SpotCo Sues Scott Rudin- Page 2

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/9/20 at 12:14pm

massofmen said: "BWYguy2. I didn't excuse him for any transgression. go back and read my post.

I asked why people wanted to "bleed him dry".
RUDIN (allegedly) owes $6.3 million to a marketing company. He will either settle or have his day in court. He didn't rape, kill, molest, kidnap, torture, etc anyone. Cancel culture is alive and well on the BWW board today. He will either pay his fine or not or settle.
The man should be "BLED DRY" for this? Please. He is worth some $250 million dollars. SO first. off, this won't hurt him a bit if it happens to be true that he owes this money.
Secondly,He pays his actors, directors, creatives, theater rent etc. Because of this (alleged) transgression he needs to be BLED DRY after being in the business for 30 years, producing some of the best movies in hollywood and best shows on broadway?

Calm down."

He pays the actors and the theaters because he won't have a show if he doesn't. He doesn't pay his vendors and investors because he's a powerful bully who can get away with it. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 8/9/20 at 1:15pm

^Correct. Any poster who defends this man in any capacity is clearly a bad judge of character and says a lot about them. The argument of "yeah BUT HIS MOVIES" is a terrible, pedestrian one. 

Updated On: 8/9/20 at 01:15 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/9/20 at 2:55pm

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "He pays the actors and the theaters because he won't have a show if he doesn't. He doesn't pay his vendors and investors because he's a powerful bully who can get away with it."

He pays actors (and all other union members) because that is contractual and there are bonds that would pay them if he did not. 

He does not pay theatres because they get their money before he ever gets his hot little hands on it. 

He does pay vendors, just not enough and not when due, because he is an odious person. And they continue to do business with him because it is a good source of major revenue in spite of his sliminess. 

And he does pay investors, when he feels like it, and they too keep coming back for more "abuse" because it is worth it to them. 

I do not believe that any defense of his behavior is called for and I don't believe that the good in some way counteracts the bad. Each of us can choose whether to loathe the bad and enjoy the good, boycott the good to punish the bad, or some other response I can't think of on a Sunday afternoon. As disgusting etc as this way of dealing is to me, it does not appear to be criminal, and our system of justice has mechanisms by which the aggrieved can rectify the situation in which they find themselves in their own way.   

[massofmen]

Posted: 8/9/20 at 9:48pm

He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print? 
Do you have proof of that? 

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/9/20 at 10:52pm

massofmen said: "He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print?
Do you have proof of that?"

I didn't mean that he literally doesn't pay them at all. He has a reputation for overspending on his shows and his investors not making much money on shows you would have thought did well, eg Dolly. That show definitely made money for Rudin but not much for the investors.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 1:07am

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "massofmen said: "He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print?
Do you have proof of that?"

I didn't mean that he literally doesn't pay them at all. He has a reputation for overspending on his shows and his investors not making much money on shows you would have thought did well, eg Dolly. That show definitely made money for Rudin but not much for the investors."

Sorry, but you really ought not post things you don't actually know and understand. 

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 1:14am

HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "massofmen said: "He doesn't pay his investors? Where is that in print?
Do you have proof of that?"

I didn't mean that he literally doesn't pay them at all. He has a reputation for overspending on his shows and his investors not making much money on shows you would have thought did well, eg Dolly. That show definitely made money for Rudin but not much for the investors."

Sorry, but you really ought not post things you don't actually know and understand."

Is there something I have misunderstood?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 9:59am

yes, starting with the conflation of "overspending" and "investors not making much money," and then moving along I suppose to the definition of "much."  

[joevitus]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 11:01am

broadwayguy2 said: "It always turns my stomach when SOMEONE commits a transgression of some form or another and EVERY time someone trots out the "But they did this work or that work or that work" to try to shame the person calling the offender to task.

Every.

Single.

Time.

The older I get, the more I have a visceral reaction."

Interesting. I consider one of the hallmarks of adulthood  the ability to look at people's behavior on a wider spectrum and assess them overall based on all aspects of their personality and accomplishments. Isolating one aspect of personality or behavior and judging or condemning a person solely on that strikes me as rather childish.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 12:00pm

HogansHero said: "yes, starting with the conflation of "overspending"and "investors not making much money,"and then moving along I suppose to the definition of "much.""

When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend, would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 12:31pm

Working with just an oral agreement is one pretty dumb thing. Averaging one million dollars worth of unpaid labor every year for six years straight? That's just stupid.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 12:33pm

I think people would be shocked at how common such an arrangement is.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 1:20pm

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement that he didn't pay investors... 

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them.  

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 1:56pm

HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement thathe didn't pay investors...

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them."

I expected to make more than the 15% or so we did (I invested in the show) and I said that most of the investors felt the same, because I was at a meeting, on the mezzanine level of Glass House Tavern about 6 months after the show closed, with about 16 other investors, where we discussed how the lack of communication was bad even by Rudin standards and the consensus was that the return should have been higher. Granted that was based on what little we knew, and as you pointed out, investors on his shows knew or should have known what they were getting into.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 2:31pm

Reading all the posts here reminds me of a film producer in the mid 60's Samuel Bronston

He  was located in Spain as he had a deal with the government who would loan him various groups of people for use as extras. Making them there reduced the costs as well. His main backer was a son in the DuPont Chemical family. The film's were beautiful to watch He spared no expense and money flowed out like a raging river! He tore down a totally completed set to build a new set for his next project.After it was over what was left of the set was torn down to be replaced by the one he previously demolished . After the epic film phase left Hollywood he was screwed. His next to last movie was Fall Of The Roman Empire

It flopped and it took him down with it. The company went belly up. He knew how to make movies but was a failed producer money wise. Go on You Tube for Commodus Entry into Rome. This is the set that was torn down rebuilt and torn down for good. He really was not like Rudin but his spending is what killed the company. By the way where the Forum was is now a housing development.

Updated On: 8/10/20 at 02:31 PM

[binau]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 3:40pm

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement thathe didn't pay investors...

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them."

I expected to make more than the 15% or so we did (I invested in the show) and I said that most of the investors felt the same, because I was at a meeting, on the mezzanine level of Glass House Tavern about 6 months after the show closed, with about 16 other investors, where we discussed how the lack of communication was bad even by Rudin standards and the consensus was that the return should have been higher. Granted that was based on what little we knew, and as you pointed out, investors on his shows knew or should have known what they were getting into."

Feel free to decline answering if this is confidential but out of curiosity as an investor do you have access to a balance sheet that outlines where the money was spent? 

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 3:52pm

itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "HogansHero said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "When Dolly had a huge advance and was more or less sold out, and he continued weekly full-page ads in the Times, large outdoor spends around Times Square, and a healthy radio and TV spend,would you not call that overspending? Seems like there easily could have been $100k/week during that time that could have gone to making investors whole. And as to "much," most investors expected to make more than they did given how well the show sold."

You are still conflating two unrelated things. Before I get to that, though, the record will reflect that on numerous occasions I have mocked Rudin on this board for his silly spending on ads etc. and have criticized him robustly on any number of subjects. This is not about that, however. The truth is that (a) this is what Rudin does (and did before Dolly) and any investor who did their due diligence knew that, and (b) no one tricked anyone into investing in the show (and in fact Rudin's investors are mostly repeat investors and do not include unsavvy individuals who will be a nuisance to him). Finally, how did you go about determining what "most investors expected"? Maybe you would like to amend that to say what YOU would have expected had you invested, the same way you amended the statement thathe didn't pay investors...

Our opinions probably don't differ much, but when you state facts, you should make sure they are factual before you write them."

I expected to make more than the 15% or so we did (I invested in the show) and I said that most of the investors felt the same, because I was at a meeting, on the mezzanine level of Glass House Tavern about 6 months after the show closed, with about 16 other investors, where we discussed how the lack of communication was bad even by Rudin standards and the consensus was that the return should have been higher. Granted that was based on what little we knew, and as you pointed out, investors on his shows knew or should have known what they were getting into."

To be honest, with the money that was spent on that production and the operating cost, and I appreciated what I saw 100%, I am surprised that it got up to 15% It was a glorious production, but a visible money vacuum.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 5:19pm

qolbinau said: "Feel free to decline answering if this is confidential but out of curiosity as an investor do you have access to a balance sheet that outlines wherethe money was spent?"

Yes, investors get a very basic accounting of expenses, usually many months after the fact and broken out into only a handful of line items, all so high level as to not really tell you much other than did the show make or lose money. And with a disclaimer from the accounting firm (this is on all shows, not just Dolly) that the accountant did not verify the information and that producer has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statement of cash flows hat might influence the investors' determination of the financial health of the production (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the general message.)

[massofmen]

Posted: 8/10/20 at 10:39pm

So Scott pays his investors (you now admit), his actors, the theaters, IATSE, wardrobe, merchandise, and every other person he has a written contract with. Just not the people he allegedly had a verbal contract with. So basically what i said in the first place. 
 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/11/20 at 12:27am

massofmen said: "So Scott pays his investors (you now admit),his actors, the theaters,IATSE,wardrobe, merchandise, and every other person he has a written contract with. Just not the people he allegedly had a verbal contract with. So basically what i said in the first place."

As I said above, folks are dwelling far too much on the significance of non-written contracts: it does not matter. You mention a handful of categories most of which are paid either because bonds guarantee it or because they get the money directly, before the production does. There are a boatload of other entities that do not fall in those categories, some of whom have written contracts and many of whom do not. Having a written contract does not guarantee payment; it puts you in exactly the same position as someone with a verbal or implied contract (the latter likely being the lion's share of the agreements here): if the producer doesn't pay, you have to sue them. You are creating a false dichotomy.

[BdwyFan]

Posted: 8/11/20 at 5:37am

And investors typically have the right to audit. As typically mentioned in the operating agreement.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/11/20 at 6:27am

BdwyFan said: "And investors typically have the right to audit. As typically mentioned in the operating agreement."

Somehow, not all agreements are the same. The investor who put in 2 pesos into the production can't barge into an office and demand to know how much the shoelaces in the show were. 

I bet you can't go and audit Rudin expenses for the fun of it. 

[BdwyFan]

Posted: 8/11/20 at 6:34am

All investors for a specific show subscribe to the same operating agreement. Operating agreements don’t vary by investment size. I’d venture to guess this right to audit clause is in most if not all shows. Most investors don’t ever exercise their right to do so, but that’s another story.

[itsjustmejonhotmailcom]

Posted: 8/11/20 at 12:05pm

BdwyFan said: "All investors for a specific show subscribe to the same operating agreement. Operating agreements don’t vary by investment size. I’d venture to guess this right to audit clause is in most if not all shows. Most investors don’t ever exercise their right to do so, but that’s another story."

The language is pretty vague. It's usually that the investor has the right to "inspect the books and records of the company" with reasonable notice. But "books and records" isn't defined. What you'd actually have access to is anyone's guess.