Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

ę Hillary Clinton: Trump Is an "Admitted Sexual Assaulter," But Allegations Against My Pretend Husband "Have All Been Litigated" and Are "Clearly In the Past" | Main | Jimmy Kimmel Gets Defensive About His Refusal to Make Jokes About Harvey Weinstein; Decides He's Not the "Conscience of the Nation" After All Ľ
October 13, 2017

Harvey Weinstein Will Challenge His Firing at Next Board Meeting, Because, Well, His Contract Did Say That Sexual Harassment Was Not a Firing Offense

As disclosed yesterday, The Weinstein Company's contract with Harvey Weinstein made sexual harassment a non-firable offense -- all Harvey Weinstein had to do was pay the company for any money damages his harassment caused them, plus an escalating penalty ($250,000 for the first offense, $500,000 for the second, $750,000 for the third, $1,000,000 for the fourth). So long as he paid the Weinstein Company its actual settlement costs plus some money to make them feel good about permitting sexual harassment, everything was cool.

To be fired, he'd have to be indicted or convicted of a crime. Which he hasn't been. So far.

But... in the aftermath of the rape claims, the company did fire him.

Which doesn't seem like they're allowed to do. Given that they wrote him a contract specifically allowing him to molest to his heart's content, so long as he didn't get arrested for it and kept paying off the company for the hassle.

So Weinstein might challenge his firing -- and he might actually be in the right, as far as that goes.

We're told Weinstein's position -- he did not violate his current contract, which he signed in October 2015. He maintains no sexual harassment complaints were lodged after he signed the contract. We're told TWC never gave Weinstein it's reason for the firing.

What's more, we're told Glaser will argue Weinstein could only be terminated after mediation and arbitration.

We're told the company's position is that it had a right to fire Weinstein immediately and he has a right to challenge the decision in mediation and arbitration.

That last part makes no sense to me, but who knows. This is a very special kind of contract.

Here's the thing, though: There may not be a Weinstein Company even in existence within a few weeks.

The company is likely to become bankrupt due to creative types refusing to work with them, and talent agencies barring their own roster of creatives from working with them.

Agents did not want to be on record, but reactions ranged from not wanting to risk the wrath of clients in the event of more fallout by putting them into TWC projects, and others said that if there was evidence of Weinstein benefiting directly or indirectly in projects, the agencies wanted no part of it. They felt even a re-branded company will carry a tarnish, and hoped that projects would be sold off.

Some writers are demanding that projects currently being developed by The Weinstein Company be released back to them, so they can take them somewhere that isn't associated with institutional molestation.

An employee of TWC reached by Deadline would not speak on the record, but described an office environment where already flagging morale has curdled into anger at Weinstein for acting without a thought to the consequences for the many troops charged with executing his vision. The growing consensus is that job security is tenuous at best.


A second chance seems highly unlikely, at least in any version of the company that has existed over the past 12 years. One high-level media executive likens the situation to "a run on the bank." The person expounded to Deadline, "Banks arenít going to continue to lend to them. You have agencies saying they will not allow talent to appear in their movies even if they re-brand. The equity is likely to get wiped out."

Bob and Harvey Weinstein together have a 42% stake in the company, so they'll get 42% of whatever assets remain in the company if it dissolves, but as far as a salaried job, I don't think the company is going to be providing salaried jobs for anyone for much longer, let alone the guy who blew it all up.

Update: Just reported: Weinstein Company facing either a sale or a shutdown.

The Weinstein Company is exploring a sale or shutdown as it reels from the fallout of allegations of serial sexual misconduct by its ousted co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

The film and television studio is unlikely to continue as an independent entity, the Journal said, citing a person close to the firm.

digg this
posted by Ace at 04:14 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Lizzy[/i]: ">>Johnson’s comments come as hundreds of lef ..."

Inogame: "Good morning, J.J. Good morning, Horde. ..."

Lady in Black[/i][/b][/u]: " Saw a stat that 35% of Democrats think the Trump ..."

Mr Gaga: "Hundredth? ..."

IrishEi: "Given that the GFM has grown to such an incredible ..."

No one of any consequence: "Obama should already know that you cannot tell Bid ..."

[/i][/b][/s][/u]I used to have a different nic: "[i]It was a great, Trumpy speech. Posted by: Lizz ..."

Huck Follywood: ">>>>Were it up to me, I would not have put that yo ..."

No one of any consequence: "Joe Biden is the ship that hit the iceberg. I hop ..."

Skip: "Off on a day trip to Lancaster See you from ther ..."

JackStraw: "Trump's speech last night was not designed to be a ..."

Ordinary American: "Saw a stat that 35% of Democrats think the Trump s ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64