“Simon & Schuster deliberately and opportunistically breached their contract with Milo to avoid losing tens of millions in other publishing revenues they thought they would lose if they honored their contract, based on slanders against Milo by his liberal enemies, who were threatening boycotts against Simon & Schuster. Under law, Simon & Schuster must disgorge those revenues to Milo, not just pay him the sales they cost him.” – Stephen Meister, partner and founding member at Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, the law firm that MILO Inc. has retained for our lawsuit against Simon & Schuster
A new article in Publisher’s Weekly takes an in-depth look at the legal battle between MILO Inc. and Simon & Schuster, MILO’s former book publisher who cancelled his book deal following leftist outrage.
The article grudgingly admits that MILO Inc’s lawsuit will has a “decent chance” of “surviving a motion to dismiss.”
It also quotes Cleveland State University law professor Christopher Sagers as stating, “the complaint is very well done, and sets up a factual dispute over the reason the deal was canceled.”
“Milo has a plausible bad faith termination argument,” veteran publishing lawyer Lloyd Jassin is further quoted as stating in the Publisher’s Weekly piece.
“If it can be shown that termination had nothing to do with the manuscript S&S thought they were buying, but something to do with Milo’s admitted ‘bad choice of words’ and the collateral damage it caused S&S.”
The case, as explained by Publisher’s Weekly, rests on Simon & Schuster’s claim that the contract was terminated because the manuscript they received for Dangerous was unacceptable.
Given that Simon & Schuster terminated the contract mere days after a massive anti-MILO controversy, after possessing the manuscript for over a month, this seems hard to believe.
There’s also the fact that, as Publisher’s Weekly puts it, MILO’s lawyers argue Simon & Schuster “was actively engaged in revisions as a sign that the manuscript was acceptable, including one message cited in the filing in which Ivers praises Milo’s effort as ‘good’ and ‘thorough.'”
“Milo’s attorneys also note that the S&S team appeared to be moving full steam ahead on marketing and publicity efforts right up until termination,” Publisher’s Weekly continues.
Here’s what MILO himself had to say.
“As this Publisher’s Weekly article admits, I’m not the only one who thinks my case against Simon & Schuster is solid. I can barely wait to get discovery from Simon & Schuster and read their internal emails leading up to their shocking termination of my contract. What will they show, I wonder? That they really thought the manuscript was unacceptable? Or that they caved in to a combination of left-wing outrage and media pressure? I think we all know the answer.”