Posts
The Case That Named the Trick
// 1982–1992 — the one time a court called Hollywood's net-profit formula unconscionable, and the settlement that erased the finding before it could bind anyone else
In 1982, Art Buchwald wrote a treatment called "It's a Crude, Crude World," pitched to Paramount's Jeffrey Katzenberg with Eddie Murphy in mind for the lead. Paramount optioned it, renamed it "King for a Day," then dropped the project in 1985. Buchwald took the idea elsewhere. In 1987, Paramount went ahead and made Coming to America — credited solely to Murphy and the film's writers, with no reference to Buchwald or his producing partner, Alain Bernheim. Both men sued for breach of the 1983 agreement, arguing the finished film was "based upon" their treatment under a phrase the contract itself never defined.
The court agreed a breach had occurred. That finding settled the theft question, but it barely touched the money question, because the 1983 contract hadn't promised Buchwald and Bernheim a flat fee — it promised them a percentage of "net profits." What that phrase actually meant, on a real film with real box office, was about to be tested in open court for the first time in this series' record, rather than assumed, leaked, or modeled academically.
What the damages phase actually put on the record was the formula itself — the same shape of deductions described in Posts I and II, examined this time under oath rather than reconstructed from a leaked statement or an academic paper. The court's finding went further than simply calling the result unfair. It found that the net-profit formula written into participant contracts like Buchwald's does not correspond to the net profit concept the same studio uses in the financial statements it files with the Securities and Exchange Commission and reports to its own investors. Two different numbers, two different audiences, the same underlying film — one version of "profit" real enough to disclose to regulators and shareholders, another version, defined in the participant's own contract, engineered to double-count costs the studio had already recovered elsewhere.
That is the conduit this post is built around: not a leak, not a formula reconstructed after the fact, but a court's own finding that a studio maintains two accountings of the same picture, and that only one of them is designed to ever show a profit.
The conversion is the same one this series has traced twice already, now confirmed under oath rather than inferred from a document or a formula description. Paramount's own witnesses acknowledged Coming to America had taken in $288 million in ticket sales. Run through the contract's net-profit formula, the same film produced nothing — not a modest return, not a marginal loss, but a flat contractual zero, on a picture the studio itself did not dispute was a hit. The number that changed wasn't the box office. It was the figure sitting on the one line a percentage contract actually depends on.
Unconscionable, unduly oppressive, and fundamentally flawed.
Judge Harvey A. Schneider, Los Angeles County Superior Court · 1990The insulation in this case is the case's own resolution. Fearing that a formal "unconscionable" finding would expose every other net-profit contract it had ever written to the same challenge, Paramount settled before any appeal could be filed — $150,000 to Buchwald, $750,000 to Bernheim, $900,000 total. As a condition of that settlement, the unconscionability finding itself was vacated, removed from the case's binding legal force. The one moment in this series where a court examined the formula directly and named it unconscionable did not survive the resolution of its own lawsuit.
No appellate court has reviewed the question since. And Schneider's ruling was not even the last word among trial courts on the same issue: a separate Superior Court case, Batfilm Productions v. Warner Bros., concerning 1989's Batman, examined a similar net-profit formula and found it was not unconscionable. California trial courts remain split on the exact question this post is built around, with no appellate decision above either ruling to say which one controls. The industry's actual response to Buchwald wasn't to rewrite the formula the case exposed — it was to make idea submissions harder, with studios adopting policies to return unsolicited scripts unopened, closing off the kind of claim that started the case rather than the accounting practice the case's damages phase put on the record.
All three conditions fire in Post III — the first post in this series where the evidentiary record supports testing all of them.
Interpretive Capital — fires, confirmed by a court rather than inferred. The contractual "net profit" formula does not correspond to the net profit the same studio reports under GAAP to the SEC and its own investors. Two definitions, one word, applied selectively depending on who is owed money by the answer.
Enforcement Asymmetry — fires, on a different axis than in Posts I and II. Not talent leverage this time, but adjudicative inconsistency: the same category of net-profit formula, examined by two different Superior Court judges within roughly a year of each other, produced opposite conclusions — unconscionable in one courtroom, acceptable in the next — with no appellate court ever settling which reading controls in California.
Temporal Capital — fires. Thirty-six years separate Schneider's 1990 finding from this post, and the finding has never been affirmed, reviewed, or overturned by any appellate court in that time — not because the underlying question was resolved, but because the one case built to test it was settled before an appeal could force a higher court to decide.
The case's procedural history, Judge Schneider's finding that Paramount's net-profit formula does not correspond to its GAAP/SEC accounting, the Batfilm Productions v. Warner Bros. comparison, and the $900,000 settlement with vacatur of the unconscionability finding are drawn from Wikipedia's "Buchwald v. Paramount" entry, treated as Tier 2 aggregation of court filings and legal commentary. The exact quoted findings — "unconscionable," "unduly oppressive," and "fundamentally flawed" — the 1983 contract's 1.5 percent / 17.5 percent split between Buchwald and Bernheim, and the $150,000 / $750,000 settlement breakdown are drawn from Grokipedia's entry on the case, cross-checked against Wikipedia's independent account where the two overlap. Quimbee's case brief summaries of Buchwald v. Paramount, 90 L.A. Daily J. App. Rep. 14482 (1990), are treated as Tier 2 confirmation of the procedural posture and the finding that Paramount's contract was presented as boilerplate rather than freely negotiated. Pierce O'Donnell and Dennis McDougal's 1992 book, Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald v. Paramount, is the fullest existing account of the case and is referenced here only indirectly, via Wikipedia — flagged as an interested-party record, since O'Donnell was Buchwald's own trial attorney, rather than treated as a neutral source.
Series note: this is Post III of The Paper Loss. Post IV turns to a single figure in a different contract — the $62,500 the Tolkien estate had received from New Line Cinema before suing over The Lord of the Rings.
No comments:
Post a Comment