‘Survivor’ Trial Hears Producer’s Testimony About Splitting Riches From Hit Reality Show

Reality TV colonize Mark Burnett’s former business partner Conrad Riggs has spent some-more than 10 hours on a mount this week, fortifying himself opposite accusations that he breached his agreement with a Survivor consultant and shorted him millions of dollars in profits.

In 2012 consultant Layne Leslie Britton sued Riggs, claiming he owes him $14 million in tie with his work on Survivor and other projects.

The lawsuit centers on an Oct. 23, 2000 consulting agreement between a dual men, who have starkly opposite interpretations of a contract.

According to Britton’s lawsuit, in sell for his recommendation and conference on business matters, he was entitled to 35 percent of Riggs’ share of income from Survivor and 40 percent of Riggs’ share for other shows he worked on for Burnett, reduction suitable losses and writer fees. Britton pronounced Riggs didn’t start profitable him until 2002 and stopped in 2006.

The biggest issue, in regards to intensity indemnification awarded, is either their agreement lonesome usually a bound duration of time.

Under a agreement, Britton shall describe business advisory and consulting services to Riggs and his association Cloudbreak Entertainment Inc. on projects Cloudbreak undertakes for Burnett and his association DJB Inc., ”including though not singular to WCW [World Championship Wrestling], that might arise by Dec 31, 2001 for that Cloudbreak is intent by DJB.”

Riggs pronounced a agreement usually lonesome projects that began before to Dec 31, 2001.

After a sharp-witted row while a jury was absent Friday morning, Judge Frederick C. Shaller motionless to concede into justification a before breeze of a agreement between Riggs and Britton.

This proviso did not make it into a final draft: “This date is not a reduction on projects grown by or as partial of commitments or an altogether understanding or a tenure understanding for DBJ or a association that engages or buys or is shaped by DJB, that projects shall be lonesome by this agreement.”

Riggs pronounced he didn’t determine to that provision. His attorney, Eric M. George of Browne George Ross LLP, pronounced that proves a Dec. 31, 2001 date is in fact a tenure limitation.

Britton’s attorneys, Jeffery D. McFarland and Jon C. Cederberg of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, remonstrate a diction is obscure and their customer did not know a agreement to be time-limited.

The group also remonstrate on what are deliberate suitable losses and fees. The some-more that is deducted from Riggs’ sum income before requesting a contractual 35 or 40 percent, a reduction Britton would receive.

The initial agreement sets Riggs’ writer fees during $12,500 per partial for Survivor, with a 5 percent annual and/or per cycle increase. A after re-negotiation with CBS upped that price to $46,875 per partial and called it a producing and consulting fee.

While both sides determine Riggs’ producing fees are off boundary per their agreement, they remonstrate about a amount.

McFarland argues that Riggs’ writer credit on Survivor, that he still binds notwithstanding ceasing work on a uncover in 2008, could be seen as a self-centredness pretension and therefore not aver writer fees.

George argues that Riggs warranted a fees for front-end work on a series, and a consultant apportionment of a fees would be a change of $46,875 and initial $12,500 and annual increases. That change could be theme to Britton’s percentage, presumption it wasn’t exceeded by expenses.

Another indicate of row between a dual sides is either Britton was hired to act as a authorised advisor.

Both Britton and Riggs attended law propagandize and upheld a bar exam.

Riggs pronounced during a time he hired Britton he was looking for authorised assistance with an settlement with CBS over Survivor’s understanding structure.

In an email, Riggs wrote to Britton, “What about regulating Greg Homer for a CBS/Survivor deal? There are too many papers and we MUST rivet an attorney. we am not in a position to describe a authorised on this plan and do not wish to be a counsel on it but backup.” That was followed by a list of attorneys he was considering.

Riggs pronounced on a mount Thursday that Britton offering to advise him in response to that email.

However there is no anxiety to authorised services in a consulting agreement, that McFarland pronounced proves they weren’t partial of a deal.

While this hearing boils down to a terms of a contract, McFarland pronounced a ambiguity of a denunciation and incompatible interpretations make it “an emanate of credibility” and a jury will have to confirm “which of these witnesses is revelation a truth.”

After Riggs finishes his testimony, potentially Friday afternoon, Britton will be put behind on a mount to plead a prior breeze of their agreement that he didn’t have a event to residence progressing this week.