Reality star is cut out of billionaire husband's will
Finke Squeezes $7.5M Out of E-Trade, $80K for Her
The clock is ticking for a court to approve a settlement that will pay blogger Nikki Finke $80,000 and Hollywood lawyer Neville Johnson $1.8 million for the lucky mistake of having a telephone conversation between Finke and an E-Trade employee recorded without telling her.
The pain to the online stock trading company is far worse than that: $7.5 million to get rid of the class-action lawsuit, filed by Johnson with Finke as lead plaintiff, which seems to define the term frivolous. (Read the settlement here; the class closes at the end of September.)
Oddly, the lawsuit has gone unnoticed in Hollywood, which reveals a web of relationships that may affect coverage on Finke’s widely read blog. Johnson gets rosy coverage, as has been pointed out before, for his work on behalf of plaintiffs like Jack Klugman suing for residuals.
And what now? Presuming the settlement is approved in October, Johnson will owe Finke a great deal for the chance to have made a large pile of hassle-free cash.
Still, it’s no wonder neither side wants to talk about this. E-Trade is clearly embarrassed that it was caught in, at best, a rookie mistake: recording phone conversations without the simple notification that goes with just about any service-oriented company (“This call may be recorded …” etc.).
And Finke and Johnson have little to crow about, since the "injustice" being corrected in no way required a lawsuit, nor does the complaint detail any actual injury. (The surreptitious recording “was highly offensive to plaintiff Greenberg and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,” reads the complaint with no further detail. Greenberg is Finke’s former name, which she uses in lawsuits.)
Here’s where it’s worth paying attention: Johnson has filed civil suits for wiretapping against convicted Hollywood private investigator Antony Pellicano and others related to that mess, including Chris Rock, Kirk Kerkorian and Terry Christensen. That’s a topic Finke has written a great deal about.
She was dinged last year by the New York Observer for failing to disclose her relationship with Johnson.
But there’s more.
Johnson and his associate Paul Kiesel -- who also signed the E-Trade settlement papers -- lead a class-action lawsuit against the Writers Guild for unclaimed foreign levy payments. Finke has written almost nothing about this.
(Waxword has written extensively on this mess, which involves three guilds -- writers, directors and actors. Read more here and here.)
So here’s the irony: The lead plaintiff in Johnson’s class-action lawsuit against the WGA, Bill Richert, is being investigated by the Los Angeles police for having recorded a central witness in the case, Teri Mial, without her knowledge.
This may sound so twisted as to be true, and it is! Richert, a loose cannon if ever there was one, sent an email on June 11, 2008, in which he writes, after a discussion of the content of his conversation with Mial: “First I gotta figure out the technology to send it since the recorder is a PC and I have a Mac.”
Then he adds, clearly aware that he recorded her without her consent: “(Writing this it occurs to me that Teri would be extremely upset if she not only found her lawyer’s gossip on the Internet, but heard her own voice as well; I have told her nothing is confidential with me -- until the new lawyers take over the case.)”
Mial subsequently filed a police complaint, which led to an investigation over illegal taping.
I asked Johnson about this, but didn’t get a response by my deadline.
In a recent New York Times profile Finke called the E-Trade lawsuit a "private matter," which is a funny -- nay, hilarious -- way to talk about a class action. (The settlement was mentioned in the New York Times but got Finke’s compensation wrong.)
It’s of a piece with Finke’s penchant for suing and threatening to sue companies large and small, mostly when she was out of work and out of money.
There’s a lawsuit dating back to 1988 against Santa Monica Import Motors, a settlement with her condo company for $36,000 and a much larger but undisclosed award from News Corp and the Walt Disney Company over losing a freelance contract with the New York Post during the Eisner-Ovitz wars.
Once I remember she squeezed some money out of a hotel where she got food poisoning.
But she isn’t out of work or out of money anymore.
Memo to Jay Penske, Finke/Greenberg’s new owner: keep your finger off the Record button.
Comments
Nasdbull Says
(Greenberg is her legal name which I suspect you well know) she has performed a service by being a class representative through which Thousand of individuals will be compensated.
Where's are money??? finsikekese?
Eric Hughes Says
Eric Hughes
Is it your contention, Mr. Kiesel, that Ms. Finke does not read the New York Times, VARIETY, the Los Angeles TIMES and the Hollywood Reporter?
Ms. Finke placed her call to E-Trade Financial on August 15, 2006.
Her friend Neville Johnson filed his lawsuit against the WGA in September of 2005 and it was reported in the NEW YORK TIMES on September 19 2005 by her friend Dennis McDougal.
Johnson filed against the DGA in May of 2006. It was reported in VARIETY, the L.A. TIMES and the Hollywood Reporter.
And there was this extraordinary front page story by Dave McNary in VARIETY on June 6, 2006 two months before her call to E-Trade Financial:
www.screenrights.net/storynew.html
In your legal discourse, Mr. Kiesel, you ignore or is it your intent to distract from the core of Ms. Waxman’s piece?
You write of personal matters, of service, and you defend Ms. Finke’s reputation.
Nonetheless, you are aware of the invasion and violation of the privacy of Teri Mial by Johnson, your co-counsel on the WGA, DGA and SAG lawsuits, and Ms. Mial’s own attorney, and you have done nothing to protect her from on the ongoing harm it is doing to her and her family.
Ms. Mial is both a witness in a federal investigation involving the WGA and a witness in your lawsuit against the WGA.
Nonetheless, you have ignored the continuing violations of her rights by William Richert, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and have failed to report his actions.
Did Ms. Finke provide you with the email Richert sent the other day to Ms.Finke, Ms. Waxman and other members of the press in which he untruthfully denies being under investigation for wiretapping?
Richert told an LAPD detective some time ago that he would “most happily” come in for questioning. But he never showed.
Is it advisable, Mr. Kiesel, to ignore the police and try to get it reported that there has been no contact from the police?
It would be wrong of me to write this and disrespect your rights to privacy.
You should be aware that Richert has disseminated emails from you to
Ms. Mial, journalists and other lawyers.
Ms. Mial alerted me to your post here and she asked me a question that only you can answer. She asked why you believe that protecting the rights to privacy is a significant legal issue for others but not for her.
I hope you will finally show respect to Ms. Mial by answering her question.
If not, I suggest you refrain from any further public postings on the rights of privacy that all of us as human beings do indeed have.
Eric Hughes
Sharon Waxman Says
dear paul -
thanks for this comment, but i am surprised to hear you suggest that i did not seek comment from counsel. i am sure you know that i sent not one but two emails to neville johnson, lead counsel on this matter. he has not responded.
in one email, i asked neville how many people were in the class. (you allude to 'thousands'.) if you could provide that number more precisely, i would welcome your response in this forum or elsewhere. it is interesting, though i did not mention in the post, that any monies not disbursed will go to charity.
i also note with surprise the lack of response by you or neville johnson when i pointed out what appears to be bill richert's recording of teri mial without her knowledge. shall we take this to mean you tacitly agree that this occurred?
i would finally note that bill richert has emailed to object to characterizations of him in the post. i asked him for specific errors that he believes require correcting, but have not yet received a response.
Paul R. Kiesel Says
Ms Waxman:
I represent the E*Trade class action law suit and plaintiff Nikki Finke Greenberg. I was dismayed by the seemingly malicious tone and inaccurate facts in your recent post. Also, that you would write what is clearly not breaking news without comment from class counsel on this significant legal issue. Had you spoken with class counsel, you would have been advised that a judge has approved every step of the class action suit, and that this litigation by no means is frivolous but is done to protect the privacy rights which we contend were violated here. You surely are aware, as a journalist, that every act that takes place within the context of this litigation is subject to and requires Court approval. Also, contrary to your portrayal of Ms. Finke (Greenberg is her legal name which I suspect you well know) she has performed a service by being a class representative through which Thousand of individuals will be compensated. Ms. Greenberg is being compensated as the lead class representative. As I understand it you never attempted to talk to Ms. Greenberg directly. Had you done so you would have been told that she had no knowledge of Mr. Johsnon’s representation in the WGA matter. The E*Trade class action was a personal matter for Ms. GREENBERG and not related in any way to her professional work. Your attempt to link the two appear sensational at best.
Johnny Raw Says
E-Trade, according to their 10-Q filing, has an explanation for the Nikki recording – their notification system was on the fritz. Bull*&$@? Who knows? What matters is that by the very nature of a settlement, both sides agree to leverage their downside risk against what a jury could have awarded the prevailing party.
here’s the link and an excerpt from the E-Trade 10-Q filing
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtml...
"On October 11, 2006, a state class action entitled, “Nikki Greenberg, and all those similarly situated, plaintiffs, versus E*TRADE FINANCIAL Corporation, defendant” was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from E*TRADE that were recorded without their knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the plaintiff Greenberg to the Company’s Beverly Hills branch on August 8, 2006, that was recorded during a brief period when the Company’s automated notice system was out of order. On February 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class defined to consist of (1) all persons in California who received telephone calls from E*TRADE and whose calls were recorded without their consent within three years of October 11, 2006, and (2) all persons who made calls from California to the Beverly Hills branch office of ETFC on August 8, 2006. In the interim, the Company has filed motions seeking to de-certify or further limit the defined class, and plaintiffs have filed competing motions seeking to expand it. These motions currently are scheduled to be heard by the court on September 19, 2008."
bored2tears Says
Finke makes Sumner Redstone seem sane by comparison.
unimpressed by NYers Says
To "Former co-worker @ the times":
Your comments make you look like an idiot...Ms. Waxman had a face-to-face interview with Ms. Finke in this same forum. Read it, you'll feel foolish. She questioned her about much of this stuff and gave her the chance to go on the record, confirming or refuting, and she came off with a smart-ass attitude and basically invited this kind of thing. If you don't like the tone of it, talk to Nikki Finke.
DanC Says
Isn't it hilarious that Nikki haters and lovers all over L.A. keep responding to Wrap coverage. I happily don't align myself in either camp, but I think a story that gets response from Anita Busch (who?) is fascinating and all too amusing. She once was a diligent (if not semi-hysterical) journalist who was targeted by some Pellicano henchmen. Then she disappeared. Not literally, just figuratively.
Obviously, she still keeps her hand in by doing what? Reading Sharon Waxman's handiwork on the Wrap.com.
lb Says
Hey Junkie...try reading the relevant California law, sec. 6253(a)...it says nothing about "interested parties" or "needed"....repeat all you want, but try getting it right, huh?
Joe.is.a.tv.junkie Says
This doesn't happen to be entertainment news or news of any kind. And if Nikki wasn't the author of DHD it wouldn't be here at this site.
Just because something is a matter of public record doesn't make it news. It's a matter of public record in order that interested parties -- I repeat -- interested parties can be privy to needed information.
Nikki being the competition doesn't make you an interested party, it makes you that person on the freeway that slows down to see the accident carnage.
Is that what you are?
Visit my blog at http://IAmATVJunkie.typepad.com
lb Says
Sharon: First of all, isn't it interesting how anyone writing about Nikki Stinke seems to be a problem to some people. Cracks me up..
It seems to me Stinke has painted the bullseye on her own torso and people shouldn't worry about others drawing a bead on it once in a while. Anyone blowing the TOLDJA trumpet as much as she does is asking for it...
Have at it....
Anita Busch Says
To One of Your Former Co-Workers: The New York Times wouldn't hire her to cover the dog catcher beat. Look at her high error rate at the New York Times in the short time she was there. That's all anyone needs to know about what kind of a journalist she is.
Anita Busch Says
Sharon,
You want to see a loose cannon? Look in the flippin' mirror. Why don't you do everyone in journalism a favor and just leave?
How many mistakes have you made in your career as a journalist? There's been so many that I've lost count.
You have zero credibility.
Anita Busch
One of your former co-workers at the Times Says
And the point of this is exactly, what? News? Reads like a cheap shot to me, as if you're just insanely obsessed with her, and jealous of her traffic. And aren't you the one who reported that she got $14 million? Did you make that number up? Did you get it confirmed? Did you get any of this story confirmed? Did you call anyone? Reads to me like you didn't, but you felt like throwing some mud around. So I get it -- failing to attract any attention for your 'reporting' or your site, you've decided that the way to do it is to take cheap shots at Nikki. Nice try, but it isn't going to work. Did you ever consider a job at maybe, oh, I don't know, covering religion for the New York Times?
denne Says
Nice reporting, Sharon. Keep on this story if anything else comes up. It's quite a disturbing piece.