Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Ronald Perelman sued his ex-wife, actress Ellen Barkin, and her company, Applehead Pictures LLC, saying she misappropriated funds to finance personal expenses, including a lawsuit she filed against him.
Barkin, 53, who starred in ``Ocean's Thirteen'' and ``The Big Easy,'' sued Perelman in August, saying he reneged on a promise during the couple's marriage to invest $3.4 million in her production company. 
The couple's five-year marriage came to an end last year. The actress founded New York-based Applehead with her brother, George Barkin, in November 2005, according to Barkin's Aug. 1 complaint. Perelman claimed in his suit filed yesterday in New York state court in Manhattan that Barkin and her brother misappropriated company funds for their own use.
Barkin used Applehead funds or credit to pay ``for items of a purely personal nature,'' Perelman said in his complaint.
The actress said in her suit that while she was married to Perelman, 64, Revlon Inc.'s chairman, he signed an agreement to make four capital contributions a year to Applehead in 2006 and 2007. He signed an amended agreement in February 2006, she said.
Perelman said in the complaint that Barkin and her brother secretly created a second entity called Applehead II. The second fund siphoned Applehead's funds, he alleged in a so-called derivative suit, brought as an Applehead shareholder on behalf of the company and claiming breaches of corporate duties.
Perelman Contribution
Perelman said he provided $465,000 to the film company in 2005, the only financial contribution made. He said that in December of that year, Barkin caused Applehead to transfer $7,000 to an entity she controls called Barkin Industries.
She provided Perelman with only a one-page budget for the film company in 2005 and paid her brother a $250,000 salary, that was ``grossly excessive and motivated by self-interest,'' Perelman claimed.
``Barkin has used Applehead I's funds to pursue a personal claim against Perelman,'' according to the complaint.
Perelman claimed Barkin and her brother acquired movie projects for Applehead II and secretly transferred the rights to a movie project previously acquired and paid for by Applehead I.
Perelman seeks compensatory and punitive damages and the return of misappropriated funds.
Christine Taylor, Perelman's spokeswoman said, ``We were initially disappointed at Ms. Barkin's attempts to further enrich herself after the divorce. We are further disappointed to learn of her additional actions to further enrich herself, her family and friends.''
`A Distraction'
Perelman's lawyer, Robert Cohen, didn't have an immediate comment on the lawsuit. Barkin's publicist, Leslie Dart, didn't return a voice-mail message seeking comment.
Jacob Buchdahl, a lawyer for Applehead, said Barkin repaid the $7,000 Perelman describes in his suit and that the Revlon chairman approved George Barkin's salary.
``The only thing Applehead Pictures doesn't have is the $3 million that he owes to us and promised to pay,'' Buchdahl said today in a phone interview.
``Applehead needs that money which is why the company filed suit,'' he said. ``Rather than pay that money, Mr. Perelman would prefer to file additional frivolous lawsuits. It's a distraction from the real issue, the payments he promised to make.''
The case is Ronald Perelman LLC v. Barkin, 603897/2007, New York Supreme Court, New York County (Manhattan).
The couple's five-year marriage came to an end last year. The actress founded New York-based Applehead with her brother, George Barkin, in November 2005, according to Barkin's Aug. 1 complaint. Perelman claimed in his suit filed yesterday in New York state court in Manhattan that Barkin and her brother misappropriated company funds for their own use.
Barkin used Applehead funds or credit to pay ``for items of a purely personal nature,'' Perelman said in his complaint.
The actress said in her suit that while she was married to Perelman, 64, Revlon Inc.'s chairman, he signed an agreement to make four capital contributions a year to Applehead in 2006 and 2007. He signed an amended agreement in February 2006, she said.
Perelman said in the complaint that Barkin and her brother secretly created a second entity called Applehead II. The second fund siphoned Applehead's funds, he alleged in a so-called derivative suit, brought as an Applehead shareholder on behalf of the company and claiming breaches of corporate duties.
Perelman Contribution
Perelman said he provided $465,000 to the film company in 2005, the only financial contribution made. He said that in December of that year, Barkin caused Applehead to transfer $7,000 to an entity she controls called Barkin Industries.
She provided Perelman with only a one-page budget for the film company in 2005 and paid her brother a $250,000 salary, that was ``grossly excessive and motivated by self-interest,'' Perelman claimed.
``Barkin has used Applehead I's funds to pursue a personal claim against Perelman,'' according to the complaint.
Perelman claimed Barkin and her brother acquired movie projects for Applehead II and secretly transferred the rights to a movie project previously acquired and paid for by Applehead I.
Perelman seeks compensatory and punitive damages and the return of misappropriated funds.
Christine Taylor, Perelman's spokeswoman said, ``We were initially disappointed at Ms. Barkin's attempts to further enrich herself after the divorce. We are further disappointed to learn of her additional actions to further enrich herself, her family and friends.''
`A Distraction'
Perelman's lawyer, Robert Cohen, didn't have an immediate comment on the lawsuit. Barkin's publicist, Leslie Dart, didn't return a voice-mail message seeking comment.
Jacob Buchdahl, a lawyer for Applehead, said Barkin repaid the $7,000 Perelman describes in his suit and that the Revlon chairman approved George Barkin's salary.
``The only thing Applehead Pictures doesn't have is the $3 million that he owes to us and promised to pay,'' Buchdahl said today in a phone interview.
``Applehead needs that money which is why the company filed suit,'' he said. ``Rather than pay that money, Mr. Perelman would prefer to file additional frivolous lawsuits. It's a distraction from the real issue, the payments he promised to make.''
The case is Ronald Perelman LLC v. Barkin, 603897/2007, New York Supreme Court, New York County (Manhattan).
0 comments:
Post a Comment