'The Crow' suit heading to arbitration

The lawsuit between The Weinstein Co. and Relativity over "The Crow" remake is heading to arbitration after the judge in the case ruled the contract between the two companies required it.

Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is set to direct.

The Weinstein Co. sued Relativity in April, claiming the company broke an existing contract between the two over the exclusive worldwide distribution rights of the film.

According to the suit, the Weinsteins claim that Relativity owner Ryan Kavanaugh "decided that Relativity would not perform that contract and will purport to sell TWC's distribution rights to others here and overseas in willful breach of the contract."

Relativity in turn rejected the suit and claimed the Weinsteins failed to uphold their distribution agreement for 2009's "Nine," which was partially financed by Relativity.

The lawyers for both sides have been decidedly vocal and following today's ruling was no different with The Hollywood Reporter quoting both sides.


Relativity and lawyer Carol Genis said the followin in a statement released today:

Relativity Media prevailed over The Weinstein Company in court today. The Court agreed with Relativity that TWC's lawsuit against Relativity was improper and violated the parties' arbitration agreement. TWC must now defend itself in the ongoing arbitration proceeding filed by Relativity.  In that proceeding, Relativity claims damages in excess of $20 million against TWC for its egregious mishandling of the movie Nine and seeks rescission of the parties' agreement with respect to The Crow. Today's ruling demonstrates that TWC's efforts to misuse the court system as a means of intimidation against Relativity failed. Relativity expects to prevail on all of its claims against TWC in arbitration.

Meanwhile, Weinstein lawayer Bert Fields, had his own spin on the proceedings, and Relativity:

"Relativity has attempted to distort a garden variety procedural motion into something it was not. They should be ashamed of themselves. Today's hearing was completely procedural. At issue was an ambiguous provision in a contact which made it unclear whether TWC's injunction claim against Relativity should be heard in court or in an arbitration. The Court acknowledged that the provision was not amodel of clarity and further suggested that it was a close question as to whether arbitration or litigation was the appropriate forum. There was no misuse or abuse of the system. The Court said nothing remotely like that. Any suggestion by Relativity to the contrary is patently false. Relativity's gratuitous attacks on the motives of TWC and its counsel are both unprofessional and grossly inaccurate."