1 00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:05,920 Speaker 1: You know, Captain Jack Sparrow. Captain Jack Sparrows, let didn't 2 00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:10,520 Speaker 1: see your ship, Captain. I'm in the market as it were. 3 00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 1: You are, without doubt the worst part I've heard of. 4 00:00:14,720 --> 00:00:18,400 Speaker 1: But you have heard of, Yes we have. Johnny Depp's 5 00:00:18,520 --> 00:00:21,680 Speaker 1: role as the charming and rogueish Captain Jack Sparrow earned 6 00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:25,040 Speaker 1: Walt Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise about four point 7 00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,880 Speaker 1: five billion dollars in box office sales. During his nearly 8 00:00:28,920 --> 00:00:33,600 Speaker 1: twenty years of stardom. Depp developed a swashbuckling lifestyle to match, 9 00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:37,240 Speaker 1: with upkeep of about two million dollars a month. Depth's 10 00:00:37,240 --> 00:00:40,839 Speaker 1: fortune has vanished, and he's fighting back in court. In January, 11 00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:44,240 Speaker 1: he sued his former business managers, and now he's suing 12 00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:48,360 Speaker 1: his entertainment lawyer for malpractice. He wants thirty million dollars 13 00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:52,000 Speaker 1: in contingency fees paid over the past eighteen years returned. 14 00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:55,960 Speaker 1: Joining us is David Bissinger, founding partner at Bissinger Ashman 15 00:00:56,080 --> 00:00:59,960 Speaker 1: and WILLIAMS. Dave. There are seven claims in this suit. 16 00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:05,720 Speaker 1: What stands out to you as the most important? The 17 00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:09,279 Speaker 1: first claim as uh, the big one, and that's breach 18 00:01:09,400 --> 00:01:13,480 Speaker 1: of fiduciary duty. That's the claim that will make this 19 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:17,280 Speaker 1: case impossible, I think to resolve in a summary judgment. 20 00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:20,680 Speaker 1: Motion are certainly not an emotion to dismiss UH, and 21 00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:22,959 Speaker 1: so the parties will either have to settle it or 22 00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:26,920 Speaker 1: go to trial. Exclaim that a little bit more well, 23 00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:31,040 Speaker 1: breach of fiduciary duty claim imposes a pawn UH both 24 00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:34,160 Speaker 1: the managers in the prior depth case and now the 25 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,840 Speaker 1: lawyers and the one that was just filed UH this week. 26 00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:43,319 Speaker 1: Basically a duty of utmost good faith UH and trust 27 00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:47,800 Speaker 1: and confidence UH. In fact, there's some famous Texas fiduciary 28 00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:51,600 Speaker 1: duty defense lawyers that describe a jury charge for breach 29 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:56,000 Speaker 1: of fiduciary duty as the UH infamous Mother Teresa instruction. 30 00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:59,400 Speaker 1: In other words, the defendant in Texas, for example, will 31 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,520 Speaker 1: have to prove he complied with his fiduciary duties, thus 32 00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 1: reversing the burden to proof UH. The California jury instruction 33 00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:10,400 Speaker 1: appears to put the burden on the plaintiff, but nevertheless 34 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:14,520 Speaker 1: imposes an enormously high burden on someone who does operate 35 00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:18,680 Speaker 1: as a fiduciary, as both lawyers and agents do well. 36 00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:24,200 Speaker 1: David's what is depth saying that his lawyer did wrong. Well, 37 00:02:24,320 --> 00:02:27,520 Speaker 1: there's a variety of things. Uh. In some ways you 38 00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:31,160 Speaker 1: could call it allowing him to commit uh financial or 39 00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:35,799 Speaker 1: economic suicide uh in the sense of not protecting him 40 00:02:35,800 --> 00:02:39,480 Speaker 1: from his own spending habits. But in fairness to Depth, 41 00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:45,920 Speaker 1: there is a especially a hard money loan that was 42 00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:49,200 Speaker 1: was executed by his management company TMG, apparently with the 43 00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:53,080 Speaker 1: involvement of the lawyers. Hard money loan, UH is a 44 00:02:53,639 --> 00:02:57,399 Speaker 1: basically a almost like a loan sharking kind of a loan. 45 00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:01,480 Speaker 1: It's a high risk, high intra loan in which you 46 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:04,760 Speaker 1: pledge collateral, but it's it's not a mortgage. And in 47 00:03:04,760 --> 00:03:09,680 Speaker 1: this instance, uh Depth pledged apparently his movie residuals. And 48 00:03:09,720 --> 00:03:14,399 Speaker 1: according to Depth's complaint, in any event, the loan made 49 00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:18,720 Speaker 1: no economic sense because the value of depths residuals, say, 50 00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:21,359 Speaker 1: are in the range of fifteen million dollars per year, 51 00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:26,400 Speaker 1: which the expenses, the fees and the interest of the 52 00:03:26,480 --> 00:03:29,760 Speaker 1: loan are far in excess of that, at least according 53 00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:35,120 Speaker 1: to Depth. Uh. No. That's and then the second piece 54 00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:39,680 Speaker 1: is the contingent these contingent fee arrangements by which over 55 00:03:39,760 --> 00:03:43,000 Speaker 1: time the lawyers at the law firm as well as 56 00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:46,960 Speaker 1: at the management company. Because the management company UH managers 57 00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:52,480 Speaker 1: were also lawyers, earned contingent fees UH allegedly without them 58 00:03:52,520 --> 00:03:56,120 Speaker 1: being reduced to writing and under California law, like the 59 00:03:56,160 --> 00:03:59,240 Speaker 1: law of Texas and many other states, UH, that makes 60 00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 1: the agreement avoidable. Agreement Dave in the complaint death claims 61 00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,880 Speaker 1: in one example that he was presented only with the 62 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:13,400 Speaker 1: signature pages of the loan, and he trusted his advisors 63 00:04:13,440 --> 00:04:15,480 Speaker 1: had his best interests in mind, and he signed the 64 00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:19,280 Speaker 1: loan documents not appreciating it. And you have these sort 65 00:04:19,320 --> 00:04:23,440 Speaker 1: of claims that he relied upon his lawyers because he 66 00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:27,080 Speaker 1: didn't know about these things that were going on. How 67 00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:31,760 Speaker 1: doesn't attorney's fiduciary duty compare to the duty of his 68 00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:37,920 Speaker 1: business managers? You know, really, legally, June, they're not much different. UH. 69 00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:40,719 Speaker 1: And I think really the issue for both the management 70 00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:42,640 Speaker 1: case and the law firm case are going to come 71 00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:45,719 Speaker 1: down to the factual UH components that sort of the 72 00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:50,880 Speaker 1: characterization and the overall context of those relationships. UH. In 73 00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:56,000 Speaker 1: both instances, I suspect that the communications were similar mostly 74 00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:58,520 Speaker 1: probably we're gonna have a lot of emails, will have 75 00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:02,480 Speaker 1: some meetings, and phone calls. UH. There is apparently, according 76 00:05:02,760 --> 00:05:06,000 Speaker 1: to the business management case filed back in February, a 77 00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,520 Speaker 1: former employee of the management company UH that will testify 78 00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:12,839 Speaker 1: against the management company. And so it's as to the 79 00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:15,760 Speaker 1: dirty things or the shady stuff I think of the 80 00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:19,440 Speaker 1: term used in the complaint that the management UH fellas 81 00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:22,279 Speaker 1: wanted her to do that she refused to do. And 82 00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:24,520 Speaker 1: so really it's going to come down to these factual 83 00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:27,120 Speaker 1: issues again, which is why it's so much more likely 84 00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:30,000 Speaker 1: to lead to a trial than many other types of cases, 85 00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:32,920 Speaker 1: and that will be a trial that many people will watch. 86 00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:35,680 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us. That's David Bissinger, founding 87 00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:39,640 Speaker 1: partner at Bissinger Ashman and Williams coming up on Bloomberg Law. 88 00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:42,600 Speaker 1: The jury is weigh in the case against former HSBC 89 00:05:42,640 --> 00:05:45,720 Speaker 1: currency trader Mark Johnson for front running. We'll listen to 90 00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:48,279 Speaker 1: some parts of the recorded phone calls at the heart 91 00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:49,679 Speaker 1: of the prosecution's case.