Marvel Entertainment Inc. (MVL)

All Comments on MVL

  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 07:21 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    To - 12345

    I told several financial reporters the story when it was filed. Apparently, none wanted to do their homework regarding a $5 billion lawsuit.
    Reply
  • commenter
    12345
    Jun 29 06:35 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Official Press Release

    NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: MVL), reported that a claim was filed today in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stan Lee Media, Inc. The claim against Marvel Entertainment alleges that nine years ago Stan Lee transferred to Stan Lee Media ownership of a number of Marvel comic book characters he co-created. Marvel believes that the claim against it is without merit and that it will prevail in this dispute.

    Stan Lee Media was recently in bankruptcy and is being sued by Stan Lee. In his suit, Mr. Lee is challenging the legitimacy of the management of Stan Lee Media. Mr. Lee is a long-time employee of Marvel and its predecessor companies and currently serves as Publisher Emeritus of Marvel Comics. Mr. Lee commented that, "I do not support this action and believe the suit to be baseless."



    This came out over a year ago?? Did Barrons really just find out about this now? Are they being paid by the Shorts to bring this back up? Something seems a little off     Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 06:25 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    to 219400 - It will be a big problem for Stan because he made warranties. For Marvel, it is a big problem because they have never told their shareholders the truth. And discovery is going to show who knew what when. This may well become the largest stock fraud in history. Reply
  • commenter
    12345
    Jun 29 06:02 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    You hereby warrant that you have not assigned, licensed, pledged or
    otherwise hypothecated, nor attempted to do so any of the Property and
    Rights to anyone other than Marvel, its affiliates, predecessors or
    their designees and will not do so in the future.


    wouldn't this now turn into Stan Lee's problem and not Marvels?     Reply
  • commenter
    inqwizitr
    Jun 29 05:57 PM
    My Website
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    The frauds committed by Stan Lee (under the direction of his own Dr Doom- IP lawyer and partner Arthur Lieberman) against shareholders of Stan Lee Media, the Bankruptcy court and Judge administering the SIX YEAR Stan Lee Media Chapter 11 sham, the shareholders of Marvel Entertainment, and the bond holders of the $1billion collateralized notes Marvel warranted had no defects to 100% of the IP rights it used to guarantee the notes- have nothing to do with Stan's partner Peter Paul- His record from 30 years ago- for activities related to anti-Communist and anti-Castro work in South America- has been used to make him a Fall Guy for the biggest Entertainment frauds on record Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 03:28 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Watch how the BK was looted by insiders of POW - youtube.com/watch?v=ap... Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 03:19 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Eli - read the 13D from Nesfield. www.secinfo.com/d13A33... Marvel has dismissed the claims in its first quarterly report, saying that Stan is fighting them in court. In its upcoming quarterly, they better let the public know that Stan was defeated in court in his attempt to overturn the takeover of Stan Lee Media. Pension fund managers better be paying attention and asking serious questions of Marvel. Investors of POW should be asking Stan how he came into possession of assets such as the Drifter and the Accuser. Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 02:59 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    You might find it interesting that, just before dismissal for cause of the SLM BK in late 2006, the attorney for the debtor in possession made a motion to have the court allow the destruction of corporate records. They claimed that there was no money to store them. No, folks, they were trying to cover their crimes. This is finally going to be exposed. SLM should have been reorganized because it had millions of dollars worth of assets. The money that Stan took in the settlement from Marvel belongs to SLM shareholders. Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 02:52 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Bill and Eli - it is interesting that Marvel made a settlement with Lee for the intellectual property and paid him over $10,000,000. Were shareholders told that Marvel was admitting that Stan had rights in the creations? No, they weren't. If he had no such rights, they would have never given him $10 mil of money that should have gone to shareholders. It would be interesting for investors to go to the SEC records to see what was filed by Nesfield. His claims, if untrue, should cause him a 10b5 violation, and the SEC should take legal action against him. They have not done so. For those wishing to track through the SLM bankruptcy, you will find that the debtor in possession, an insider of POW (Stan's new company), transferred to another insider of POW, through a subsidiary, properties from the SLM BK in violation of the judge's order. They looted the company while in BK. You can see the transfer that is recorded in the US Office of Copyright. Stan used the Accuser and the Drifter to make deals with Vidiator while in bankruptcy. That is BK fraud and needs to be exposed. Reply
  • commenter
    SA Editor
    Eli Hoffmann
    Jun 29 02:19 PM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Bill,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am flattered.

    I did take my time reading your excellent article, and I think it was clear to me at the time that the cocaine and coffee incidents were drudging up of previous felonies. Somehow when I went to write it, I bluffed. My apologies.

    I think I've got it right now.

    Eli     Reply
  • commenter
    blalpert
    Jun 29 01:47 PM
    My Website
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Eli:

    I'm flattered that you noticed my story. You got the time line a little mixed up, however. I know you do this all on a short deadline. A leisurely rereading of my story should straighten things out.

    Again, thanks for the attention.

    Bill Alpert
    Barron's
    william.alpert@barrons...     Reply
  • commenter
    dfu
    Jun 29 11:24 AM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    Paul's involvement with the Cuban Coffee Caper was almost three decades ago. When investors discovered what Stan Lee had done in the SLM bankruptcy, they took action to take over the company. A Colorado court, where the company is incorporated, agreed that the investor group, led by Nesfield, properly took control. They are now asserting the rights that were hidden in the bankruptcy and never declared by Lee. If Lee's work was work for hire, why did he sue Marvel for rights and extract $10 million from them? Spiderman is in a very sticky situation here and has been caught in his own web. It is time for the SEC and the Justice Department to act. Reply
  • commenter
    Soonerxii
    Jun 29 10:35 AM
    Marvel's in for a Hulk of a Lawsuit - Barron's [view article]
    That is interesting. I've never heard any of this before, though I do remember Marvel going through some trouble back in the late 90's Reply
  • commenter
    J.Macky
    Jun 11 08:00 PM
    Marvel’s Bigger Picture: Going Hollywood in a Smart Way [view article]
    The fact is Stan is a cry baby ..and he got paid over three years ago...case closed try again...

    Marvel has many artist....and don't get me started about that crook stan lee...Jack Kirby was the real guy...

    J.Macky     Reply
  • commenter
    User 183217
    Jun 05 12:01 PM
    Tuesday Options Outlook: XLE, LEH, NSM, DRIV, MVL, RIGL, QCOM [view article]
    "short put butterfly strategy, buying 20,000 lots at the June 83 strike for $2.23 and selling 10,000 lots at the 84 strike for $2.23 and against at the 86 strike for $3.15, initiating the trade with a 4-cent credit per contract"

    does "buying 20,000 lots" mean buying puts?
    does "selling 10,000 lots" mean selling puts?
    does "against at" mean selling 10,000 puts?
    does "4-cent credit" mean $800?
    how do $2.23 and $2.23 and $3.15 end up at 4 cents?
    Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: