This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

SK Films Ltd. Inc. v. Gladden Productions Inc., et al.

Published: Jul. 12, 2001 | Result Date: Mar. 16, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC120790 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Gregory C. O'Brien Jr.

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Facts

In 1993, plaintiff SK Films Ltd. Inc. (renamed Jasmine Films Inc.) invested $2 million as the sole limited partner
in cross-complainant GSK Films, LP, a limited partnership. The investment was to be used for the
development, production and distribution of motion pictures, including the overhead related to that goal.
Within five weeks of the investment, David Begelman, the owner of the general partner-defendant, transferred
$1.9 million of the investment to his personal bank account and allegedly used the money for his personal
matters.
In August 1995, Begelman committed suicide. The defendant/cross-defendant, Fred
Altman, was BegelmanÆs personal accountant.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff initially demanded $1.5 million. In 1997, Altman offered the plaintiff/cross-complainant $250,000 in response to the $1.5 million demand. Prior to trial, Altman offered $100,000. The other defendants prior to trial settled with the plaintiff/cross-complainant in an amount which totaled approximately $1.6 million.

Damages

The plaintiff/cross-complainant claimed damages of the $1.9 million misappropriated by Begelman, the cost of the receivership plus prejudgment interest, which totaled $3.6 million.

Result

JUNE 28, 2001 VERSION

Other Information

According to counsel for the plaintiff/cross-complainant, the jury foreman indicated that although the jury believed Begelman had clearly misappropriated the money and that Altman had assisted him, the jury thought the evidence was insufficient to prove that Altman knew his assistance was wrongful. According to the foreperson, it was the juryÆs view that Altman was "only an accountant," not a lawyer. According to the counsel for defendant/cross-defendant, only four of the 12 jurors one of which was the jury foreman, when polled, stated that the jury felt Begelman had done anything wrong. Some of the jurors indicated that not only did they feel that Altman had done nothing wrong, but also that, the limited partnerÆs advisors and attorneys had failed to adequately protect it when the investment was made. The parties subsequently settled for a mutual "walk-away."

Deliberation

two days

Poll

12-0

Length

two weeks


#99288

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390