Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to TheWrap on Bob Chapek’s Second Year as Disney CEO
Category: News, Uncategorized | Wednesday, March 30th, 2022 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to TheWrap on Bob Chapek’s Second Year as Disney CEO
Bryan Sullivan was recently quoted in Diane Haithman’s TheWrap article “Why Disney CEO Bob Chapek Gets Both an A and an F on His 2nd-Year Report Card.” The article focuses on the past year at Disney and evaluates Chapek’s leadership during his second year as CEO. According to Bryan, while Chapek’s initial waffling on Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill may have been a PR misstep, the CEO is still doing well financially.
“There’s bad PR, and there’s bad business,” Bryan told TheWrap. “Chapek has a PR problem, not a business problem… Investors are not dumping Disney.”
Read the article below (subscription below).
Why Disney CEO Bob Chapek Gets Both an A and an F on His 2nd-Year Report Card
Early Sullivan Client Emma Hernan Featured in Yahoo! Article on “Selling Sunset”
Category: News, Press, Uncategorized | Thursday, May 27th, 2021 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Client Emma Hernan Featured in Yahoo! Article on “Selling Sunset”
Bryan Sullivan recently represented Emma Hernan in her deal to become one of the newest cast members and real estate agents featured in the Netflix reality TV hit “Selling Sunset.” Hernan will join fellow new cast member Vanessa Villela, as well as existing cast members Mary Fitzgerald, Christine Quinn, Chrishell Stause, and Maya Vander for the upcoming season, which is currently filming and predicted to air on the streaming service towards the end of the year.
Read more on Yahoo! Life.
Early Sullivan’s Lawsuit Against Il Divo Member Sébastien Izambard Covered by the New York Times, Cites “Coercive Control”
Category: News, Press, Uncategorized | Saturday, May 15th, 2021 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan’s Lawsuit Against Il Divo Member Sébastien Izambard Covered by the New York Times, Cites “Coercive Control”
A recent New York Times article entitled, “Il Divo Tenor’s Ex-Wife Sues Him, Citing Sexual and Physical Abuse,” details the claims brought by Devin McRae’s client Renée Izambard against Il Divo member Sébastien Izambard. Renee’s allegations uncover Sébastien’s historical behavior patterns, which include domestic violence, sexual assault and battery, and “coercive control.”
California recently enacted a law that allows coercive control behaviors to be introduced as evidence of domestic violence in family court. Devin notes that this lawsuit aims to “shed light on how intractable coercive control is.” The hope is that, with “coercive control,” California will once again be leading the way on novel law.
Read the full article.
Deadline Covers Early Sullivan’s Representation of “47 Ronin” Sequel Screenwriters
Category: News, Press, Uncategorized | Wednesday, April 21st, 2021 | Comments Off on Deadline Covers Early Sullivan’s Representation of “47 Ronin” Sequel Screenwriters
Bryan Sullivan recently represented “Lucifer” actress Aimee Garcia and New York Times bestselling author AJ Mendez in their deal to write the upcoming untitled “47 Ronin” sequel for Universal 1440 Entertainment. The film, set to be directed by Ron Yuan of “Mulan,” is a follow-up to the 2013 fantasy epic starring Keanu Reeves. Garcia and Mendez recently launched Scrappy Heart Productions, and have worked together on previous projects including the comic book series Glow, Dungeons and Dragons, and Wonder Woman.
For more information, see Deadline.
‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept – Forbes
Category: News, Uncategorized | Thursday, April 19th, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept – Forbes
Bryan Sullivan’s article “‘Stranger Things’ Creators Accused Of Stealing Netflix Show’s Concept” was published on Forbes on April 19, 2018. In the article, Bryan discusses the lawsuit accusing the Duffer Brothers of stealing the idea for Netflix’s hit show “Stranger Things,” and how the case may come down to whether the plaintiff made an offer to the Duffers to buy his idea.
To read the full article, click here.
Stephen Ma Quoted in Bloomberg on Bill Gross Wrongful Termination Suit
Category: News, Press, Uncategorized | Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 | Comments Off on Stephen Ma Quoted in Bloomberg on Bill Gross Wrongful Termination Suit
Partner Stephen Ma was quoted in Edvard Pettersson’s Bloomberg article “Bill Gross’s Big Swing at Pimco Seen Hinging on Contract Issue,” which discussed the famed bond investor’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the firm he co-founded, Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO). According to Stephen, it is highly unusual for someone at Gross’s level to lack a written contract, and that his breach-of-contract claim will depend on how the profit-sharing agreement is interpreted under California law.
“This was a very public power struggle and now Pimco will have a chance to tell their side of the story,” Stephen said. “This could become a high-profile slug fest.
Steve Ma Quoted in Law360 Article Titled “Proskauer, Chadbourne Could Face Billions In Damages”
Category: News, Press, Uncategorized | Friday, February 28th, 2014 | Comments Off on Steve Ma Quoted in Law360 Article Titled “Proskauer, Chadbourne Could Face Billions In Damages”
Steve Ma was quoted in Stephanie Russell-Kraft’s Law360 article titled “”Proskauer, Chadbourne Could Face Billions In Damages.”
Law360, New York (February 26, 2014, 10:16 PM ET) — The liability headache has only just begun for Proskauer Rose LLP and Chadbourne & Parke LLP, which now face potentially billions of dollars in damages after the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that victims of Robert Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme can sue the law firms over their alleged role in the scheme.
In a 7-2 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the application of the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which bars state-law class actions alleging fraud “in connection with” the sale of a security traded on a national exchange. The high court upheld a Fifth Circuit ruling that the victims’ claims were not barred by SLUSA because the alleged misrepresentations about covered securities were only “tangentially related” to the Ponzi scheme.
According to the class of investors, the firms helped Stanford falsely represent that its certificates of deposit, which were not covered by SLUSA, were backed by safer, covered securities.
The ruling marked a significant defeat for Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke, putting a class action against them back into play in a Texas district court, where they will be subjected to “more pro-investor” Texas securities laws that let plaintiffs sue gatekeepers for their roles in aiding and abetting securities fraud, according to attorney Edward C. Snyder, who represents the plaintiffs.
“For the firms, this means significantly more legal costs, negative publicity, and, potentially, depending on how the cases go, more exposure,” said H. David Kotz, who authored the report on Stanford’s Ponzi scheme when he served as inspector general of the SEC.
Attorneys were reluctant to speculate on the amount of damage the Stanford liability case could do to Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke, but the worst-case scenario — damages in the billions — could be debilitating, if not worse. The investors have argued that Stanford wouldn’t have been able to sell them the fraudulent securities without the help of Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke, which Houston-based litigator Tom Ajamie finds difficult to dispute
“If Stanford didn’t have lawyers, the fraud couldn’t have been committed, period,” Ajamie said. “Lawyers are integral parts of financial fraud and they need to be held accountable for what they do.”
Having passed the “major roadblock” of a Supreme Court appeal, the newly emboldened investors can now seek recovery of the remaining 99 percent of the $5 billion they sunk into certificates of deposit administered by Stanford’s foreign bank, Stanford International Bank Ltd., Snyder said.
“These cases have been stymied for going on five years because of this SLUSA issue that was raised on a motion to dismiss,” Snyder said. “We will likely ask the court to allow us to go ahead and proceed with discovery now.”
In separate statements Wednesday, representatives for both Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke stressed a reading of the court’s decision as a “narrow procedural” issue, saying they still plan to fight for the case’s dismissal on other grounds.
Nevertheless, the firms’ SLUSA defense was a “seemingly strong procedural defense that is now wiped out,” according to Kotz.
The two firms are among a slew of secondary actors now facing class action claims brought by Stanford investors in Texas federal court. Suits against Willis Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Hunton & Williams LLP, Pershing, BDO Seidman, Toronto Dominion, Societe Generale SA, HSBC Holdings PLC, Trustmark Corp., Bank of Houston, and Adams and Reese LLP are all set to pick up again now that the high court has weighed in, according to Snyder.
While firms previously took comfort in the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, which held that “aiders and abettors” of fraud cannot be held secondarily liable in private federal suits, that may no longer be the case, according to John Massaro, partner at Arnold & Porter.
“That case provided a measure of comfort and protection to those gatekeepers and this signals that state courts and state causes of action are going to be available [to plaintiffs] going forward,” Massaro said.
But Wednesday’s decision is a reminder that secondary actors with deep pockets — like law firms and insurance brokers — should be aware of their liabilities and watch closely what clients they take on, attorneys say.
“The SEC has said [gatekeepers] have an obligation not just to clients, but to their profession,” said Stephen Ma, partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP. “If there is an alleged fraud you have to do something about it, but what does ‘something about it’ mean? Those are not easy calls to make.”
While the long-term ramifications for Chadbourne and Proskauer remain to be seen, other firms need to grapple with these ethical questions before it’s too late, according to Larry Gabriel of Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP.
“You can’t just put statements out there without exploring the bona fides of a client’s business operation,” he said.
–Editing by Elizabeth Bowen and Chris Yates.
All Content © 2003-2014, Portfolio Media, Inc.
How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
Category: Press, Uncategorized | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
If an actress is able to get past any written agreement she signed and convince a judge that she worked on a film under fraudulent pretenses, more controversy could be around the bend.On Wednesday, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress featured in the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, sued [3] for allegedly being deceived into working in a “hateful anti-Islamic production.”
The lawsuit against producer Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) has garnered headlines because the film sparked rioting throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And if there wasn’t a big political/religious dimension to the litigation, it would still command interest because of the inclusion of Google/YouTube as a defendant. Garcia demands that the web giant remove the film from the video site because it allegedly violates her publicity and privacy rights and is damaging her. Takedowns already are controversial. This lawsuit raises the stakes by questioning whether there are circumstances beyond copyright infringement that necessitate a video’s removal.
But there’s another aspect to this case that’s also important and could cause much trouble in Hollywood: the relationship between actors and producers.
When most people agree to do a job, and that job turns out to be different than what is first represented, there’s easy recourse: The person quits.
For actors, it’s not that simple. The work might happen on set, but the performance happens onscreen, after producers, directors and editors tinker with the results of the footage shot. Catch an actor in a candid moment, and many will admit to having had a bad performance saved in postproduction — or complain of a good job ruined by all the tinkering.
Garcia is upset because the film didn’t turn out the way she expected. This is certainly a highly unusual situation. She says she was led to believe via a casting notice that she was working on an “historical Arabian Desert adventure film” and it turned into Innocence of Muslims, which she says caused her to lose her job, contact with her grandchildren and her sense of security. (The film has only been published [4] as a 14-minute “trailer,” so it’s hard to say what it is at this point.)
But it’s also not hard to re-imagine her lawsuit under different guises.
She says in the complaint [6]:
“Defendant Bacile’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff would be depicted as a concerned mother, were false. Instead, Defendant Bacile made an anti-Islam propaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to accuse the founder of the Islamic religion of being a sexual deviant and child molester.”
Now imagine if the complaint said this:
“Defendant Paul Thomas Anderson’s representations that he intended to make a ‘buddy’ film, and that Plaintiff Joaquin Phoenix would be depicted as an up-and-comer, were false. Instead, Defendant Anderson made an anti-Scientology propaganda film (The Master), in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to be victim to a cult.”
Or maybe this:
“Defendant Jerry Bruckheimer’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff Jake Gyllenhaal would be depicted as a strong male lead, were false. Instead, Defendant made a film (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) that caused audiences to laugh at him.”
One of the big questions here is the latitude producers and directors have in straying from the script. How legally protected is something like editing? Perhaps the sacrosanctity of postproduction is not a given, and representations made during the casting process are paramount.
Of course, Hollywood lawyers have imagined such legal nightmares, albeit not the kind that cause anti-U.S. uprisings. That’s why actors typically are made to sign written agreements, which raises the single most glaring thing missing from Garcia’s lawsuit: There’s no mention of the contract she signed. What exactly did she waive rights to?
“Typically, a producer has the right to edit footage and leave an actor’s performance on the cutting-room floor,” says David Stern, an attorney at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. “Nearly all acting agreements grant such rights to the producer and, further, bar the actor from seeking injunctive relief to stop the distribution and exhibition of a film. Even SAG acting agreements confer these rights to the producer. There is no duty to explain to an actor the political or societal implications of a project. In many films directed by Woody Allen, the actor does not get to see any portion of the script other than the actor’s lines.”
Other attorneys in Hollywood agree.
“Her best claim is false light because she agreed to perform a certain role and then her image was used for something else that damaged her,” says Bryan Sullivan at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “But it depends on what the contract says because the rights granted in them are typically broad and don’t give the actors much input.”
So the first thing that a judge probably would look at is Garcia’s contract. One of the things she’s suing for is violation of her publicity rights. If Garcia didn’t consent to the use of her image, the producer could be liable — not for an inflammatory film (free speech, naturally) but rather for professional negligence.
Assuming there is a contract with standard boilerplate language, Garcia probably will have a tough time winning this case — but maybe not an impossible one. As Sullivan suggests, there might be some wiggle room because of the unusual circumstances. The attorney adds that the key factors will be what was said about the script, what she knew and when she knew it.
If Garcia is able to convince a court that allegedly fraudulent pretenses should nullify whatever contract she signed, it could begin a slippery slope toward more claims like these in Hollywood. Nowadays, final cut goes to the person with the most bargaining power; in the future, it might really end up being with the person with the best lawyers.
Source: Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter Esq.