Receiver Says Moviemaker Defrauded Bayou Hedge Fund
Financial
Kroll Inc., the court-appointed receiver for the defunct Bayou Hedge Fund, sued movie producer Steven Brown, claiming he used more than $3 million that should have gone to repay Bayou's investment in a new movie. Kroll also sued the attorney who helped Bayou invest in Brown's movies after the lawyer jumped over to Brown's side and allegedly stalled negotiations to help Brown avoid repayment.
Kroll has been in charge of recovering Bayou assets since 2006, after Samuel Israel III and former Bayou CFO Daniel Marino were convicted of stealing $450 million from investors. Israel led police on a goose chase in June after faking his suicide to try to avoid prison.
According to this Superior Court complaint, in 2005 Bayou created various companies to invest in three of Brown's movies. Bayou subsidiary Paid Movie I invested $2.7 million in "Yellow." In exchange for financing "Yellow," Brown promised to repay Bayou's investment within 6 months, plus a 15 percent fee. Bayou would also get half of "Yellow's" revenue. Though "Yellow" garnered good reviews at the New York International Latino Film Festival and the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival, Brown never repaid Bayou's original investment and failed to make good on either the 15 percent fee or the additional 50 percent share of revenue, the complaint states.
Paid Movie II, another Bayou subsidiary, allegedly wired Brown $250,000 to finance the movie, "Just Play Dead." The Paid Movie II contract held that Brown would share revenue from "Just Play Dead" and send the company weekly accounting explanations - and repay the loan. Brown did none of that, according to the complaint.
Bayou allegedly loaned Brown $200,000 to finance a third movie, "Affairs of State." Again, Kroll says, Brown failed to repay the loan.
In 2006, when Kroll took over Bayou's attempts to get Brown to cough up the money, Kroll says, former Bayou attorney Barry Reiss hopped over to Brown's side. Reiss had represented Bayou and Paid Movie I, II and III during negotiations with Brown, but jumped ship when Kroll took over, according to the complaint.
Reiss kept Kroll from suing Brown by claiming that the movies would soon make enough money to repay the loans, Kroll says. Reiss represented Brown during negotiations of a new repayment schedule. Kroll says it would never have given Reiss permission to represent Brown and would not have excused Reiss' conflict of interest, had Reiss asked it to.
Instead of complying with the new repayment agreement, Kroll says, Brown used the money he owed to make another movie, "Adrift in Manhattan," starring Heather Graham and William Baldwin.
Kroll wants Brown to repay the loans, plus the 15 and 50 percent fees it promised, and damages. Kroll is represented by Richard Fond with Simke, Chodos & Sasaki.
Related listings
-
US inflation ticked up last month as some price pressures remain persistent
Financial 12/08/2024Fueled by pricier used cars, hotel rooms and groceries, inflation in the United States moved slightly higher last month in the latest sign that some price pressures remain elevated.Consumer prices rose 2.7% in November from a year earlier, up from a ...
-
Sun Action Trackers, LLC - Improve Your Solar Plant Performance
Financial 07/10/2024We offer bankable solutions to residential, commercial and utility scaled projects in the U.S., and worldwide. Our company has supplied 1GW of proven solar tracking and racking systems worldwide combined with our world-class dual axis tracking deploy...
-
Korean Air Pilot Jobs - Korean Air's competitive pay awaits you
Financial 05/08/2024Korean Air Pilot Careers & Salary - TAS is committed to recruiting experienced airline pilots for exceptional career opportunities with Korean Air, a premier airline in Asia. All Korean Air Pilot Jobs Our management team comes with years of fligh...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.