Breaking Glass Pictures

Dear ***,This letter serves as a follow up to my previous email in response your most recent letter dated November 19th.At the outset, please understand each of the party's role in this matter. Breaking Glass Pictures ("BGP"), is a film distributor to over 400 films, internationally and domestically. BGP specializes in distributing independent films across all genres and has handled films that have featured, among others, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, *** and ***. BGP routinely places films with platforms that include, but are not limited to, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***/***, ***, ***, ***, ***, *** and ***. Films distributed by BGP have won, among others, the following awards: Audience Award for Best Documentary at *** Toronto, Nominee for Grand Jury Prize at *** Film Festival, Best Israeli Feature and Best Actor at the *** Film Festival, Winner of the Un Certain Regard for Best Actress at *** Film Festival ***, Best Canadian Feature Film at the *** Film Festival, Winner of the *** Prize at the *** International Film Festival, Winner Best Feature at the *** International Film Festival and Winner Special Jury Award at the *** International Film Festival.On May 9, 2012, BGP licensed the film, *** from *** (see "Agreement" attached.) The signatory on behalf of *** is ***. Please note that *** is not a party to the license agreement with BGP. It is BGP's understanding that *** contributed to the production of the film and the producers contracted with *** to garner a distribution deal for the film. Thus, it is presumed that *** and/or the producers have an agreement with Lighthouse. They do not have an agreement with BGP. As such, *** does not have standing to forge this complaint in the first place.Nevertheless, addressing the substance of ***'s complaint, you'll find in Section 9.3 of the Deal Terms of the Agreement that there are allowable recoupable costs which are deducted first deducted from Gross Receipts. You'll also see that the revenue generated from each granted right is subject to a royalty split set forth in Section 3 of the Deal Terms. Thereafter, *** Pictures, the licensor of the film, is paid. The nature or details of the presumed agreement between *** and *** is unknown to BGP, though *** would likely receive payment from Lighthouse. One thing is clear, *** is not contracted to receive payment from BGP directly. Please also note in Section 9 of the General Terms that there is never a guarantee, express or implied, of any gross receipts since the nature of film distribution is speculative. At all times, BGP fulfilled its duties to properly distribute and promote the film using its good faith reasonable business judgment.For your reference, my client also wishes to submit the current royalty report for the film. You'll see that it includes the entire history of the film's accounting since the start of gross receipts received from the film's release. My client has nothing to hide. ***'s accusations are entirely baseless, as you can see for yourself if you follow the details of the report in conjunction with the terms of the Agreement. Again, BGP is contracted to pay *** Pictures, and has done so in accordance with the agreement between BGP and Lighthouse. In fact, it appears that *** has exposed himself to a claim of breach under the agreement in accordance with Section 17.12 of the General Terms which state as follows: "Neither party shall disclose to any other person or entity any provision of the Agreement without prior consent of the other..." Note that the exceptions that follow do not apply. ***'s own admission of showing producer reports to third parties is a clear breach. My client is weighing options in that regard.Attached please also find the letter that *** sent to my client ("*** - Let from Producer) to which I personally replied on behalf of my client, though you'll see that my client also responded ("*** - *** Pages 1-5 and "Let-***"). It not only makes clear that ***'s claim to you that he never received a response from BGP is patently false, it also explains that ***'s complaint is with *** and not BGP. The claims that *** makes against BGP are not accurate in their foundation. After review of the attached, I trust that you will find ***'s complaints are without merit as they stand against BGP. If there is anything additional that my client can provide to assist you in this review, please let me know.Very best regards,***, Esq., MBA***Philadelphia, PA

Esq.Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:17 AM (13 days ago)tome,***Dear ***,In response to the response from ***, I would reiterate all that I previously submitted to you; both the body of my correspondence and all documentary evidence. The clear terms of the contract, the accounting statements and the direct correspondence he received from BGP and me, all speak for themselves as proof that ***'s claims are without any merit whatsoever.Additionally, please be aware that in BGP's 10 years, releasing approximately 400 films, there have only been two suits against them. The first was settled amicably well before any court involvement, with the parties on good terms. The second is still pending, but is wholly without merit. As for BGP's reputation, it is sterling. This is evidenced by the breadth and depth of their work across the film industry. Currently, BGP is the North American distributor of a film entitled, ***; the official submission by the country of Denmark to the ***. Just last year, BGP was named Distributor of the Year by ***, such ceremony was at the *** Center. Of course, there are always filmmakers whose films don't perform as well as they expect. This is understandable since filmmakers often invest so much of themselves to creating their art. Unfortunately, the disappointment of the filmmaker can be a hard pill for the filmmaker to swallow. It is not uncommon in such an instance for the filmmaker to place blame on parties other than themselves for the underperformance of their creation. Some excellent films are not well received by the public. Some poor to mediocre films become commercially successful. It can be an unpredictable road. The nature of the business is such that some films will not be received by the public as expected. This has nothing to do with the consummate dedication and good faith business decisions of BGP. In response to ***'s comments regarding payment, according to Susan H, BGP's COO, the following transpired, some of which is evidenced in the report that was previously sent to you:The film grossed $16,243.64. From that, DVD expenses in the amount of $11,188.69 were deducted. This leaves $1686.48. From that amount, rebates in the amount of $566.65 are deducted. The remainder is $1119.83.The film was paid $1120.79 total, in three payments to date.The first payment of $790.99 was paid to *** (sales rep with whom BGP contracted/licensed the film). Then the producer fired the sales rep and instructed BGP to send payments directly to him.2nd payment of $317.65 was sent to ***3rd payment of $12.16 was sent to ***After sales rep *** was fired, the last 2 payments were paid, as instructed to:***
*** Racine, WI ***As stated in my first response to you, it appears that ***'s issue is with the sales agent that contracted with BGP; not with BGP directly. It seems that *** had some sort of falling out with the sales agent representing the film. It is unknown if *** similarly placed blame on the sales agent for the film's lack of success. It does seem that the sales agent did not make the requisite payment to the filmmaker from BGP's first payment.Kindly revisit my previous submission to you, most of which was not addressed by *** in his response, along with the above. I trust that you will see that ***'s claims are without merit.Very best regards