More Creative Hollywood Accounting Revealed In Goodfellas Lawsuit

from the what-do-you-mean-these-books-look-funny? dept

For years now, we've discussed the somewhat creative nature of Hollywood accounting and how things get set up so that almost no movie ever technically makes a profit. We've shown how a Harry Potter film that brought in nearly a billion dollars still showed an accounting loss, just like Return of the Jedi -- one of the most successful movies of all time. Now, apparently, we can add Goodfellas to the list. The movie, which just had the 25th anniversary of its release, is widely considered a true classic -- one of the all-time greats in film history.

As creative as the movie may have been, it appears the accounting may have been even more creative -- at least according to one of the producers of the film, Irwin Winkler, who is wondering what happened to his promised cut of the profits. While the specifics vary, here's a quick explanation of the usual way in which Hollywood Accounting works. Each film -- even when it's a major Hollywood film studio producing it -- is actually set up as its own independent "company." This company really serves no purpose other than to lose money. The film studio gives the specific film "company" a chunk of money as its budget, which is then spent on the production. But, on top of that, the studio "charges" the film company a "marketing and distribution fee." This is not actual money that changes hand (it's all still the same company). It's just a way to create a huge cost to make sure the "company" doesn't have any profits, and thus never has to pay anyone promised royalties that are based on "net profits." As some film producers have noted, you're better off asking for a ham sandwich in your film deal than a piece of the "net" profits.

In this lawsuit, Winkler claims some of that happened... but then says even more happened on top of that:
Plaintiffs produced a hugely successful film for Warner Bros. called "Goodfellas." By contract, plaintiffs were entitled to 50% of its net profits plus 5% of its gross receipts after "breakeven." "Goodfellas" took in more than $275 million at the box office and from other revenue sources. It cost less than $30 million to produce. Yet, Warner Bros. claims that "Goodfellas" made no net profits and actually lost money. Warner Bros. even charged $40 million of "interest" on its $30 million cost of production. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. This was "studio accounting" on steroids. It was also fraud. What Warner Bros. represented as receipts of "Goodfellas" were really only a fraction of the actual receipts. Warner Bros. concealed more than $140 million of its actual receipts. In fact, "Goodfellas" made very substantial net profits. But Warner Bros. quietly pocketed Winkler's share of those profits, plus years of unearned interest on Winkler's money. Winkler only discovered the truth in 2014.
It does seem weird that this would only come to light 24 years after the movie came out. The lawsuit notes that WB sent periodic reports to Winkler, but those reports "intentionally misrepresented the receipts of Goodfellas such that he only just found out about the $275 million number. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that WB only shows 1/5 of the revenue from the home video market -- thus concealing approximately $140 million in revenue. The trick, according to the lawsuit, is that Warner used the fact that it also owned Warner Home Video to move money around, playing a series of accounting games. From the lawsuit:
Warner carried out its scheme by exercising its complete and absolute control over Warner Home Video, its wholly owned home video subsidiary. That total control gave Warner the ability to determine, in its own sole and controlled discretion, what part, if any, of home video receipts from "Goodfellas" Warner would elect to withdraw from its subsidiary and what part, if any, of such receipts it would elect to retain in its subsidiary's bank account, subject to Warner's complete and continuing control. If Warner had simply instructed its wholly owned video subsidiary to pay over to Warner only 20% of the home video receipts from "Goodfellas" and not pay Warner the remaining 80%, in order to exclude from plaintiffs' contingent compensation the 80% of receipts that Warner voluntarily rejected, Warner's conduct would have been a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.

But Warner's scheme was even more cynical and devious than that. Warner didn't reject the 80% balance. Quite the contrary. After drawing down the first 20% of home video receipts, Warner subsequently took the 80% balance as well, but tried to disguise and conceal that subsequent receipt by calling it something else. Warner actually withdrew from its wholly owned home video subsidiary 100% of the receipts from the home video distribution of "Goodfellas," less home video costs. But, seeking to deprive plaintiffs (and others with the same contract) of any benefit from most of the home video revenue it received, Warner withdrew that revenue from its subsidiary in separate intercompany transfers and tried to disguise its transfers by giving them a different label. As the home video revenue from "Goodfellas" was received by its subsidiary, it was commingled with other funds, and Warner withdrew from its subsidiary an amount equal to 20% of that revenue, which it reported to plaintiffs as the "total" such revenue. Later, having complete and absolute control of its wholly owned subsidiary, Warner withdraw from that subsidiary an amount equal to the remaining 80% balance of such video revenue, less video costs. That balance, although received by Warner, was concealed and went unreported.
Basically, this is a similar trick to the classic "marketing and distribution fees" paid to the parent studio, but here, the wholly owned "home video" division effectively is charging an 80% fee on all revenue, even though it then turns that money over to the studio anyway. As the lawsuit points out, since it was a wholly owned subsidiary and WB was taking all the money anyway, it could "negotiate" whatever percentage it wanted the home video division to "keep."

Oh, and then it added insult to injury (or fraud to scam?) by charging additional fees on the 20% for distribution -- which it didn't even do:
And, in computing what it falsely reported as net losses, Warner further reduced the twenty percent of home video revenue it disclosed to plaintiffs by improperly charging and deducting from that twenty percent of home video revenue, substantial "distribution fees," despite the fact that Warner claims it was not even the home video distributor. And Warner even kept all such distribution fees for itself, rather than paying them over to the wholly owned subsidiary that it represents was the home video distributor. In all of their interactions alleged herein, Warner treated its wholly owned home video subsidiary as simply another division of Warner that did, in every respect, as it was told. And Warner treated the home video receipts of its wholly owned subsidiary simply as money to be paid over to Warner after deduction of home video costs.
Eventually, Warner allegedly told Winkler that the film was so far in the red that it would no longer even bother to send updated reports, because "there was no realistic chance of 'Goodfellas' ever achieving 'breakeven' or net profits...." That was in 2009. In 2014, Winkler's (new) accountant requested the latest report anyway, and it's in that report that WB revealed the fact that only 20% of the receipts were being counted. As Winkler's lawyers note, this certainly suggests that WB directly misrepresented the earlier reports.

There have been a number of similar suits over the years (hence some of the earlier stories), and they continue to reveal examples of really, really sleazy Hollywood accounting practices. These lawsuits have actually done fairly well in the courts, so it's likely more will be revealed if WB doesn't come up with some way to settle with Winkler to get him to shut up and stop revealing the details of how it makes some of its most successful movies look like they're losing money.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:36am

    Yep, this will end just like the rest of them: pay the "fine" while raking in much, much more, because it's cheaper to pay out than it is to pay up.

    Taken straight from the Ford Pinto playbook.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:04am

    Wow! Even with a gigabit connection, I couldn't pirate $140 million in revenue!!

    My hats off to Warner Bros, King of Pirates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      Even with a gigabit connection, I couldn't pirate $140 million in revenue!!
      You must be a Comcast user.

      According to copyright law penalties of $0.25 million/work, pirating $140 million is only 560 works. If we assume HD quality works, that's ~5-6GB an hour. Call the average work 2.5 hours to be generous, so that's 560works*2.5hr/work=1400 hours of content to pirate. 1400hr*6GB/hr=8400GB=8.4TB. With some patience, that should be easily achievable on even a modest broadband connection. Buy a few TB sized drives and you could even keep it all on local storage.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:59pm

      Warner Bros, King of Pirates.

      King of Emperors.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DOlz (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:16am

    MPAA remind me again, who are the pirates that are robbing the hardworking creators, actors, and the support people that make the movies?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:19am

    I'd like to imagine that ootb is frantically trying to post and counting how many attempts its taking.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      Don't be silly. He can't get above "5" because he needs another hand to count with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:33am

      Re:

      His 'attempts' are just how many spelling mistakes he noticed before submitting the post, nothing to do with how many times he tried to submit a post.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:22am

    ...and so you get to see who the real pirates are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:27am

    If the allegations are true, this is downright fraud and someone should be arrested. Since they are continuing to refuse to pay the money, the fraud is ongoing and the statute of limitations shouldn't apply.

    If they only have to pay when the get caught and someone bothers to file a suit, they have no incentive to stop this behavior. If executives start going to jail, it stops fairly quickly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:29am

    now THIS is theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:35am

    I think Blue counts how many voices get a say in the twaddle he's writing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Snape (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:43am

    Same Warner?

    Is this the same Warner company that's been improperly licensing Happy Birthday?

    If it is, color me shocked!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:51am

    I don't understand at all how they are allowed to do this. Expenses like that are just plain old not allowed and are supposed to be removed from the books before Financials go out. It's a basic principle of Accounting that intercoms any upstream and downstream transactions cannot affect the profits for the purposes of well, anything.

    As an accountant myself all I can say is they must be employing some shady people if they even think it's a little bit okay to try this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:11pm

      Re:

      Affluence is considered a valid defence in some courts. Where they buy off the judges.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonLawyer, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      Q: "I don't understand at all how they are allowed to do this. Expenses like that are just plain old not allowed . . . ."

      A: Hollywood contracts tend to define "profits" in an artificial and non-intuitive way for purposes of these revenue games. See, e.g., the Nash Bridges lawsuit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      g-man, 23 Sep 2015 @ 5:45pm

      Re:

      Its pretty much just transfer pricing. The profit/loss deal will be with a specific branch of the group, and they transfer the assets out of that branch so the beneficiary cant get the proper benefit he's entitled to.

      Assuming the actual profit is still going through proper legal processes (ie taxation) somewhere, nobody has ever picked up on it as a civil matter, but the principals are fundamentally the same as transfer pricing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:53am

    Debt of Gratitude

    We all owe Hollywood a mighty big 'Thank You'. Honestly, how many of us would be willing to spend all of our time acting in, directing, producing, and marketing works of art, all the while living on nothing but paltry welfare checks? Not to mention being fully aware of the fact that we will never rise above a basic subsistence lifestyle thanks to our altruism and dedication to the craft...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:54am

    Irwin Winkler, Please continue to go after these rat bastards , do not let up or accept a settlement(bribe).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:45pm

    How could Winkler not have known? These "accounting" practices have been standard in the entertainment industry for decades. He may not have known the exact amount, but he had to know what was being done.

    This is one of the reasons that I don't watch movies. They seem to be the product of very organized crime.

    Because it gives all appearance of being a standard practice, a RICO investigation would most seem to be most appropriate action for the DOJ to take. Not just against the movie industry, but the music groups as well. Not likely though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:03pm

      Re:

      He may not have known the exact amount, but he had to know what was being done.

      Knowing what is being done is not the same as having enough evidence to bring a lawsuit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      You are being watched (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:29pm

      Law Abiding Citizen

      It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.

      Seems to me he finally stumbled onto some evidence he could use thanks to his new accountant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:23am

      Re:

      "he had to know what was being done"

      Suspected? Almost certainly. Had evidence to prove his suspicions were not only correct, but by such an order of magnitude? Possibly not.

      "This is one of the reasons that I don't watch movies. They seem to be the product of very organized crime."

      Not all movies, just the ones produced by major corporations who are buying laws to make sure people are forced to pay them more money even if they don't watch their products.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:16pm

    Creative accounting? You mean like how Google refuses to say how much YouTube makes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:39pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 23rd, 2015 @ 1:16pm

      You the first Bluehole to bring up Google. The adults are talking about Hollywood. Now shoo.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:20pm

      Re:

      No, creative accounting. Like how it's full of bullshit, like your comments.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:02pm

      Re:

      average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:26am

      Re:

      I was wondering how the usual crowd would try to defend this. As ever, you don't bother, you just try to deflect to Google, as if this excuses the fraud and actual theft that your heroes have been committing for decades.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:36pm

    I don't know the details of Google and YouTube, but a number of well known artists artists of movie and music genres have said they have never gotten a dime from royalties. That creative accounting practices have eaten up every bit of profit made. A couple of people I knew in the business backed up the likely veracity of their claims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:58pm

      Re:

      No one gets royalties from YouTube, any money is from advertising.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:28am

      Re:

      "a number of well known artists artists of movie and music genres have said they have never gotten a dime from royalties"

      Citation? I'd be most interested in seeing figures for how many times the videos have been played (sorry guys, you don't get royalties if nobody plays a video) and how they expect to collect the money (sorry guys, if your label, studio or collection agency are sent the money and get nothing, that ain't Google's fault).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:29am

        Re: Re:

        "sent the money and get nothing"

        Should be - sent the money and YOU get nothing (obviously)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Groaker (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:23am

        Re: Re:

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "You can google your own citations from here on out."

          That's not how it works, genius. You make the claim, you provide the citations.

          So, let's see... an article from 6 years ago. CTRL-F Youtube - 0 results. CTRL-F Google - 0 results. Did I misinterpret your comment as being something to do with Google when it didn't mean to address them specifically?

          If so, I apologise. of course artists have been screwed by the music industry as often as they have by the movie industry. That's without question.

          But, Google have no place in this conversation other than from the idiot troll above you (who misses no chance to derail the conversation away from his criminal heroes).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dogwitch (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:02pm

    i will say this the government has no chance on how to rip off people more then the movie industry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:07pm

    I am pretty sure he can charge them with fraud

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:46pm

    is it any wonder then that thanks to Congress and all friends in government, when one person downloads one movie, they can charge $150,000? and similarly when someone formats shifts a disk they own, so it can be played on an mp3 player? is it any wonder why not a single member of the public has any sympathy with the entertainment industries? the way they rip EVERYONE off is scandalous, but no one in government let alone outside, has a hope in getting the truth out in the open!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:46pm

    "You wouldn't steal a purse?"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:31pm

    IRS

    NOW..
    ALL this paper work to hide money, and the odds are, NO TAXES were paid..

    The IRS needs better computing power to TRACK all this stuff, as well as Better programming to decipher, ALL the paper work that HIDES this stuff..

    THE IRS was CUT 30% this year..
    Working with Old computers, and OLD programs...
    They REALLY cant do their job..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ryunosuke, 23 Sep 2015 @ 5:29pm

    you know.... when hollywood (more specifically the MPAA, and possibly the RIAA too) when they talk about the poor producers, or [insert position here] not making money on a movie being pirated, this makes MUCH more sense.


    It's still bullshit though

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:31pm

    Are these the people you want writing the copyright laws?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:38pm

    Join the independent movie/ments.

    Heh. No wonder independent movies are on the untick. But at the same time Hollywood restricts or outright forbids those same independent movies from being distributed to theaters.

    Instead they're pushed onto vod when a city (or dozen) for what ever reason, doesn't show that movie in theaters.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 9:13am

    It is impossible to respect the MAFIAA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GEMont, 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:33am

    Fascism 101 - public communications forbidden

    "EU Court Leaning Towards Ending 'Privacy Safe Harbor'"

    Of course, nobody saw that coming.

    Apparently, fascism is just plain invisible to the typical civilian making less than 6 digits annually, and a neon lit oasis in the desert to those making more than 6 digits annually.

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.