If looks like Warner has won a victory against the lawyer of the families in the Superman case. DC acquired documents that were "allegedly" stolen from Marc Toberoff's office. Toberoff turned over copies of the documents to police to help with this investigation. It appears that through a legal technicality, this actually allowed Warner to use the documents in their lawsuit against Toberoff in their upcoming battle, where they accuse Marc of ruining DC's relationship with the families. Warner believes the evidence will be damaging. Warner is currently appealing the the lawsuit to get back the Superman rights they lost and have a decent chance of winning back most of it without going after Marc, but this personal lawsuit could further their chances of undoing much of the families efforts. If Warner pulls this off, it could have a devastating impact on any other copyright owners who don't take "the deal" in future when they find themselves in similar circumstances, but it could also be a warning for opportunists to keep their noses out of others' business (and profits).
Some time before June 2006 one of Toberoff's employees stole copies of documents relating to the case from his office and tried to draw the Siegel and Shuster heirs away from Toberoff. The documents included a letter from Jerry Siegel's son Michael Siegel to his sister Laura Siegel Larson in which he claimed that Toberoff meant to seize control of Superman for himself. The heirs rejected the employee's approach, so he sent the documents to DC along with a covering letter outlining the allegations against Toberoff.
In 2010 Warner Bros filed suit against Toberoff claiming that he had persuaded the Siegel and Shuster heirs to abandon an existing ownership agreement in pursuit of his own interests, citing the covering letter as the basis for its claim. Warner Bros did not cite the stolen documents, which Toberoff claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Soon thereafter, Toberoff provided unredacted copies of the stolen documents to the US Attorney's Office investigating the theft from his office, in response to a subpoena that he had solicited. Lawyers representing Warner Bros contended that the disclosure of these documents was voluntary and amounted to a waiver of attorney-client privilege. They argued that they could now cite the documents in their suit against Toberoff. A court agreed. Toberoff appealed. The Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling.