‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Broker Sues Producers for $25 Million Over Bald Jokes, Hooker and Drug Scenes

'Wolf of Wall Street' Broker Sues Producers for $25 Million Over Bald Jokes, Hooker and Drug Scenes

The lawsuit claims Andrew Greene's character “is portrayed as a criminal, drug user, degenerate, depraved, and/or devoid of any morality or ethics.”

Insult Andrew Greene's receding hairline at your own legal peril.

The former Stratton Oakmont executive hit the producers of Best Picture nominee “The Wolf of Wall Street” with a $25 million defamation suit this week and is asking for an injunction. He's taking particular issue with the way the film depicts his drug-fueled antics at the defunct brokerage firm and his flimsy toupee.

Also read: War Over ‘Wolf of Wall Street': Scorsese's Latest Ignites Online Brouhaha

In the film, Andrew Greene (nicknamed in true Wall Street/locker room fashion as “Wigwam”) is rechristened Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, but the hairpiece remains and the jokes that come at its expense have Greene fuming.

“In multiple scenes in the movie, ‘Rugrat's’ use of a toupee is accentuated and mocked in an egregiously offensive manner,” the complaint reads. “The motion picture introduces ‘Rugrat’ by referencing his ‘piece of shit hairpiece.’ In another scene, investigators ask whether his hair is real. Characters are also seen attempting to grab the toupee in a scene.”

Also read: 'Shame on You!’ Says Academy Member to Martin Scorsese at ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Screening

Greene isn't happy about the way his time at Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm that ran into trouble for stock fraud in the 1990s, is depicted. In the film Greene's alter-ego is seen consuming copious amounts of narcotics and enjoying prostitutes.

“The motion picture contains various scenes wherein Mr. Greene's character is portrayed as a criminal, drug user, degenerate, depraved, and/or devoid of any morality or ethics,” the complaint reads.

The suit goes on to argue those scenes of criminality will injure Greene's professional and personal reputation.

“Mr. Greene will be permanently linked to the crimes and loathsome behavior portrayed by his likeness in the motion picture, despite never having been interviewed, questioned, charged, imprisoned, or even arrested for the illicit and despicable behavior shown in the motion picture,” the suit reads.

Paramount Pictures, which distributed the film, and producers Appian Way, Red Granite Productions and Sikelia Productions are all named as defendants. Spokespeople for the companies and attorneys for Greene did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Greene served as head of Stratton Oakmont's Corporate Finance Department from 1993-96, according to the suit. He does not dispute that he frequently wore a toupee.

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.

  • A.L. Hern

    Since Greene has, apparently, never sued Jordan Belfort for describing him thus in his book, and the character's name has been changed in the movie, I wonder what kind of underemployed lawyer he's engaged that thinks it's worth his time to pursue such a meretricious lawsuit.

    If nothing else, Greene's suit and public outrage only serves to notify a previously ignorant public that “Nicky ‘Rugrat’ Koskoff” is really Andrew Greene.

    Peel away the outer layers of stupid, and you find a dense core of greedy AND stupid. Andrew, you've just managed to confirm Scorsese's portrait of you. Way to go.

  • SPIKE

    SOME BALD JERK WHO IS PLANNING TO RIDE THE MONEY TRAIN OF A HIT FILM. YEAH, ANDREW, YOU'LL SETTLE QUIETLY FOR A HEFTY SUM, WON'T YOU?

  • CNU

    “Mr. Greene will be permanently linked to the crimes and loathsome behavior portrayed by his likeness in the motion picture”
    I'm pretty sure his name is linked to crimes due to him being a convicted for felonies and having served time.