2. 外语
  3. The 100 Aker Wood may look like a dark,forbidding place these days for Michael D. Eisner. That’s where Winnie the Pooh, Piglet,

The 100 Aker Wood may look like a dark,forbidding place these days for Michael D. Eisner. That’s where Winnie the Pooh, Piglet,

admin2015-01-09  18
问题     The 100 Aker Wood may look like a dark,forbidding place these days for Michael D. Eisner. That’s where Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, and Eeyore live, and the cartoon characters—which represent at least $ 1 billion a year in revenues for Eisner’s Walt Disney Co. —are in full revolt. A 12-year-old lawsuit,sealed in a Los Angeles court until January,has come to light,and a series of court rulings threaten the media giant with hundreds of millions in overdue license payments and possibly the loss of one of its most lucrative properties.
    How large a hit Disney will take is still in dispute. Disney is appealing two rulings,including one alleging that company executives knowingly destroyed important papers related to its licensing deals. The Pooh affair may seem minor at a time when Eisner is under attack for Disney’s chronically weak stock price and ABC’s anemic ratings,but the Disney chairman hardly needs more jostling from a Silly Old Bear. What’s more,the impact could be significant. After acknowledging to the Securities & Exchange Commission on Aug. 9 that "damages could total as much as several hundred million dollars" or the loss of the licensing agreement,Disney was hit with new shareholder lawsuits.
    Disney wants to keep its grip on that bear and his honey jar. Pooh is Disney’s single largest property, says Martin Brockstein,executive editor of The Licensing Letter. That adds up to about $ 100 million in operating earnings from royalties on Pooh T-shirts,backpacks,and other merchandise,figures Gerard Klauer Matheson & Co. analyst Jeffrey Logsdon. Last year,Disney paid $ 352 million to one pair of heirs of Win-nie-the-Pooh author A. A. Milne. But the family of Stephen A. Slesinger.a New York literary agent who .bought the U.S. rights in 1930,says Disney owes them $ 200 million on licenses for T-shirts and other merchandise and has cut them entirely out of the lucrative videocassette and DVD arena. Headed by Shirley Slesinger Lasswell.an 80-year-old widow who travels with a Winnie-the-Pooh bear everywhere,the family contends it is owed close to $ 1 billion,say its lawyers. Disney,which says it pays the Slesingers $ 12 million a year, insists the $ 1 billion figure is a publicity stunt. "The 1930 contract says they get royalties on merchandise alone,not all exploitation," says Disney attorney Daniel J. Petrocelli.
    The Slesingers also charge that Disney lost documents related to merchandise sales and destroyed others that extended the accord to DVDs and videotapes. On June 18, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige rejected the audit by a forensic accountant he thought unduly favored Disney and found that Disney "misused the discovery process" by hiding the fact that it destroyed documents that might have expanded the licensing agreement to tapes and DVDs.
    Absent those documents—which include the papers of the late Disney Consumer Products chief Vincent Jefferd—the case may hinge on the "mommy memo." That memo,written in 1983 by Slesinger daughter Patricia to her mother, Shirley, describes a meeting with Jefferds at the Beverly Hills Hotel at which Jefferds allegedly told Patricia "that videos and all these new things were covered and to shut up about it," according to court documents. Because Disney destroyed Jefferds’ letters, Judge Hiroshige ruled that Disney is barred from "introducing evidence disputing" the family’s contention that they were entitled to royalties on videocassettes. Disney is appealing the ruling.
    Settlement seems unlikely among the parties. One obstacle:the still-simmering animosity toward Slesinger lawyer Bertram Fields,who won a $ 250 million settlement for former Disney studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg in a hyper-charged 1999 case. This time,the character may be soft and fuzzy,but the payout could be bigger. For Eisner,Pooh is becoming one Very Big Bother.
Which of the following CANNOT be concluded from the passage?
选项 A、Disney has introduced convincing evidence to defend itself.
B、Disney has destroyed some important papers on purpose.
C、Disney has lost in the 1999 case with Jeffrey Katzenberg.
D、The stock price of Disney has been going down for a period of time.
答案A
解析 推理题。解体点散布在文章各处，可以用排除法。第二段提到，“…company executives knowinglydestroyed important papers related to its licensing deals”，由此可知，迪斯尼故意损坏相关的文件，故选项B正确。由最后一段的“who won a $250 million settlement for former Disney studio chief JeffreyKatzenberg in a hyper-charged 1999 case”知，迪斯尼输掉了官司，赔偿了2亿5千万美元，故选项C正确。由文章第二段提到的“Eisner is under attack for Disney’s chronically weak stock price”知，迪斯尼的股票长期疲软，故选项D正确。文中没有提到，迪斯尼能够提出有力的证据来替自己辩护，A选项与原文不相符。故本题的正确答案为A选项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/PwQO777K
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)