Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Clause & Effect

By Stan Soocher
August 26, 2003

If a TV network makes a non-recourse loan to a production company to produce a TV series, could the production company nevertheless be required to pay back the loan? Assume that the agreement with the network provides for a license fee to the production company as well as a loan for production costs that exceed the license fee, and that the loan will be repaid only from the series' net profits. What happens if the series is never syndicated and thus earns no net profits?

This was at issue in a suit by CBS Broadcasting against the Carsey-Werner Co. over the latter's failure to secure a syndication deal for the TV series 'Cybill' starring Cybill Sheperd. CBS had ordered a minimum of 13 episodes of 'Cybill' for the 1994/1995 TV season for a per-episode license fee of $550,000, plus a non-recourse loan equal to the difference between final production cost and the license fee. Carsey Werner produced 87 episodes of 'Cybill' and CBS loaned the production company $53,325,000. Carsey-Werner began to but abandoned efforts to syndicate the series. CBS filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court for repayment of the loan alleging negligence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Carsey-Werner argued that a good faith effort to syndicate the series couldn't be implied because the contract didn't obligate the production company to do so. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

Reversing in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, ruled that the agreement between CBS and Carsey-Werner contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that required Carsey-Werner to make good faith, commercially reasonable efforts to syndicate 'Cybill.' CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. The Carsey-Werner Co., B151721 (Jan. 21). According to the appellate court, '[t]he agreement assumes the Production Company will attempt to syndicate the series under certain circumstances. The contingent circumstances occurred. The agreement does not provide the Production Company with express discretion to refrain from syndicating the series at its option. The fact that the loan was non-recourse does not negate the existence of an implied duty to attempt to generate cash flow from which to repay the loan.'

The court noted that CBS had agreed to bear the risk of non-payment, which could occur if insufficient episodes had been produced, if Carsey-Werner had been unable to find a syndication deal for sufficient episodes or if the net proceeds hadn't been sufficient to pay off the loan. The court added: 'The provision that the Production Company was not required to repay more than it took in from the series was to protect the Production Company from taking a loss; it was not to provide the Production Company with the option to do nothing to generate additional cash flow. ' This is not a case in which the Production Company bargained and gave adequate consideration for the right to do nothing once they became obligated to repay the CBS loan.' The court also held that Carsey-Werner acted negligently in its handling of trying to secure a syndication deal for 'Cybill.'

The key agreement provision in dispute in the case read as follows:

'[The Production Company] shall repay such loan, plus accrued interest, in two installments [on specified dates]; provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of any loan payment plus accrued interest ' be in excess of [the Production Company's] cash flow from the net proceeds received by [the Production Company] from the Series prior to the date such payment becomes due (i.e., [the Production Company] shall only be obligated to make a loan (plus accrued interest) payment to the extent that [the Production Company's] cash flow from the net proceeds received by [the Production Company] up to the point that such payment falls due equals or exceeds the amount of the payment, plus the prior loan payment, if applicable). In the event that the cash flow is not equal to or greater than the amount of the loan (plus interest) payments that would otherwise be due in accordance with this provision, then CBS and [the Production Company] shall negotiate in good faith to extend the time by which the full amount of such payment or payments shall be made, but in no event shall [the Production Company] be required to make any loan and/or accrued interest payment(s) which would exceed the cash flow from the net proceeds theretofore received by [the Production Company] from the Series. For the purposes of this Paragraph ', in determining cash flow [to the Production Company] from net proceeds from the Series, the distribution fee and expenses attributable to the Series shall be the actual distribution fee and expenses charged by the Series distributor, except that if [the Distribution Company] is the distributor, then [the expenses and distribution fees are as set forth in the agreement].'

If a TV network makes a non-recourse loan to a production company to produce a TV series, could the production company nevertheless be required to pay back the loan? Assume that the agreement with the network provides for a license fee to the production company as well as a loan for production costs that exceed the license fee, and that the loan will be repaid only from the series' net profits. What happens if the series is never syndicated and thus earns no net profits?

This was at issue in a suit by CBS Broadcasting against the Carsey-Werner Co. over the latter's failure to secure a syndication deal for the TV series 'Cybill' starring Cybill Sheperd. CBS had ordered a minimum of 13 episodes of 'Cybill' for the 1994/1995 TV season for a per-episode license fee of $550,000, plus a non-recourse loan equal to the difference between final production cost and the license fee. Carsey Werner produced 87 episodes of 'Cybill' and CBS loaned the production company $53,325,000. Carsey-Werner began to but abandoned efforts to syndicate the series. CBS filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court for repayment of the loan alleging negligence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Carsey-Werner argued that a good faith effort to syndicate the series couldn't be implied because the contract didn't obligate the production company to do so. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

Reversing in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, ruled that the agreement between CBS and Carsey-Werner contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that required Carsey-Werner to make good faith, commercially reasonable efforts to syndicate 'Cybill.' CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. The Carsey-Werner Co., B151721 (Jan. 21). According to the appellate court, '[t]he agreement assumes the Production Company will attempt to syndicate the series under certain circumstances. The contingent circumstances occurred. The agreement does not provide the Production Company with express discretion to refrain from syndicating the series at its option. The fact that the loan was non-recourse does not negate the existence of an implied duty to attempt to generate cash flow from which to repay the loan.'

The court noted that CBS had agreed to bear the risk of non-payment, which could occur if insufficient episodes had been produced, if Carsey-Werner had been unable to find a syndication deal for sufficient episodes or if the net proceeds hadn't been sufficient to pay off the loan. The court added: 'The provision that the Production Company was not required to repay more than it took in from the series was to protect the Production Company from taking a loss; it was not to provide the Production Company with the option to do nothing to generate additional cash flow. ' This is not a case in which the Production Company bargained and gave adequate consideration for the right to do nothing once they became obligated to repay the CBS loan.' The court also held that Carsey-Werner acted negligently in its handling of trying to secure a syndication deal for 'Cybill.'

The key agreement provision in dispute in the case read as follows:

'[The Production Company] shall repay such loan, plus accrued interest, in two installments [on specified dates]; provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of any loan payment plus accrued interest ' be in excess of [the Production Company's] cash flow from the net proceeds received by [the Production Company] from the Series prior to the date such payment becomes due (i.e., [the Production Company] shall only be obligated to make a loan (plus accrued interest) payment to the extent that [the Production Company's] cash flow from the net proceeds received by [the Production Company] up to the point that such payment falls due equals or exceeds the amount of the payment, plus the prior loan payment, if applicable). In the event that the cash flow is not equal to or greater than the amount of the loan (plus interest) payments that would otherwise be due in accordance with this provision, then CBS and [the Production Company] shall negotiate in good faith to extend the time by which the full amount of such payment or payments shall be made, but in no event shall [the Production Company] be required to make any loan and/or accrued interest payment(s) which would exceed the cash flow from the net proceeds theretofore received by [the Production Company] from the Series. For the purposes of this Paragraph ', in determining cash flow [to the Production Company] from net proceeds from the Series, the distribution fee and expenses attributable to the Series shall be the actual distribution fee and expenses charged by the Series distributor, except that if [the Distribution Company] is the distributor, then [the expenses and distribution fees are as set forth in the agreement].'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace Image

Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.

Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO Image

This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.

While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum Image

For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.

Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed Image

In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.

From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World Image

Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.