Disney alleges that the firm of Stephen Slesinger Inc. withheld key documents and hired a convicted criminal to steal evidence from Disney, according to a report by news agency Reuters.
Stephen Slesinger Inc. sued in 1991, accusing the media giant of failing to report sales of videos and computer software featuring the world's most famous bear.
Shirley Lasswell, whose former husband Stephen Slesinger acquired the merchandising rights to Winnie the Pooh from its creator A. A Milne in 1930, and her daughter Pati Slesinger, have claimed in the suit that Walt Disney did not pay royalties on unreported software sales of $35 million, and on video sales of $3 billion.
The royalties claims are based on a 1961 contract between Disney and Stephen Slesinger Inc., renewed in 1983.
Walt Disney rejects the allegations, maintaining that the merchandise in question is not covered by the contract. According to the company, the terms of the contract cannot be stretched to cover videos and software, products beyond imagination in 1930, when the rights were disclosed to Slesinger.
Walt Disney, which makes an estimated $1 billion per year from sales of Winnie the Pooh merchandise, claimed in 2001 that it had reached an agreement with the heirs of A.A Milne and illustrator E.H. Shepherd, which would give the company exclusive worldwide rights to the character. Stephen Slesinger Inc. disagreed.
Walt Disney, which has warned investors that it may be liable for "several hundred million dollars" if it loses the case, has now filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
According to Reuters, Disney claims that Slesinger hid memos that Pati Slesinger wrote to her mother, containing details of conversations she had with a Disney employee related to the licensing deal. According to Disney, the documents are decisive to the outcome of the case but were only presented after that employee and other negotiators of the 1983 deal had died.
Disney also claims that Stephen Slesinger Inc. hired an unlicensed investigator, who in turn appointed an ex-convict to break into Disney's premises and steal vital legal documents, and asks the court to throw out the suit due to its opponent's "pervasive misconduct and illegal activities."