5 ms·

> would somehow jump across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes and begin binding a different company "Somehow"? They would do so via a c

> would somehow jump across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes and begin binding a different company "Somehow"? They would do so via a completely standard clause that enjoins any acquiring entity to honour the terms of the contract. I have never negotiated a contract that did not have a such a clause. Neither has anyone else who knows what they are doing. Maybe she had incompetent representation. Maybe the arcana of this specific acquisition were such that any contractual obligations were effectively terminated. But don't pretend for a moment that this isn't bog-standard, boiler-plate-level stuff. We know exactly how such contractual obligations would be conveyed across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes because we are used to writing contracts that specifically say "If you're acquired, the obligations under this contract are on the acquirer."

ubernostrum 12y ago
Neither has anyone else who knows what they are doing. I don't know the details of the contract, but I know that apparently it gave her a percentage of net, rather than gross, on the resulting film. Which, when dealing with Hollywood, ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel on the part of whatever attorney represented/advised her during the negotiations :)
- shutupalready 12y ago
  > ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel A much more likely explanation is that the writer and her lawyer know perfectly well the difference between gross and net, but this was the best deal they could get, and it was better than nothing. Writer and her lawyer: "We demand 3% of the gross." Studio head: "I'm not offering any percentage of the gross." Writer and her lawyer: "OK, we'll settle for 2.5% of the gross." Studio head: "I told you: nothing on the gross. Zero. If you don't like that, get lost. I'll hire another writer." Writer and her lawyer: "Well, OK, how about 3% of the net." Studio head: "I think we can agree to that."
  - TwoBit 12y ago
    I wouldn't mind how studios did this if they were simply up front about it instead of being weasels about it.
    - briandear 12y ago
      They aren't being weasels. Everyone in Hollywood already knows there isn't any net. It's rare to get gross -- generally the only time that happens is when the star power is such that it would make a significant difference in the box office. Bradley Cooper gets net, no name writer from Pfugerville gets net, if any points at all.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    That doesn't make any sense, though. 3% of the net is not better than nothing. Why would you bother to ask for it? That just makes your contract legally valid, in the sense that consideration is offered, without getting you any benefits.
DanBC 12y ago
> Maybe she had incompetent representation. She talks of "net profit", not "gross profit", so that's a possibility.
- briandear 12y ago
  Exactly. There's no such thing as net. Even blockbusters rarely achieve 'net.' It's the mark of a Hollywood rookie to have net points. Gross is the only way to go. Eddie Murphy famously called net points as "monkey points." Obviously she didn't have an agent who understood Hollywood Accounting. Of course, a new writer or someone without much bargaining power generally takes what they can get.

ubernostrum 12y ago

Neither has anyone else who knows what they are doing. I don't know the details of the contract, but I know that apparently it gave her a percentage of net, rather than gross, on the resulting film. Which, when dealing with Hollywood, ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel on the part of whatever attorney represented/advised her during the negotiations :)

shutupalready 12y ago
> ought to be prima facie evidence of ineffective/incompetent counsel A much more likely explanation is that the writer and her lawyer know perfectly well the difference between gross and net, but this was the best deal they could get, and it was better than nothing. Writer and her lawyer: "We demand 3% of the gross." Studio head: "I'm not offering any percentage of the gross." Writer and her lawyer: "OK, we'll settle for 2.5% of the gross." Studio head: "I told you: nothing on the gross. Zero. If you don't like that, get lost. I'll hire another writer." Writer and her lawyer: "Well, OK, how about 3% of the net." Studio head: "I think we can agree to that."
- TwoBit 12y ago
  I wouldn't mind how studios did this if they were simply up front about it instead of being weasels about it.
  - briandear 12y ago
    They aren't being weasels. Everyone in Hollywood already knows there isn't any net. It's rare to get gross -- generally the only time that happens is when the star power is such that it would make a significant difference in the box office. Bradley Cooper gets net, no name writer from Pfugerville gets net, if any points at all.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  That doesn't make any sense, though. 3% of the net is not better than nothing. Why would you bother to ask for it? That just makes your contract legally valid, in the sense that consideration is offered, without getting you any benefits.

DanBC 12y ago

> Maybe she had incompetent representation. She talks of "net profit", not "gross profit", so that's a possibility.

briandear 12y ago
Exactly. There's no such thing as net. Even blockbusters rarely achieve 'net.' It's the mark of a Hollywood rookie to have net points. Gross is the only way to go. Eddie Murphy famously called net points as "monkey points." Obviously she didn't have an agent who understood Hollywood Accounting. Of course, a new writer or someone without much bargaining power generally takes what they can get.