WEBVTT - Johnny Depp Blames Lawyer, Others for Lost Fortune (Audio)

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:05.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, Captain Jack Sparrow. Captain Jack Sparrows, let didn't

0:00:05.920 --> 0:00:10.520
<v Speaker 1>see your ship, Captain. I'm in the market as it were.

0:00:10.840 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>You are, without doubt the worst part I've heard of.

0:00:14.720 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 1>But you have heard of, Yes we have. Johnny Depp's

0:00:18.520 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>role as the charming and rogueish Captain Jack Sparrow earned

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:25.040
<v Speaker 1>Walt Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise about four point

0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:28.880
<v Speaker 1>five billion dollars in box office sales. During his nearly

0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:33.600
<v Speaker 1>twenty years of stardom. Depp developed a swashbuckling lifestyle to match,

0:00:33.880 --> 0:00:37.240
<v Speaker 1>with upkeep of about two million dollars a month. Depth's

0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:40.839
<v Speaker 1>fortune has vanished, and he's fighting back in court. In January,

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.240
<v Speaker 1>he sued his former business managers, and now he's suing

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:48.360
<v Speaker 1>his entertainment lawyer for malpractice. He wants thirty million dollars

0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:52.000
<v Speaker 1>in contingency fees paid over the past eighteen years returned.

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:55.960
<v Speaker 1>Joining us is David Bissinger, founding partner at Bissinger Ashman

0:00:56.080 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>and WILLIAMS. Dave. There are seven claims in this suit.

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:05.720
<v Speaker 1>What stands out to you as the most important? The

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.279
<v Speaker 1>first claim as uh, the big one, and that's breach

0:01:09.400 --> 0:01:13.480
<v Speaker 1>of fiduciary duty. That's the claim that will make this

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 1>case impossible, I think to resolve in a summary judgment.

0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:20.680
<v Speaker 1>Motion are certainly not an emotion to dismiss UH, and

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:22.959
<v Speaker 1>so the parties will either have to settle it or

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:26.920
<v Speaker 1>go to trial. Exclaim that a little bit more well,

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:31.040
<v Speaker 1>breach of fiduciary duty claim imposes a pawn UH both

0:01:31.080 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 1>the managers in the prior depth case and now the

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.840
<v Speaker 1>lawyers and the one that was just filed UH this week.

0:01:38.680 --> 0:01:43.319
<v Speaker 1>Basically a duty of utmost good faith UH and trust

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:47.800
<v Speaker 1>and confidence UH. In fact, there's some famous Texas fiduciary

0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>duty defense lawyers that describe a jury charge for breach

0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:56.000
<v Speaker 1>of fiduciary duty as the UH infamous Mother Teresa instruction.

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>In other words, the defendant in Texas, for example, will

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>have to prove he complied with his fiduciary duties, thus

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:07.000
<v Speaker 1>reversing the burden to proof UH. The California jury instruction

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:10.400
<v Speaker 1>appears to put the burden on the plaintiff, but nevertheless

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 1>imposes an enormously high burden on someone who does operate

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 1>as a fiduciary, as both lawyers and agents do well.

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:24.200
<v Speaker 1>David's what is depth saying that his lawyer did wrong. Well,

0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:27.520
<v Speaker 1>there's a variety of things. Uh. In some ways you

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:31.160
<v Speaker 1>could call it allowing him to commit uh financial or

0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:35.799
<v Speaker 1>economic suicide uh in the sense of not protecting him

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:39.480
<v Speaker 1>from his own spending habits. But in fairness to Depth,

0:02:39.919 --> 0:02:45.920
<v Speaker 1>there is a especially a hard money loan that was

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:49.200
<v Speaker 1>was executed by his management company TMG, apparently with the

0:02:49.240 --> 0:02:53.080
<v Speaker 1>involvement of the lawyers. Hard money loan, UH is a

0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:57.399
<v Speaker 1>basically a almost like a loan sharking kind of a loan.

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:01.480
<v Speaker 1>It's a high risk, high intra loan in which you

0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>pledge collateral, but it's it's not a mortgage. And in

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:09.680
<v Speaker 1>this instance, uh Depth pledged apparently his movie residuals. And

0:03:09.720 --> 0:03:14.399
<v Speaker 1>according to Depth's complaint, in any event, the loan made

0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 1>no economic sense because the value of depths residuals, say,

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 1>are in the range of fifteen million dollars per year,

0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:26.400
<v Speaker 1>which the expenses, the fees and the interest of the

0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:29.760
<v Speaker 1>loan are far in excess of that, at least according

0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:35.120
<v Speaker 1>to Depth. Uh. No. That's and then the second piece

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 1>is the contingent these contingent fee arrangements by which over

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:43.000
<v Speaker 1>time the lawyers at the law firm as well as

0:03:43.040 --> 0:03:46.960
<v Speaker 1>at the management company. Because the management company UH managers

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:52.480
<v Speaker 1>were also lawyers, earned contingent fees UH allegedly without them

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>being reduced to writing and under California law, like the

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 1>law of Texas and many other states, UH, that makes

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:06.480
<v Speaker 1>the agreement avoidable. Agreement Dave in the complaint death claims

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.880
<v Speaker 1>in one example that he was presented only with the

0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:13.400
<v Speaker 1>signature pages of the loan, and he trusted his advisors

0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 1>had his best interests in mind, and he signed the

0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:19.280
<v Speaker 1>loan documents not appreciating it. And you have these sort

0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:23.440
<v Speaker 1>of claims that he relied upon his lawyers because he

0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>didn't know about these things that were going on. How

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:31.760
<v Speaker 1>doesn't attorney's fiduciary duty compare to the duty of his

0:04:31.839 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 1>business managers? You know, really, legally, June, they're not much different. UH.

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:40.719
<v Speaker 1>And I think really the issue for both the management

0:04:40.720 --> 0:04:42.640
<v Speaker 1>case and the law firm case are going to come

0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:45.719
<v Speaker 1>down to the factual UH components that sort of the

0:04:45.800 --> 0:04:50.880
<v Speaker 1>characterization and the overall context of those relationships. UH. In

0:04:51.000 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>both instances, I suspect that the communications were similar mostly

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>probably we're gonna have a lot of emails, will have

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:02.480
<v Speaker 1>some meetings, and phone calls. UH. There is apparently, according

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>to the business management case filed back in February, a

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:09.520
<v Speaker 1>former employee of the management company UH that will testify

0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>against the management company. And so it's as to the

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:15.760
<v Speaker 1>dirty things or the shady stuff I think of the

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 1>term used in the complaint that the management UH fellas

0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:22.279
<v Speaker 1>wanted her to do that she refused to do. And

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 1>so really it's going to come down to these factual

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:27.120
<v Speaker 1>issues again, which is why it's so much more likely

0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:30.000
<v Speaker 1>to lead to a trial than many other types of cases,

0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:32.920
<v Speaker 1>and that will be a trial that many people will watch.

0:05:33.000 --> 0:05:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for joining us. That's David Bissinger, founding

0:05:35.760 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>partner at Bissinger Ashman and Williams coming up on Bloomberg Law.

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 1>The jury is weigh in the case against former HSBC

0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.720
<v Speaker 1>currency trader Mark Johnson for front running. We'll listen to

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.279
<v Speaker 1>some parts of the recorded phone calls at the heart

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:49.679
<v Speaker 1>of the prosecution's case.