Gary barber’s Spyglass entertainment unfulfilled assurances
The protests
A group of protesters offering support for victims of Harvey Weinstein criticized Spyglass Entertainment head Gary Barber’s office earlier this month, challenging him to produce the money promised to the victim’s fund. Gary Barber gained control of the film and TV resources of The Weinstein Company in 2019 and partnered with Lantern Entertainment, the association that acquired the condemned movie magnate’s corporation after they acknowledged insolvency in 2018.
A proposal initially made for The Weinstein Company by a group organized by Maria Contreras Sweet included a casualty’s endowment between $30 and $50 million. The protesters claimed that Spyglass had not given victims any monetary offers. Conferring to an observer, ten people demonstrated close to the offices of Gary Barber’s Century City office on February 14.
The protesters called on Spyglass Media Company CEO Gary Barber and Lantern Asset Management Capital Leadership Andy Mitchell and Milos Brajovic to accomplish the promises made to the Weinstein victims. The protesters via statement claimed that the Weinstein victims had been tolerantly waiting for Gary Barber, Andy Mitchell, and Milos Brajovic to fulfill their assurances.
Latern entertainment claims of breaching an agreement
Similar to spyglass entertainment, latern entertainment faced accusations of breaking agreements between the company and Marvin Peart. A case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2018 uncovered that cherished African-American Hollywood producer Marvin Peart prosecuted lantern Entertainment for breach of contract, and deception.
Peart sued for $110 million, claiming he was not included in The Weinstein Company deal after getting Lantern to the negotiation table. Peart claimed latern assured him a seat on the board of the new company and above $10million for bringing Lantern in as a stakeholder. Peart contended that what transpired was not just a matter of damages for breach of contract. It was an extreme deception. The lawsuit claimed that Lantern’s insensitive downgrading of the petitioner was incomprehensible.