As a NYC trial loomed, AMC settled the whole thing with a $200 million “cash payment” and “some future revenue sharing related to certain future streaming exhibition” to Darabont and his superagency.
“Because the Darabont Settlement did not involve the creation of a more favorable MAGR definition—or of any MAGR definition at all—the MFNs in Plaintiffs’ contracts were not triggered, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed,” say AMC’s Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorneys in their paperwork last week. “An unambiguous contractual provision must be given its plain meaning,” they continue in terms very similar to their initial response to the suit a couple of months ago.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more: