The Lawsuits Thread

[SnoopyDances]

So far, none of the wives/girlfriends have been mentioned in any of the documents.
Christie was only mentioned because she is listed as an official in his businesses, such as IN.

No one is claiming that any of the women stole or mishandled the money.

We can have personal opinions, but right now, this is only between Johnny and TMG.

[Theresa]

So far, none of the wives/girlfriends have been mentioned in any of the documents.
Christie was only mentioned because she is listed as an official in his businesses, such as IN.

No one is claiming that any of the women stole or mishandled the money.

We can have personal opinions, but right now, this is only between Johnny and TMG.

Right! And that's where we need to keep the focus on this thread.

[Chocolat]

So far, none of the wives/girlfriends have been mentioned in any of the documents.
Christie was only mentioned because she is listed as an official in his businesses, such as IN.

No one is claiming that any of the women stole or mishandled the money.

We can have personal opinions, but right now, this is only between Johnny and TMG.

Your point is valid, however, I just find it interesting how the lawsuit was filed against TMG as soon as the divorce was finalized. This timing, to me, raises questions.

[SnoopyDances]

So far, none of the wives/girlfriends have been mentioned in any of the documents.
Christie was only mentioned because she is listed as an official in his businesses, such as IN.

No one is claiming that any of the women stole or mishandled the money.

We can have personal opinions, but right now, this is only between Johnny and TMG.

Your point is valid, however, I just find it interesting how the lawsuit was filed against TMG as soon as the divorce was finalized. This timing, to me, raises questions.

I'm sure Amber was aware of his financial issues and probably why she opted to settle quickly, rather than drag it out any longer.
And I'm not sure how her settlement might be affected if Johnny ends up filing bankruptcy.
Typically, one still owes spousal support even during bankruptcy, but I remember Barry Bonds was able to get relieved of his support duties during a baseball strike, claiming hardship.

But all of that is jumping ahead. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts.

[Sweeney Todd]

For some reason, Daily Mail published ANOTHER article and made it their top story.

[nebraska]

Interesting article, firefly! One of my closest friends is an office manager in a financial investment office of a national company. On their end of things they are dismayed because the new rules will cause delays and complications that will inhibit the quality of the service they are able to offer new clients (older clients are grandfathered in to their previous business practices). Not everything can be made better by heaping law upon law upon law. Sometimes common sense needs to prevail.

[brunasouzota]

So far, none of the wives/girlfriends have been mentioned in any of the documents.
Christie was only mentioned because she is listed as an official in his businesses, such as IN.

No one is claiming that any of the women stole or mishandled the money.

We can have personal opinions, but right now, this is only between Johnny and TMG.

Right! And that's where we need to keep the focus on this thread.

The word and idea mentioned in the document of unnamed persons involved includes all the people closest to him. I also do not get out of focus.

[Sweeney Todd]

Johnny Depp Claims Ex-Business Managers Are Taking a ‘Blame the Victim’ Strategy Over His Financial Woes

By Alexia Fernandez•@alexiafedz
Posted on February 1, 2017 at 10:01pm EST

Johnny Depp is firing back at his former management team over their claims his financial woes are all his fault, according to a statement by Depp’s attorney, Adam Waldman.

The Pirates of the Caribbean star claims his former business team, The Management Group (TMG), “have chosen to employ a reprehensible ‘blame the victim’ strategy in a transparent attempt to save their own skin and deflect away from their malfeasance, which is chronicled in Mr. Depp’s 48 page complaint.”

“Mr. Depp did not sue his former business managers for his own personal investment decisions or the ‘financial distress’ they wildly allege — Mr. Depp sued them for fraud and multiple breaches of their fiduciary duty, among other claims,” Waldman continues. “Gaslighting the public with global press releases will not save the defendants in court from their gross misconduct set forth in the complaint.”

Depp, 53, sued TMG earlier this month for $25 million in a fraud lawsuit. On Tuesday, TMG filed a cross-complaint, claiming the actor lived an “ultra-extravagant lifestyle that often knowingly cost Depp in excess of $2 million per month to maintain, which he simply could not afford.”

In TMG’s lawsuit, obtained by PEOPLE, the management firm asks Depp to pay more than $560,000 in allegedly unpaid commissions and credit card fees. TMG’s lawsuit is also asking for a court declaration that it “complied with all of its fiduciary obligations under the law and that Depp is responsible for his own financial waste.”

TMG’s complaint claims Depp spent over $75 million on 14 residences, $18 million to “acquire and renovate a 150 foot luxury yacht,” millions more buying and maintaining 45 luxury vehicles, $30,000 per month on expensive wines flown from all over the world, as well as $200,000 per month on private planes and tens of millions on “a massive and extremely expensive art collection,” including “world class jewelry,” about 70 collectible guitars and over 200 works by artists such as Warhol, Klimt, Basquiat, and Modigliani, among other things.

In the court papers, his former managers claim they repeatedly warned Depp of his overspending, and even warned him to get a pre-nup before marrying Amber Heard, which ended up costing him a $7 million settlement.

However, Depp’s lawyers claim in his lawsuit that the actor “lost tens of millions of dollars and has been forced to dispose of significant assets to pay for TMG’s self-dealing and gross misconduct.”

Depp’s lawsuit alleges TMG paid itself over $28 million in fees without his consent and failed to pay his taxes on time, resulting in $5.6 million in fees and penalties. The actor also claims the company loaned money to people without Depp’s permission. reads Depp’s complaint.

In a statement, TMG maintains that “Johnny Depp alone was solely responsible for his extravagant spending. Over 17 years, The Management Group (TMG) did everything possible to protect the actor from himself.”

[meeps]

I do so agree with this statement:

“Mr. Depp did not sue his former business managers for his own personal investment decisions or the ‘financial distress’ they wildly allege — Mr. Depp sued them for fraud and multiple breaches of their fiduciary duty, among other claims,”

Whether or not Johnny behaved a bit stupidly, when it came to money - used them like there was no tomorrow - is no excuse for anybody to take advantage of him!
Not to mention, that I am sure, that part of those money, they say, he spend each month, was spent on paying them for managing the rest of his money honestly, right? And I don't expect, they worked for minimum wages. But that's another matter entirely, they would probably state

[redrascal1]

I feel sad, he's been so generous to people in the past.

I'll never forget him donating a load of money to Great Ormond Street after they saved Lily - Rose.

[Kittycat88]

Howdy guys, wow, I can't believe this. All along I thought Christi handled his finances...guess I was wrong. Hard to believe he went through all the money, so something seems amiss. Poor Johnny...another problem.

Just finished reading the thread. I just heard about this today, boy am I out of the loop. I know he gave Vanessa a rather large settlement, when they split up, but I don't know how much or how it was to be paid (in a lump sum or over time). I don't think she needed it, and I distinctly remember and interview he gave, when he bought the island, that Vanessa was hesitant. Johnny saying she asked "why do you (we ) need a island" . Then there were the trusts set up for his kiddies, which was a smart move.

To me, in all his dealings, Johnny has always been a tremendously generous person, both to the charities he supported, and the friends who may have been in need.

I hope he doesn't lose "the castle" it will always be Johnny's "home" in my mind and would hate to see it go. Will keep on eye on situation here, where I am likely to get a more balanced view of it all than the entertainment shows and reporters.

[shaman-art]

All the recent headlines make it sound like he is broke. I'd rather doubt that. He might have spent a lot for traveling and his employees. But all the money he used to buy art and real estate is still there and most likely the value of those items has increased over the years. The numbers on zillow.com show that the value of some of his houses more than doubled since the time he bought them. Even his former managers still claim he owns 12 (!) storage facilities full of art and Hollywood memorabilia. For two of the eight Basquiats he sold last summer he got 11.5 million. And the wine? Of course he likes to drink it, but he might have also bought some rare bottles as an investment.
His lawyer and the new managers spent a lot of time going through all this mess. They would have never gone public without enough evidence.

[marija]

All the recent headlines make it sound like he is broke. I'd rather doubt that. He might have spent a lot for traveling and his employees. But all the money he used to buy art and real estate is still there and most likely the value of those items has increased over the years. The numbers on zillow.com show that the value of some of his houses more than doubled since the time he bought them. Even his former managers still claim he owns 12 (!) storage facilities full of art and Hollywood memorabilia. For two of the eight Basquiats he sold last summer he got 11.5 million. And the wine? Of course he likes to drink it, but he might have also bought some rare bottles as an investment.
His lawyer and the new managers spent a lot of time going through all this mess. They would have never gone public without enough evidence.

Thank you shaman...you give me a little hope back.

[gipsyblues]

Thank you sharman art ...... you give hope. It's just this bad reporting that makes me so sad. These media behave like greedy monsters.

[justintime]

Many thanks to all the links from Snoopy Dances, fireflydances, and Chocolat, as well as for the thoughtful comments by so many. They were all worth reading and kept me far away from the tabloid horror. I also took the time to read both Johnny's original lawsuit and TMG's cross complaint. The first was so sad, it truly hurt to read; the latter a mocking affront to any thinking individual. Anyone contemplating hiring those arrogant theives would do well to carefully peruse their reasoning, language, and twisted disingenuous sense of purpose.

Some random thoughts on my end, in no particular order:

JD was introduced to TMG in 1999 - by whom I wonder? - and agreed to the customary 5% of his annual income as their fee. This was changed in 2003, when TMG went whining to Johnny, complaining 5% was no longer satisfactory to cover all the time the firm had to devote to his needs alone (remember, this is now 5% of JD's rapidly increasing annual income) and they pressed for an uncapped annual fee from there on out. Nothing in writing! And no mention of this "renegotiation", if you will, in their cross complaint - no denial, nothing. Reputable business managers are typically either on retainer, paid by commission, or compensated by a flat fee. TMG, by the way, is not mentioned in the list of the 25 savviest financial pros over the last several years, if ever, yet they had the audacity to flatly mock Edward White et al as being "out of their league on this one" right in the body of their cross complaint. Classy, huh? IMHO it was this open-ended fee change that initially paved the way for TMG to avail itself of Johnny's coffers whenever and for whatever/whomever came a-calling.

TMG snidely insinuates JD might be running off the rails for lapsing into a profanity-laden tirade when told he was on the brink of financial ruin. Ha! If anything, I hope this reference to Johnny's behavior is absolutely accurate. More than anything else stated by TMG, this observation lends a stamp of incontrovertible truth to JD's claim he was unaware how dire his financial circumstances really were. IMHO, Johnny demonstrated enormous restraint. I think TMG got off lightly.

I share your suspicions, Chocolat, with respect to AH's possible involvement. Since Johnny has chosen not to go in that direction just yet, however, I'll not speculate further.

TMG is very careful to state all expenses were authorized by Johnny and/or Christie Dembrowski. It is not much of a stretch to surmise there may have been any number of expenses being covered without Johnny's knowledge, not to mention the fact that none of the jaw dropping schemes described in Johnny's lawsuit are ever addressed in TMG's response except to "shout" in caps and bold type, "FALSE" and to then redirect the reader's focus to how foolishly JD spent his hard-earned money. It's also galling to note there is no mention of Johnny's numerous charitable contributions amongst his expenditures, just those extravagances the average person might frown upon, fodder for tabloid exploitation. TMG chose to include in that list the cost of round-the-clock security for his children, implying that, too, was an unnecessary indulgence.

Lastly, it is insultingly oversimplifying to say ". . . being a movie star should not excuse one from the obligation of balancing one's checkbook once in a while . . . ". If Johnny did, indeed, receive regular, sound advice in writing with reasons why he should or shouldn't proceed on a particular course (no indication from TMG they did anything of the sort), and he chose to repeatedly ignore those cautions, TMG might have had an obligation to cut their ties with him, or AT THE VERY LEAST, to stop paying itself millions of dollars from his accounts. Self-serving to the bitter end, TMG chose neither option. Instead, the schemes became increasingly more complex and TMG's stranglehold on Johnny's finances continued to tighten.

I believe Johnny's case is solid, substantive, direct despite TMG's fraudulent, entangled manuevers, and convincing. His legal counsel gave a tempered, well-phrased rebuttal statement to the Wall Street Journal in response to the cross complaint. (This is very different from Nick Cage's predicament back in 2009. The sloppy media hacks are too lazy to draw the distinctions.) It kills me to think of Johnny going through this - but, bottom line, he is a strong, honest man. I still put a lot of faith in that.