2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:
No it does not. The original contract supercedes the Disney contracts. they are written to be binding over future owners of Lucas film. Specifically for this reason.
Unless the acquisition deal specifically transferred ownership without obligation. Please note that I’m not saying the acquisition deal absolutely does contain such terms. I’m saying that the possibility exists, as there’s precedent in the business world, and it’s not unrealistic for a company to want to come out of such an acquisition with as little new financial obligation as possible. (Another possibility, which I’ve heard of happening, is a royalty check showing up with fine print on it that endorsing the check and taking payment finalizes the deal, so no more royalties will be forthcoming. Pretty shady, but it happens. I believe that may be part of the Siegel and Shuster story, if I’m remembering properly.)
If you’ve got access to sources that can verify the acquisition didn’t dismiss the obligation, cool. That makes it pretty cut-and-dried, and would probably be of interest to all of us here. Otherwise, all we can really do is - just like Jeff Trexler from the CBLDF - look at existing precedents and speculate on the kind of clauses that might be involved.