Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2 — Page 2

QueenAlice said: "I suppose there might be some that sympathize with Ars Nova, but the only sympathizers who matter for a not-for-profit are the ones who might donate or be of some service to the organization. I frankly wouldn't want to donate to any organization that was threatening former board members with law suits. Even if they have cause, my red flag says 'stay away from trouble'. Ars Nova is new to the world of commercial transfer and frankly --there probably are some "i's" and "t's" on their contracts as related to this production that weren't dotted and crossed, which is the root cause of this issue. Again it just speaks to a vibe of amateurism."

Needless to say, you are entitled to react to Ars Nova any way you want, and needless to say different people will react in different ways. But regarding dotting the i's and crossing the t's, I would point out that like virtually all non-profits, even the tiny ones, there are these folks called lawyers who negotiate and write their contracts, and those lawyers didn't get off the turnip truck yesterday, even if you (rightly or wrongly) think the folks running the theatre did. Credits language is pretty boilerplate and I seriously doubt a defective contract is at the root of this problem. And your "vibe" BS betrays your lack of familiarity with what you are trying to throw shade over far more than it reflects on the highly regarded folks at Ars Nova.

i doubt that, Joey. My guess (for what it's worth) is that Kagan felt/feels that the post-Ars iterations are the egg as well as the chicken and that Ars Nova's contribution is worthy of denigration. I think he feels it is his investment that is the real sine qua non of the Broadway production, much as Goldman Sachs thinks it is responsible for creating progress in America (or at least as their ad agency thinks).

QueenAlice said: "HogansHero -- I don't pretend to know anything about the 'highly regarded" folks at Ars Nova, nor the Kagans for that matter. I speak only as someone who DOES give regularly to the arts and is also regularly approached about investing in shows. The entire thing is bad publicity for both entities as far as I'm concerned. And my comment was in response to how this publicity could possibly help a not-for profit like Ars Nova. My answer is that it couldn't. And yes, despite having attorneys, I think its possible a small organization like Ars Nova who has never had a production transfer commercially could have been under-represented from a legal perspective when it came to negotiating iron clad terms for any Broadway production. Maybe it's not true -- but again, as an outside lay person, their willingness to be a part of a tabloid level dispute would make me wary about ever donating or being involved in an advisory capacity to that organization.



"

I've transferred two shows and can tell you the language is so beyond "boilerplate" that it's nearly a copy+paste with a fill-in-the-blank for the enhancement dollar amount. And the same team represents Ars Nova that represents The Public, so I doubt this one was any sort of oversight more than a breach of contract.

I am interested in the theory about ART vs Ars Nova, however. Not sure how much is behind that, but could be interesting. Has anyone seen the playbill yet?

I don't have my playbill in front of me, but as I recall, it has all the 20 or so producers in a clump, then on separate lines, something like:

"with American Repertory Theatre and Ars Nova present"

^or maybe ART did not negotiate the credit that Ars Nova did. One "gets" what one contracted for so there is never a reason to be "upset" when you don't get something you have no right to get.

eventually, obviously, this will all play out.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/27/mel-brooks-is-bringing-the-young-frankenstein-musical-back-from-the-dead/

Part 3.

What does Kagan gain from acting so immature?

In 20 years time this show will be revived and incorporate the whole Kagan / Ats Nova drama ala the shuffle along 2016 revival , starring Audra McDonald's youngest as natasha .

Updated On: 10/28/16 at 11:24 AM

This is such a stupid issue.

broadwayguy91 said: "In 20 years time this show will be revived and incorporate the whole Kagan / Ats Nova drama ala the shuffle along 2916 revival , starring Audra McDonald's youngest as natasha .



"

Pretty sure Natasha would be Audra's great great great great great great great grandchild.

broadwayguy91 said: "In 20 years time this show will be revived and incorporate the whole Kagan / Ats Nova drama ala the shuffle along 2016 revival , starring Audra McDonald's youngest as natasha .



This MADE MY DAY. Thank you. It's so unfortunate that the Ars Nova/Kagan conflict has to come to this. I only hope it doesn't hurt the show.

It doesn't matter if you think the production has changed dramatically from its original iteration and sympathize with the show's producer. Kagan in CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to credit the production to Ars Nova. He is flagrantly violating the terms of the contract. And under contract law, ALL terms of the contract are binding, even if you no longer like the terms. Only illegal acts are unenforceable in a contract.

@Fosse76, Yep.

There are dozens of credits that are not especially accurate but are nonetheless contractual and included. "Producers" names appear above the title even though all they did was invest a lot of money, actors names are bigger and/or higher than other actors' names because they have a name that could demand that. Original production credits are most often set up as they are in this Playbill, and that is what many producers would agree to, but as we know Kagan is not an experienced producer nor a very smart one so it is not that surprising he agreed to what he is required to do. It will be interesting to see if they sued Kagan personally as well, for breach of his fiduciary duty.

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.