Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3697792" data-attributes="member: 20741">No, it's often both.The hidden money is in form of double expense recovery, or improper expense recovery. You use another film's expenses to offset revenue against the one that made money.  This excludes income from being passed to the corp that is required to share it.Example: You use Foreign distribution company #1. It's distributing 4 films that year. It has expenses. You charge off the same expense, multiple times, against each film.You do the same in foreign distribution corp #2, #3, #4 etc.You oppose complete disclosure of all expenses charged to all four films, on the basis of relevancy and privacy in respect of the other three films' expenses. And you force motions and resist disclosure like hell."Nothing to see here - just normal defence tactics"Sh'yeah. Right.I'd like to say the practice is rare; my professional experience indicates otherwise.Companies operating on the level do not oppose audits when the plaintiff pays for them. Such audits  do not cost the defence much if anything, and the plaintiff proves it has no case.  Courts order them routinely.  The fight is over scope of the audit and who pays for it, and who pays for admin expenses and document gathering and assembly.The fight comes down to:1)  "audit us - hell no!" when they are guilty; and,2) fights over who pays for it in all cases, guilty or not.Scope is simply an adjunctive battlefield in 1& 2 above.</blockquote>

Verification