Post Weinstein: How Does Talent Protect Their Right to Profit Participations?

Apr 9, 2019

Reading Time : 2 min

In a “test case,” Lantern filed a motion for summary judgment against Bruce Cohen, who had previously entered into an agreement with TWC to produce Silver Linings Playbook ("Agreement"). Cohen claimed that the Agreement was executory and, as such, Lantern was required, as a condition to assuming the Agreement, to pay the unpaid profit participations as “cure amounts.” Lantern alleged it had no obligation to pay the unpaid profit participations in order to acquire the Agreement because the Agreement was non-executory. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted Lantern’s motion and held that the primary purpose of the Agreement was the production of the film, not the payment of profit participations and that the Agreement had been substantially performed since the film had been produced. Therefore, it constituted a non-executory contract under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and Lantern had no obligation to cure any of the payment defaults in order to acquire the Agreement. As a result, other producers, actors and talent seeking payment of unpaid profit participations that were outstanding prior to Lantern’s assumption of their respective agreements will likely face the same result.

Should Talent Seek a Security Interest for Profit Participations?

In light of the court’s findings, how can artists protect their rights to profit participations? Artists could demand a lien in the film rights to secure their claims in bankruptcy. As a secured party, an artist would be better positioned to demand that its unpaid profit participations need to be addressed in the bankruptcy in order for a purchaser to acquire the underlying agreement. The film and any future proceeds could be collateral for existing and future participation obligations owed under their agreements.

However, securing such a lien is not practical. Producers and distributors will aggressively resist such a request because imposing a lien on a film complicates chain of title and would require subordination and standstill agreements with distributors and lenders, which are very complicated issues that will not be considered except perhaps for a few A-listers. Moreover, the major studios are the obligors for most profit participations and there are no real concerns regarding the solvency of the major studios. With respect to independent distributors, artists should be diligent in pursuing their claims for unpaid profit participations before the amounts become significant.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.