Hollywood Accounting -- In Canada
MC
Struggling Screenwriter ‹ Himself By Chris Petrikin and Ben Berkowitz
Tuesday, October 31 12:37 a.m. Heavyweight industry attorney Pierce
OąDonnell filed suit Friday against a Canadian producer and others for
defrauding a struggling screenwriter ‹ namely, Pierce OąDonnell.
The suit was filed last Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court by Premiere
Media Inc., a Nevada corporation to which OąDonnell assigned his
interests for purpose of the suit. It named as defendants Canadian
companies Monopolis Productions and Transfilm Inc., and their owner
Claude Leger, accountancy Multipix Management and its owner Syvan
Proulx. The complaint accuses the producer and others of using
ŚąąHollywood Accountingą North of the Borderąą to divert profits from
the comedy Home Team, which was written by the high-profile Hollywood
attorney and starred Steve Guttenberg.
The film was released in 1998 and, according to the suit, Śąto date,
sales of Home Team have not achieved projections.ąą OąDonnelląs suit
claims that ŚąTransfilm, Leger, Multipix and Proulx ‹ as those
intimately involved with managing the financial affairs of Home Team ‹
used Monopolis as a pawn in a game of self interested transactions in an
attempt to conceal the existence of fraudulent and unauthorized payments
to themselves and related third parties benefiting from them.ąą
OąDonnell wrote Home Team in 1994, according to the suit, which
describes the screenplay as Śąa charming family comedy about an underdog
soccer team comprised of teenage orphans who, with the help of their
initially skeptical coach, played by Steve Guttenberg, ultimately go on
to overcome their humble origins, win the big game and save their
home.ąą The filing goes on to say that ŚąHome Team was OąDonnelląs
screenwriting debut, and he devoted countless hours to the project.
After recruiting writer Jeff Lewis to work on a rewrite, OąDonnell
focused his efforts on the challenge of getting Home Team onto the big
screen.ąą
In September 1998, the suit claims, OąDonnell helped Leger and his
company, Transfilm, secure a $1.5 million loan from California bank
Comerica. ŚąAdditional financing was secured by presale of Home Team in
foreign territories and a loan by BNP (Banque Nationale de Paris) of
$1,299,944 (Canadian) secured by movie production funds to be paid by
the province of Quebec and the Canadian national government,ąą according
to the suit. Subsequently, the suit maintains that just as principal
photography was about to begin, OąDonnell was told by Leger and others
that another $200,000 was needed to complete the project Śąin a
marketable manner.ąą The suit claims that OąDonnell raised the extra
money from Comerica, personally guaranteeing the note in the process. On
June 30, 1999, OąDonnell was forced to make good on the note with
Comerica, costing him a net total of $150,000 (the $200,000 note less a
$50,000 rebate he had received from the Canadian government and province
of Quebec).
The suit claims that, based on a tip, OąDonnell had an independent
Canadian accountant review the filmąs finances, allegedly Śąreveal(ing)
numerous irregularities, improper expenses, (and) unauthorized
transactions,ąą among other problems. Some of these alleged
irregularities include payments made by Monopolis to Multipix that were
548 percent over the original budgeted costs for those services; a
16-day, $100,000 loan to Monopolis from Multipix that amounted to more
than $80,000 in fees and interest (with effective interest rate of 2,000
percent); and over payment of producersą fees in excess of $350,000.
A call to OąDonnelląs attorney, Lisa Brant at OąDonnell & Shaeffer, was
not immediately returned. There was no answer at the Montreal offices of
Transfilm. The suit, which alleges among other claims fraudulent
inducement, false promise and civil conspiracy, asks for damages in the
amount of $150,000 plus Śąimposition of a constructive trust and/or
equitable lien against all funds wrongfully appropriated by
defendants.ąą
OąDonnell might be new to the role of stepped-upon screenwriter, but he
is well versed in tackling Hollywood studios in the name of the underdog
‹ having, perhaps most notably, represented Art Buchwald against
Paramount Pictures. OąDonnell managed to turn that court victory into
the book Fatal Subtraction: How Hollywood Really Does Business, but in
this case OąDonnell wrote first and sued later.
The attorney-turned-screenwriter also is clearly familiar with the
family sports genre. He has represented Mighty Ducks film franchise
creator and writer Steven Brill, who sued Disney and the professional
hockey team, the Mighty Ducks Hockey Club in 1998, claiming he is
entitled to 5 percent of gross revenues and any merchandising stemming
from the hockey team. The original 1992 Mighty Ducks film was about a
young, arrogant lawyer, who is forced to coach a ragtag peewee hockey
team as part of his court-ordered community service. That team, too,
overcomes its origins to win the big game.
And while this current suit pits one of Hollywoodąs best-known (or most
notorious, depending on whom you ask) litigators against these Canadian
companies, it also may try to bring up a broader point that all that
glitters up north may in fact not be gold. As the introduction to
OąDonnelląs suit states, ŚąThrough government subsidies and other
inducements, Canada has become a leader in attracting producers to film
their movies in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver at costs far
lower than those possible in Los Angeles. Sadly, however, Canadian film
production comes at a price.ąą
Denise Levin of Inside contributed to this report.
Steve Richer
There's no excuse for bad filmmaking.
--
Steve Richer
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sricher/home.htm
http://richer.s.tripod.com
"Doing stuff is overrated"
- The Tao of Steve
"MC" <copeS...@total.net> wrote in message
news:copeSPAMZAP-26FA...@news.total.net...
> Heavy-Weight Industry Lawyer OıDonnell Sues Producer for Defrauding
> Struggling Screenwriter < Himself By Chris Petrikin and Ben Berkowitz
>
> Tuesday, October 31 12:37 a.m. Heavyweight industry attorney Pierce
> OıDonnell filed suit Friday against a Canadian producer and others for
> defrauding a struggling screenwriter < namely, Pierce OıDonnell.
>
> The suit was filed last Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court by Premiere
> Media Inc., a Nevada corporation to which OıDonnell assigned his
> interests for purpose of the suit. It named as defendants Canadian
> companies Monopolis Productions and Transfilm Inc., and their owner
> Claude Leger, accountancy Multipix Management and its owner Syvan
> Proulx. The complaint accuses the producer and others of using
> OııHollywood Accountingı North of the Borderıı to divert profits from
> the comedy Home Team, which was written by the high-profile Hollywood
> attorney and starred Steve Guttenberg.
>
> The film was released in 1998 and, according to the suit, Oıto date,
> sales of Home Team have not achieved projections.ıı OıDonnellıs suit
> claims that OıTransfilm, Leger, Multipix and Proulx < as those
> intimately involved with managing the financial affairs of Home Team <
> used Monopolis as a pawn in a game of self interested transactions in an
> attempt to conceal the existence of fraudulent and unauthorized payments
> to themselves and related third parties benefiting from them.ıı
>
> OıDonnell wrote Home Team in 1994, according to the suit, which
> describes the screenplay as Oıa charming family comedy about an underdog
> soccer team comprised of teenage orphans who, with the help of their
> initially skeptical coach, played by Steve Guttenberg, ultimately go on
> to overcome their humble origins, win the big game and save their
> home.ıı The filing goes on to say that OıHome Team was OıDonnellıs
> screenwriting debut, and he devoted countless hours to the project.
> After recruiting writer Jeff Lewis to work on a rewrite, OıDonnell
> focused his efforts on the challenge of getting Home Team onto the big
> screen.ıı
>
> In September 1998, the suit claims, OıDonnell helped Leger and his
> company, Transfilm, secure a $1.5 million loan from California bank
> Comerica. OıAdditional financing was secured by presale of Home Team in
> foreign territories and a loan by BNP (Banque Nationale de Paris) of
> $1,299,944 (Canadian) secured by movie production funds to be paid by
> the province of Quebec and the Canadian national government,ıı according
> to the suit. Subsequently, the suit maintains that just as principal
> photography was about to begin, OıDonnell was told by Leger and others
> that another $200,000 was needed to complete the project Oıin a
> marketable manner.ıı The suit claims that OıDonnell raised the extra
> money from Comerica, personally guaranteeing the note in the process. On
> June 30, 1999, OıDonnell was forced to make good on the note with
> Comerica, costing him a net total of $150,000 (the $200,000 note less a
> $50,000 rebate he had received from the Canadian government and province
> of Quebec).
>
> The suit claims that, based on a tip, OıDonnell had an independent
> Canadian accountant review the filmıs finances, allegedly Oıreveal(ing)
> numerous irregularities, improper expenses, (and) unauthorized
> transactions,ıı among other problems. Some of these alleged
> irregularities include payments made by Monopolis to Multipix that were
> 548 percent over the original budgeted costs for those services; a
> 16-day, $100,000 loan to Monopolis from Multipix that amounted to more
> than $80,000 in fees and interest (with effective interest rate of 2,000
> percent); and over payment of producersı fees in excess of $350,000.
>
> A call to OıDonnellıs attorney, Lisa Brant at OıDonnell & Shaeffer, was
> not immediately returned. There was no answer at the Montreal offices of
> Transfilm. The suit, which alleges among other claims fraudulent
> inducement, false promise and civil conspiracy, asks for damages in the
> amount of $150,000 plus Oıimposition of a constructive trust and/or
> equitable lien against all funds wrongfully appropriated by
> defendants.ıı
>
> OıDonnell might be new to the role of stepped-upon screenwriter, but he
> is well versed in tackling Hollywood studios in the name of the underdog
> < having, perhaps most notably, represented Art Buchwald against
> Paramount Pictures. OıDonnell managed to turn that court victory into
> the book Fatal Subtraction: How Hollywood Really Does Business, but in
> this case OıDonnell wrote first and sued later.
>
> The attorney-turned-screenwriter also is clearly familiar with the
> family sports genre. He has represented Mighty Ducks film franchise
> creator and writer Steven Brill, who sued Disney and the professional
> hockey team, the Mighty Ducks Hockey Club in 1998, claiming he is
> entitled to 5 percent of gross revenues and any merchandising stemming
> from the hockey team. The original 1992 Mighty Ducks film was about a
> young, arrogant lawyer, who is forced to coach a ragtag peewee hockey
> team as part of his court-ordered community service. That team, too,
> overcomes its origins to win the big game.
>
> And while this current suit pits one of Hollywoodıs best-known (or most
> notorious, depending on whom you ask) litigators against these Canadian
> companies, it also may try to bring up a broader point that all that
> glitters up north may in fact not be gold. As the introduction to
> OıDonnellıs suit states, OıThrough government subsidies and other
> inducements, Canada has become a leader in attracting producers to film
> their movies in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver at costs far
> lower than those possible in Los Angeles. Sadly, however, Canadian film
> production comes at a price.ıı
Blair P. Houghton
>Everyone involved with the making of Home Team should be taken out and shot.
Do you suppose the producers were entrapped? I mean, he knew
how movie accounting works, so he went and wrote a script (any
script) and found someone (anyone) to produce it, with the
goal of eventually auditing the books. I mean, "we didn't have
to make your script into a movie, you begged us to," won't be
much of a defense, but there it is...
And where is the WGA on all this? Why don't the writers strike
for open accounting, so that "net points" will mean something?
--Blair
"Minus 4 for Steve Gutenberg."
Matrixx Entertainment
news:8tpl54$2g$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net...
> Steve Richer<sri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Everyone involved with the making of Home Team should be taken out and
shot.
>
> Do you suppose the producers were entrapped? I mean, he knew
> how movie accounting works, so he went and wrote a script (any
> script) and found someone (anyone) to produce it, with the
> goal of eventually auditing the books.
I don't think so. But I WILL say this whole thing IS really weird! One would
think that, after the Buchwald v. Paramount litigation, no studio, let alone
a "lowly producer," would fuck with Pierce O' Donnell in any way. And I
can't imagine O'Donnell being so pissed off at his "settlement" with
Paramount that he would go out and "take it out" on some producer with
entrapment. I don't yet know enough about this issue to really have a valid
opinion on all this.
> I mean, "we didn't have
> to make your script into a movie, you begged us to," won't be
> much of a defense, but there it is...
>
> And where is the WGA on all this? Why don't the writers strike
> for open accounting, so that "net points" will mean something?
Had you been paying attention in FATAL SUBTRACTION 101 you would know the
answer to THAT question. The WGA, when push comes to shove, kisses the
asses of the studio brass -- NOT the writer.
James Jaeger
P.S. here is a compilation called "337 REPORTED BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE
MAJOR STUDIO/DISTRIBUTORS" http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/distprac.htm that
any one interested in this subject might find useful.