Weinstein Accusers Face Difficult Road to Recovery in Bankruptcy
The deal, however, did not set aside money to compensate Harvey Weinstein's accusers—a key aspect of earlier, and ultimately unsuccessful, negotiations between New York's attorney general and a group of interested buyers.
March 23, 2018 at 05:30 PM
6 minute read
Victims of Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual misconduct may be left out in the cold following a deal to sell The Weinstein Co.'s assets in bankruptcy, experts said this week.
The embattled film and television studio on Monday filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware with an agreement in place to sell its assets to investment firm Lantern Capital Partners for $310 million, subject to better offers submitted during the fast-tracked proceedings.
The deal, however, did not set aside money to compensate Harvey Weinstein's accusers—a key aspect of earlier, and ultimately unsuccessful, negotiations between New York's attorney general and a group of interested buyers. Instead, the victims are expected to form a committee of unsecured creditors to pursue their interests in bankruptcy.
Based on court documents, the size of The Weinstein Co.'s secured debt indicates that there will be few funds left to distribute after the studio pays back its secured creditors, dimming the victims' prospects and narrowing their options for getting paid.
“There's a high likelihood … that there won't be any recovery, or minimal recovery, for unsecured creditors,” in the bankruptcy proceedings, said Jeremy W. Ryan, a bankruptcy attorney and partner with Potter Anderson & Corroon.
The Weinstein Co. on Tuesday listed $345 million in secured debt owed to banks and other financial institutions that had lent it money. Only after those commitments are fulfilled would assets be free to flow to unsecured creditors, who sit at the bottom of the totem pole for distribution.
Even then, U.S. bankruptcy law generally requires equal distribution of assets among unsecured creditors with the same priority for claims against the company. In The Weinstein Co.'s case, those include various acting guilds, Harvey's brother, Bob Weinstein, and about a half-dozen law firms, which are owed approximately $20 million for legal work they did on behalf of the firm, according to court documents.
Compounding the problems for Weinstein's accusers, none have yet to obtain a judgment that would attach a dollar amount to their claims, and none of at least nine lawsuits alleging negligence by The Weinstein Co. and its directors will be resolved by May 4, when the studio hopes to complete the sale.
Harvey Weinstein has denied allegations of nonconsensual sex. Weinstein is also accused of harassing and touching women inappropriately, often under the guise of professional interactions. He was fired from the company last October and was expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the wake of the scandal.
There remains the possibility that Lantern or another potential buyer could agree to set aside money to pay accusers as a part of the sale process, a step advocated by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had tried to broker a deal to sell the company for $500 million to a group of investors backed by Maria Contreras-Sweet. According to media reports, the agreement, which included a pledge of $90 million to settle victims' claims, fell apart earlier this month amid questions of undisclosed debts.
Short of that, the accusers would hope for a competitive bidding process to drive up the value of the firm or to discover an asset of the bankruptcy state that other creditors could not access.
The “best route,” Ryan said, would be to argue that a studio insurance policy covered the acts Weinstein was alleged to have committed against the women.
It was unclear, however, if such a policy exists. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, The Weinstein Co. has 15 days from the date of filing to submit that information to the court, and local rules allow the company to request a 15-day extension, Ryan said.
Jill E. Fisch, a business and law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School said that while insurance policies that generally cover directors and officers are common, policies specific to sexual harassment by a director are exceedingly rare.
“I've never heard of a policy specific to sexual harassment,” she said. “I would guess if they had that kind of insurance policy, we would have heard about it by now.”
It also remains to be seen whether an other private investor would find enough value in the studio's television business and catalog of 277 films to top Lantern's stalking-horse bid, after court filings this week revealed the extent to which the allegations against Harvey Weinstein have impacted the company's bottom line.
According to the documents, The Weinstein Co. has lost 25 percent of its workforce since accusations of sexual assault and harassment began to surface against Harvey Weinstein in early October. The defections also included five members of The Weinstein Co. board, leaving just four directors—including Bob Weinstein—currently in place.
Meanwhile, the studio has lost millions in production and distribution agreements amid the backlash, which has sparked the nationwide #MeToo movement. As of Monday, The Weinstein Co. attorneys said the company had less than $500,000 in cash on hand.
The Weinstein Co. said that it expects to see $151 million in net cash flows for its catalog of movies in 2018, and revenue for its TV division is projected to hit $255 million.
“I do not think this is a company that has a lot of revenue-generating assets going forward,” said Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in corporate governance and finance.
While claims against the studio would be extinguished after a sale, the accusers would still be free to target Weinstein individually or to pursue claims against individual board members for failing to rein in the film mogul's behavior, Fisch said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readSEC Calls Terraform's Dentons Retainer 'Opaque Slush Fund' in Bankruptcy Court
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Automaker Pleads Guilty and Agrees to $1.6 Billion in Payouts
- 2MLB's Texas Rangers Search For a New GC and a Broadcasting Deal
- 3Does the Treasury Hack Underscore a Big Problem for the Private Sector?
- 4Gen AI Legal Tech Startup Eve Raises $47 Million Series A Investment
- 5Hicks Johnson Promotes Lori Arakaki and Daniel Scime to Firm Partnership
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250