Do you know about one of the greatest heist stories, the Armaid Complaint Sony Berverly State Lawsuit? Yes, that is a 48-page complaint filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of plaintiffs Aramid Entertainment Fund Limited and Aramid Grantor Trust against Relativity Media LLC and Fortress Investment Group, etc.
This lawsuit alleged fraud and breach of contract by the Century City firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. Let’s dig into the details of Armaid Complaint Sony Beverly Slate Lawsuit.
Overview of Aramid Entertainment
Aramid is a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands that owed at least $44 million in damages, and the amount may be more, depending on what else it learned during the legal discovery process. Aramid Fund claims that Relativity Media and NY-based Fortress Investment Group conspired with break-ins and switcheroo to cheat the hedge fund out of its investment in the $525 million Beverly Blvd film with Sony.
Overview of Sony Beverly Slate Lawsuit
This lawsuit deals with co-financed movies made by Sony Pictures. According to sources, half of the movies are envisioned under the fund, which is known as Beverly Blvd. According to the Armaid complaint in Sony Beverly Slate’s lawsuit, the firm was in serious financial distress.
The fortress investment groups used the guise of possibly doing business with Aramid to get information to destroy Aramid’s position in an investment that financed movies for Sony Pictures.
The added companies in this lawsuit involve a stunning cast of corporate characters, including Sony, one of the world’s largest entertainment companies, the third largest bank, Citi, and the largest hedge fund, Fortress, to finance more than $1 billion worth of feature films.
In this lawsuit, all are sale deals, which means big money financing used to lay off the risk of movie production. According to reports, Relativity was formed by Ryan Kavanaugh in 2005 to make slate deals. First, the company borrowed money from banks and other sources to do deals, but in 2008, it received backing from Elliott Management, another large New York-based fund.
Kavanaugh turned Relativity from a passive investor into a participant by negotiating a product credit for himself. Kavanaugh wanted people to believe he was the producer of such films, even though he had never provided any actual producing services.
Furthermore, the lawsuit presents itself to the market as a successful film financer that describes itself as a ”next-generation studio” that produced more than 200 movies and grossed over $17 billion globally.
When Sony and Relativity collaborated in 2007 to create BeverlyBlvd, investors were told it would be a watershed event in the evolution of slate finance. Relativity Media was paid $1 million per picture as a producer with a 2 percent gross participation fee.
Sources say none of the money in Beverly came from Relativity, and this media got the right to cherry-pick. This lawsuit describes how Kavanaugh was able to assert that because of the allegedly proprietary financial model used in picking movies, Relativity could reduce risk. The system did not select the movies but excluded films that did not meet certain criteria.
The Beverly Fund covered over 45 movies in five years. However, Beverly still contributed $500 million, and Sony would put up a matching amount. The money was used only for production, not for marketing purposes. Some of the proceeds could be reinvested in other movies, providing investors with more opportunities. Investing in more films increases the chance of the fund’s overall profitability.
Analysis by the Salter Group in Armaid Complaint Sony Beverly Slate Lawsuit
According to the Salter group, Relativity Media was unable to meet the budget requirement of $555 million, so they convinced Citibank to raise the money or raise it itself. The bank agreed to guarantee the money, but Sony did not finalize the agreement until it had that assurance from CITI Bank. Well, in return, it guaranteed Citi to return at least $14.7 million.
Beverly has three investment classes: An investor had senior notes and got the first money. The B investor got higher rates of return but only got paid after the A investor. The C investor would be paid higher rates, but everyone else ahead of them was paid. In the end, investor D went after all of those. Citi told investors to expect a capital investment of over 20 %, which they would invest in 90 % of the cases.
Read also: Budsgunshop Lawsuit
Major Problem in Sony Beverly Slate Lawsuit
The problem is that after the 14th month, Citi had still not found any outside investors, so Citi guaranteed the $525 million itself. Citi returned to Aramid, which refused to be part of the deal for over a year. The condition was that if Aramid made a mezzanine-level investment, Citi would pay them up to 21 percent interest. Aramid created a subsidiary to handle the notes and signed on as an investor.
According to the lawsuit, Relativity had been struggling financially and experiencing a high level of executive turnover in 2011 that caused acute financial distress. Relativity Media was financially precarious in 2011 when it lost critical financial backing from Elliott. In 2011, Ron Burkel used a loan of $200 million from Colbeck Capital to Relativity.
Fortress said the Sony Beverly slate lawsuit was so complicated that it was impossible to understand without Aramid walking FortressFortress through it. Citi was in hard times and was considering selling its position on Beverly. Therefore, Citi informed Aramid that it was considering a sale, and Aramid offered to buy the position to bring another investor.
Fortress got Sony to end Beverly in return for a reduction in the amount currently owed to Beverly, which was about $214 million, to complete the deal. The last piece for Fortress was to get Relativity to approve their agreement. They did this by paying Relativity $14.5 million at a time when the company was desperate for cash.
