|Harvey: in a world of hurt|
The filing group, called the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, filed and won a lifting of the stay against their lawsuit, and they weren't the only ones. Alexandra Camosa, an alleged Weinstein victim, was an associate producer on the Netflix show 'Marco Polo'. She is not only suing the Weinstein Company but also individual members of the Board of Directors in a $10 million complaint for associated sexual harassment charges.
The problem is that, the Lantern Company, which purchased the Weinstein Company assets for $289 million will have to pay up if Weinstein loses the suits and it appears that the $289m won't be enough to cover the settlements - which include claims by the Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild of America.
To make matters worse (and even more nuts) another motion has been filed with the bankruptcy court by Endemol Shine, which has initiated a lawsuit in England against Lantern over whether the Weinstein Company contracted rights on the 'Peaky Blinders' show terminated due to Harvey's alleged sexual dalliances.
The next hearing in the Weinstien saga will take place on Sept. 5th in Delaware.
What's Harvey Up To?
For his part, Harvey has denied perpetuating any unconsenual sex acts. At worst, he says he used his position of power to "score sexual favors". According to Ben Brafman, Harvey's attorney, "Mr Weinstein did not invent the casting couch in Hollywood".
Harvey is also facing sex trafficking charges, and he has asked the Court for an official definition of "a commercial sex act". Which begs the question: Does the possibility exist that a film role represents value? If so, then Harvey's actions would be classified as a 'quid pro quo', ie. an acting role in fact have value. However, up to now, the Judge in Harvey's criminal case has ruled that "the expectation of a film role, a modeling meeting, or other such promises have no real value.
And so it goes!