the release of a sequel to Superman Returns movie could occur in 2012, it is certainly now possible, based on the only competent evidence related to this issue introduced at trial, that filming of such a sequel could occur within the 2009 to 2011 time frame.
"Unless and until it can be shown at that point in time that no filming of a sequel to Superman Returns has commenced, it cannot be said, with any degree of certainty, that the Superman film agreement’s failure to contain a reversion clause keyed to continued and regular development of the property in film has caused any harm.
"In making this statement, the Court is certainly mindful of how close this market deficiency in the Superman film agreement is from shifting from speculation to concrete harm. Even under Mr. Horn's hopeful estimate, no filming of a Superman sequel will commence this year nor is it likely that it will commence next year. Without a script, and there is none at present, filming cannot be commenced. It is only the possibility that filming could begin on a Superman sequel in 2011 that has stayed the Court from making a finding on the reasonable certainty of harm having occurred.
"Given that the potential for said commencement of filming exists at the present time, plaintiffs have not shown that the Superman film agreement, sans a reversion clause, is below the reasonable range for what a willing buyer would pay for the property from a willing seller. If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced on a Superman sequel, plaintiffs could bring an accounting action at that time to recoup the damages then realized for the Superman film agreement's failure to contain a reversion clause."
Click here to read the lawsuit in its entirety.
Fri, July 10, 2009 
Well, that's what Us Magazine is saying.
