Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2- Page 3
Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
#50Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/29/16 at 11:46pm
QueenAlice said: "I was able to see the production last night, and loved it. It was a thrill to see how much the production and grown since I first saw it several years ago at Ars Nova. As I was watching it, I couldn't help but think about this unfortunate Fight. But playing devils advocate, I think I understand perhaps a little bit where the Kagan's are coming from. In truth, this production is very different from what appeared downtown. It has several new songs, and though certainly "inspired" from the work downtown, it is a completely different staging on Broadway.
So I can perhaps understand the disagreement with the credit that states this is "the Ars Nova production of…" because it really isn't.
It would be kind of like a credit that states "The Nederlanders present the Playwrights Horizons production of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE" - and we all know that show changed greatly by the time it got to Broadway.
Certainly Ars Nova deserves credit for commissioning and developing the piece but why can't the credit line speak so much to that? I would think that's a potential solution.
"
Do you understand what a contract is? I'm sure you do, but from your posts, it wouldn't seem so.
(I can't speak for the second act of SUNDAY, because they weren't performing it when I saw the show at Playwright's Horizon; but the first act didn't change all that much. As other have pointed out, however, that is really beside the point.)
#51Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/29/16 at 11:55pm
HogansHero said: "thanks, and good. I read something in the Times but I don't recall that. Perhaps I saw an earlier piece. The civil suit is important because it can lead to injunctive relief. If they wait for arbitration, the damage will have been done and the show may well have closed. Then they would have to rely on a jury to decide what the value of that loss is and, if (as has been the case with prior Kagan enterprises) the show closes at a loss, there will be no assets to pay the damages. For this reason as well, prevailing against Kagan personally will be important.
"
Hogan, I bow to your knowledge of Broadway as a business. But though I'm not a lawyer, I have worked for many and have typed hundreds of arbitration agreements. I don't recall ever seeing one where an arbiter's decision sent the parties to a jury to determine damages. I believe arbitration is usually a (cheaper) alternative to trial by judge OR jury. In this case, of course, there seem to be two torts at issue: one is covered by arbitration (per the contract, I'm sure) and one is not.
#52Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/30/16 at 6:15am
I don't understand why Kagan has that fight with Ars Nova now, instead of when the contract was being hammered out. This is just ridiculous. If he didn't want to give them the credit, he should have said that then, instead of now when he's breaching contract and has probably no chance of winning any law suit. Because he's clearly in the wrong. Back when the contract was being written he might have been able to push through what he wanted... or maybe he tried and failed.
But then this is still stupid because this is harming the show and he has absolutely nothing to gain from this, neither in terms of money or in terms of reputation. Who's gonna want to work with him after this? Certainly non-profits will stay away from him, and I bet a lot of other producers will think twice, too, before they get him on board. Especially since he's, from what I gather, never been particular successful in the first place...
#53Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/30/16 at 11:00am
@Gaveston, you are right. I was thinking about the civil suit but obviously that's not what I wrote. My mangled point was that if the show ends up losing money, then there will be no assets for satisfaction of the arbitral award and in that case whatever damages they collect would have to come from the civil suit (and would presumably be decided by a jury since Ars Nova's lawyers would relish the chance to paint Kagan as a villain to the jury). Aside from that, damages from the LLC will be against Ars Nova's interests insofar as they have a stake in the proceeds.
#54Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/30/16 at 11:04am
But Isn't the whole point of creating an LLC to protect the individual? Even though he is listed by name in the credits, surely the Kagans have all their contracts facilitated through their own LLC production company rather than as individuals - I doubt they could be held personally responsible. Also, is there any possibility that the contract only guarantees billing for a certain number of subsequent productions?
Gaveston- I do understand contracts - I'm just trying to rattle my head around some plausible concept theory that would allow Howard Kagan to think he doesn't need to give Ars Nova the billing they are asking for. But maybe it really is just about ego and law be damned.
“I knew who I was this morning, but I've changed a few times since then.”
Updated On: 10/30/16 at 11:04 AM
#55Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 10/30/16 at 11:09am
@Alice, The whole point of the civil suit is that it has nothing to do with the LLC. Kagan was a board member of Ars Nova at the time of his actions, and as such he had a fiduciary duty to it. The breach of that duty is actionable against him personally, as would be a claim based on business interference sounding in tort.
neonlightsxo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/08
#56Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 8:47am
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/theater/producers-of-natasha-pierre-the-great-comet-of-1812-offer-to-settle-dispute.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts
Apparently it's going to be resolved now.
#57Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 8:56am
The reports certainly make this seem like an avoidable dispute.
neonlightsxo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/08
#58Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 9:47am
It certainly was avoidable, but the Kagans (or Howard specifically) were being greedy for no reason.
#59Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 9:52am
The Kagans never even tried to offer an explanation or defense of their stance. In a fight like this between a very wealthy producer and a small, beloved off-Broadway company, the off-Broadway company has the upper hand in terms of sympathies.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#60Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 9:57am
Yeah I don't get it. I figured there must be more grey area in the original contract for the commercial producers to take a stance like they did against Ars Nova, but it sounds like plain stubbornness.
“I knew who I was this morning, but I've changed a few times since then.”
10086sunset
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/8/16
#61Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 10:13am
At least this will remove the black cloud and correct what was a completely avoidable situation...
#62Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2
Posted: 11/1/16 at 10:21am
QueenAlice--when you used the word "unprofessional," were you referring to Kagan or Ars Nova?
