第二十六期杂志选文——《投资者表示”派拉蒙电影融资...

我是谁tashis

Investors Say They HaveEvidence of Paramount Pictures Financing Fraud

投资者表示”派拉蒙电影融资诈骗行为”证据确凿

Months beforevarious hedge funds put up $40 million for 25 films including "MeanGirls" and "The Manchurian Candidate," Paramount execs allegedlyannounced a secret strategy shift at a Viacom board meeting.

据称，在金额达4000万美元的多种对冲基金投入包括《贱女孩》、《谍网迷魂》在内的25部电影的几个月前，派拉蒙执行董事在维亚康姆董事会会议上宣布了一个秘密战略转变。

In an effort to advance a lawsuitagainst Paramount Pictures that has survived for more than a half-decade, someWall Street institutional investment groups are now pointing to evidence theybelieve shows the studio "procured financing for a slate of motionpictures by fraud."

为了使针对派拉蒙电影公司长达超过五年之久的诉讼有所进展，现在一些华尔街机构性投资集团直指他们认为能证明该工作室“通过欺诈为电影融资”的证据。

The lawsuit from Allianz Risk Transfer,Marathon Structured Finance Fund, Newstar Financial and Munich Re CapitalMarkets concerns "Melrose 1," a slate of 25 films released betweenApril 2004 and March 2006 that included Mean Girls, Elizabethtown, Collateral,and remakes of The Manchurian Candidate, The Stepford Wives and Alfie.

诉讼由安联保险风险转移公司、马拉松结构性融资基金、新星金融和慕尼黑再保险资本市场提起，主要涉及名为“梅尔罗斯[1]1号”的在 2004年4月至2006年3月发布的一系列电影，包括《贱女孩》,《伊丽莎白镇》、《落日杀神》、《重塑谍网迷魂》、《娇妻》和《阿尔菲》 。

The plaintiffs put up $40 millionfor these films and say they lost their entire investment. They place blame onParamount's alleged decision to abandon its historical practice of presellingdistribution rights for movies in foreign territories to independent filmdistributors. According to the plaintiffs' latest court papers, "HadParamount adhered to its past foreign preselling practices, Plaintiffs andother investors would have suffered at least $100 million less in theiraggregate losses in the Melrose Slate."

原告对这些电影投入了4000万美元，却捞得一场空。他们把这归咎于派拉蒙据宣称做出的不再像以往一样将海外电影发行权预售给独立电影分销商的决定。根据原告最新法庭文件，“派拉蒙若与从前一样的将电影在海外预售，原告和其他投资者将在梅尔罗斯系列上至少可以减少1亿美元的总损失。”

Although the investors say theylost $40 million on those 25 films, Paramount is alleged to have "earnedover $400 million in revenues from 'distribution fees' deducted from therevenues shared with the Melrose investors. Indeed, in a forecast with respectto the anticipated Melrose Slate prepared months before the closing of thetransaction, Paramount privately predicted a loss on the 2004 films of $32million for the investors and a profit of $37 million for Paramount."

尽管投资者声称他们在这25部电影上损失了4000万美元，派拉蒙公司据称“扣除与梅尔罗斯投资者共同分担的营业税收后，还在‘发行费’中赚了4亿多美元“。确实,在交易终止几个月前，在对未来梅尔罗斯系列的预测中，派拉蒙公司内部估计2004的电影将让投资损失3200万美元而自己能从中获利3700万美元。”

In April, Paramount brought a summary judgmentmotion asserting that responsibility for the investment documents — the privateplacement memorandum — fell to Merrill Lynch as underwriter for Melrose. Thebank allegedly was the investors' primary contact and marketed the upsides andrisks of the investment opportunity. Further, Paramount asked the judge to killthe lawsuit because the investors were expressly informed that Paramount wouldhave discretion on whether or not to enter co-financing arrangements.

今年4月,派拉蒙在简易判决中宣称对投资文件（私人配售备忘录）负责，文件显示美林(Merrill Lynch)是梅尔罗斯的保险人。此银行据说是投资者的主要联络人以及经营投资机会的销售利益和风险。此外，派拉蒙还要求法官否决上诉,因为投资者之前已经被明确告知,派拉蒙有决定是否参与联合融资的权利。

Theplaintiffs in an opposition to summary judgment say that much of the materialsgiven to them at the time were "tentative" and"incomplete." Far from disclaiming Paramount's discretion, theplaintiffs insist they were led down a certain path. "They did not in anyway alert Plaintiffs to Paramount's concealed change of strategy and fraud,"state court documents delivered right before the beginning of the holidayweekend. "To the contrary, the evidence shows Paramount trying to makeinvestors believe that, regardless of those tentative documents, investors wereto look at Paramount's 'historical' presales practices and 'project' the samekinds of practices for the Melrose Slate."

针对判决总结原告提出异议，表示当时被给予的大部分材料是“暂时性的”和“不完整的”。“原告并未否定派拉蒙公司的权利，而是坚称自己被下了套。他们没有以任何方式提醒原告派拉蒙的秘密改变策略的欺诈行为“恰好在假期开始前送达的法律文件中写道。“相反,证据显示，派拉蒙公司一直在努力使投资者相信，尽管有那些暂时性的文件，投资者将会按照派拉蒙的那些‘历史’预售情况，用相同的方式进行梅尔罗斯项目。”

Theinvestor-plaintiffs say that while investment literature might have advertisedcertain distribution models used before 2004, "unbeknownst to Plaintiffs,prior to their investment, Paramount abandoned its risk averse business modeland employed virtually no foreign presales in the Melrose Slate."

原告（即投资者）表明，即使研究资料可能已经显示了这种在2004年之前使用的特定分销模式，“原告所不知道的是,在投资之前,派拉蒙放弃了规避风险的商业模式，在国外几乎没有进行过梅尔罗斯项目的预售。”

Asevidence, the plaintiffs point to a 2003 deal made between Viacom and LakeshoreEntertainment (Underworld, Million Dollar Baby) that "radically alteredits arrangement" of foreign presales by ensuring more self-distributionfor Paramount. In March 2004, the plaintiffs say, "this important changein business strategy was reflected in a PowerPoint presentation that Paramountmade to the Board of its parent company, Viacom, Inc., in or about March 2004,several months before Plaintiffs invested."

原告提出维亚康姆在2003年 与湖岸娱乐进行的一项交易（作品包括《黑夜传说》《百万美元宝贝》）中增大了派拉蒙的自配比重而“彻底改变了”对于外国的预售政策。2004年3月,原告说,“ 在一个大约2004年3月派拉蒙对其母公司维亚康姆公司的董事会演示文稿中体现了这一重要的商业战略变化，大约就在原告投资前几个月。”

Atthe Viacom board meeting, Paramount's senior executives are described asannouncing the intention to "retain more foreign rights." Theinvestors say they weren't made aware of this new strategy — an alleged shift asParamount was a "standout among the Major Studios in its desire toparticipate in the foreign presale market."

据称，在维亚康姆公司的董事会会议上， 派拉蒙的高管宣布了“保留更多海外权利”的意图。投资者说,他们对新策略——曾经“以其对海外预售市场的野心区别于其他主流工作室”的派拉蒙的一次转型——并不知情。

Intheir papers intended to get the judge to move the dispute to trial, theinvestors also attempt to bolster the argument that a concealment occurred. Thepapers cite emails between Paramount, Merrill Lynch and Moody's InvestorsService. Paramount allegedly supplied the investment bank with data to createits projections and used the credit agency to "propagate the fiction"that presales would be exploited as in the past.

他们的陈述旨在让法官将这次争端纳入审讯之中，投资者也试图强调派拉蒙隐瞒了事实。文件引用了派拉蒙、美林(Merrill Lynch)和穆迪投资服务公司(Moody's InvestorsService)之间的邮件。派拉蒙涉嫌在向投资银行提供用以预测的数据时利用信贷机构构造出预售行为将会跟过去一样的“假象”。

Theplaintiffs' papers also reflect their own analysis of the potential slatedeals. The due diligence yielded positive evaluations of the risk involved. Butaccording to the plaintiffs, "Nevertheless, unbeknownst to any of Plaintiffs,no amount of reasonable variation and stressing of the HDS data could haveaccurately projected the Melrose Slate risk of loss because Paramount hadsecretly and unpredictably decided to bring foreign presales levels from 24%(for the HDS) all the way down to 3.5% for the Melrose Slate, a reduction ofover 80%."

原告的文件中也反映出他们自己针对潜在项目交易的分析。 尽职的调查对其所涉及的风险得出了积极的评估。但据原告称,“尽管如此，原告并不知道，再多的合理变化和加倍的HDS数据也无法准确地预测梅尔罗斯项目的风险损失，因为派拉蒙已经秘密决定将梅尔罗斯项目的外国预售水平从24%(HDS)一路减少到3.5%，缩减了80%多。”

Asfor responsibility being held by someone other than Paramount, the plaintiffsargue to the contrary: "Melrose is a construct. It has no information togive or conceal. Every bit of information ostensibly imparted by Melrose isParamount's information. A jury could (and likely would) find that Paramount'made' the statements and omissions at issue."

至于派拉蒙以外的其他责任人，原告则持相反意见：梅尔罗斯是一个包含多个元素的项目。它本身不会输出或隐瞒信息。任何一点表面上是梅尔罗斯传达的信息也是派拉蒙给出的。陪审团可以(也很可能)会发现,派拉蒙‘编造’了声明并且在该问题上有所遗漏。”

Viacomdeclined comment.

维亚康姆(Viacom)拒绝置评。

[1]派拉蒙公司位于梅尔罗斯大街

终校：攸宁 Gabriellaz

树屋字幕组-文翻组

翻译仅供学习交流 严禁用于商业用途

PDF文档下载：

派拉蒙诈骗（请使用Adobe reader打开！）.pdf (189.34 KB, 下载次数: 0, 售价: 20 树币)

2016-7-31 21:48 上传

点击文件名下载附件

penz

陷入官司，麻烦了