It seems like an awfully difficult task to calculate lost profits to Main Line Pictures in this case. Kim Basinger, a well-known and very reputable actress, walked away from a movie deal causing Main Line Pictures to lose money. The amount of Main Line’s loss can never be determined with pinpoint accuracy, and Main Line would not have made the profit that they indicate they would have. However, is the plaintiff correct and are the claims the plaintiff is bringing forward reasonable? First, Main Line’s maximum and minimum lost profit amounts should not be revised downward. The 3 million dollars represents an estimate of predictable future cash flows from domestic distribution. The deal not being finalized does not in any way change that. There are those who will argue that it does, but I say that is a ludicrous argument because movie producers have to be able to predict future cash flows early on--before a movie is even released. They need to be able to determine whether it is worth obtaining “credit” for movies, because they need to be able to pay that money back to their lenders. Main Line also argues that they are entitled to $800,000 in foreign pre-sales, and I believe they also have a legitimate claim in this instance too for the same reason listed above. The $800,000 is an estimate of the future cash flows from potential customers in the foreign markets. Although Kim Basinger is liable for the lost amount listed above, is she also liable for the 2.1 million dollars lost because the movie makers cast Fenn in place of Basinger when she opted out of the deal? Let’s look at it from this perspective. Would Main Line produce a movie that they expected to lose a large amount of money? I think not. And, as the def... ... middle of paper ... ...is figure, they would have essentially removed any doubt that they would have proceeded with making Boxing Helena while expecting to lose 2 million dollars. Finally, is it reasonable to assume that Main Line’s pretax cash position would have increased by 3 million dollars or would some part of this have been paid to others? The first question that must be answered to make this assumption is--are there contractual claims against the profits in this case? The answer is yes. Main Line, however, never includes any deductions for the claims made on these profits. It’s apparent that they should have done so. In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
Prior to proposal, Arundel will need to determine which studio they feel offers the best potential success, and propose the contract prior to knowledge of films to be produced during the contract period. Arundel will then own the sequels rights as defined in the contract. History suggests that a studio would entertain an offer around $2 million per film for the rights to the sequels of each move it produces that year.
Movies today are extremely expensive to make and are typically financed through either film studio contracts or from investors willing to take a risk. In order to be successful, movies need to be marketed and distributed either under contract by the film studios or by companies that specialize in such services. The aspects of financing, marketing and distribution of films have changed between the studio and independent systems over the years as the evolution of the film industry took place.
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
... consumers can ask for a refund or replacement or even compensation if the losses are too huge (Business Government Australia, 2012).
Mickey and Minnie are brother and sister. Mickey was convicted of murder and was sent to life imprisonment. Mickey however professed that he was innocent. Minnie, his sister believed Mickey. She worked hard on the issue and after spending three years in the law school she went for looking out for facts. Later after two years of gathering facts, she proved that Mickey was innocent. After coming out of prison, Mickey along with Minnie decided to assign the book, movie and photos rights about their amazing story to Disney films. For this assigning they will charge $750,000. They have found the assignee and now are in a position to finalize the agreement. Before finalizing they are looking for the firm’s advice on how to move ahead and prepare a tax plan for them. This way they want the firm to make a tax memo to file that clearly explains how this payment will be treated by Mickey and Minnie. An effort will be made to frame tax planning that could help in reducing the tax burden upon their
Operating profit is described as, “the total revenues from operations minus cost of goods sold and operating costs (excluding interest expenses and income taxes)”. (Horngren, Datar and Rajan, 2015. p.54). Generally speaking, the higher the figure a company produces on operating profit, the better off the business will turn out to be. This is all about strategy and is primarily because a business will have less financial risk if it had a higher operating profit than one who produces less. (Horngren, Datar and Rajan, 2015. p.657). Out of all the scenarios, the best option for Crooked Creek Wines to consider is option (b) where the operating profit totalled to the highest figure out of all, which was $105 750. This was as a result from increasing their average daily revenue to $800 compared to $750 making it a
I do not agree with Heartland’s decision that a loss contingency was not triggered since the loss is probable and material. If Heartland loses the lawsuits, the loss will have a huge impact to the financial statement and this information is useful for the decision-making of the investors or creditors. I believe both of the lawsuits’ damages and other legal fees could be reasonably estimated and accrued as we had a similar case, TJX Companies. Heartland hired the same law firm that defended TJX Companies and they could definitely assist on estimating the reasonable amount to accrue since they had already dealt with this matter before. The loss contingency also needs to disclose in financial
I do believe that Deloitte and Touché ought to have endorsed Livent's choice to record the $12.5 million "naming rights" payment as income during the third quarter of 1997. There is reason that two outsiders audited the report and both enabled Livent to complete the third quarter report. Contingent upon how they stated other expansive transactions, that is how they should report this one
ANALYSIS: Crowning Glory would need to sell 7 units in order to cover the fixed costs. If we sell our anticipated 9 units then our profit/loss would be $2,005.
a. Biases. Embarrassment of negotiating new contract with vendors for high price for first crack at movies months prior to competition.
The case describes how soon after Iger took over as CEO at Disney, he reached out and reconciled relationships with the Weinstein brothers by making a settlement payment. In this instance I would argue that Iger implemented a problem solving approach. The Weinstein brothers may have received a payment of $100 million but Disney kept the Miramax name and film library worth $2 billion. It would appear that the brothers got what they thought was fair payment and Disney kept a lucrative business asset. Iger also reconciled relationships with Steve Jobs and Pixar by adding Jobs to the Disney Board of Directors.
Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer are arguably the most successful producing team in Hollywood history. Their films including “Beverly Hills Cop,” “The Rock,” “Armageddon,” and “Top Gun” have earned, according to a 1995 statistic from Entertainment Weekly, about $820 million. When one factors in the grosses for the last five or six films produced by Simpson and Bruckheimer (and Bruckheimer after Simpson’s death in 1996) the total will most likely exceed $2 billion.
When Walt Disney made the movie the Unites States was in the “Great Depression.” It was very important that he didn’t make any mathematical mistakes on this movie because if he did he would be in financial troubles. Without thinking Disney decided to go on with the movie, telling everyone how much of a success it will be. The only problem was is that Walt calculated it to only cost $250,000. Instead it cost around $1.5 million! This was a giant mistake to make, especially during the great depression! As the production of the movie went on Walt had to borrow money from the bank. Lillian Disney was not happy when Walt had to take the mortgage out on the house! Walt wasn’t able to pay...
They acquire Movie link to better increase the hope that sales would increase their Gross profits without scorching the bottom line. The gross profit margin went up from 50.92 in 2005 to 51.4 in
film can make or break a movie. Marketing a film takes up a great deal of the money that is