Viguier and his attorney ‘pleased’ with settlement
A secret settlement agreement was hashed out here on Friday, closing the file on a contentious, more than 15-year-old business spat involving a Santa Monica entrepreneur who in December was found liable by a jury for defrauding his former associates.
Cyril Viguier and Surf Channel, a company he created that produced extreme sports shows for cable television, were found liable for $884,000. The money was to reimburse Keline Howard, who helped create the programs, and Phillipe Ney, a video editor that worked on them.
In the trial, Ney and Howard said they were promised more than 40 percent of company shares but given nothing by Viguier, who went on to forge a partnership with a third party that pumped another $5 million into Surf Channel. Viguier cashed out a short time later for $2.2 million.
But rather than try to collect the money — or face an appeal by Viguier and Surf Channel — Ney and Howard agreed on Friday to settle the case. Because the parties decided to make the deal confidential, lawyers on both sides declined comment on it.
Georgene Vairo, a distinguished law professor at Loyola Marymount University, said plaintiffs will often settle a case even after receiving a favorable verdict.
“You never know whether there might be appealable issues,” she said, pointing to possible errors in the jury instructions, or new evidence that may be admitted. “Also, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You get your money now, rather than let appeals drag on for God knows how long. Why not take the money and run?”
“You never know whether there might be appealable issues.” — — GEORGENE VAIRO Law professor, Loyola Marymount University
The parties said they were pleased with their new agreement.
“Although the litigation was hotly contested, and some harsh and unkind things were said by both sides in the heat of the argument, Howard and Ney’s faith in Cyril Viguier and his integrity have been restored,” reads the press release, which was signed on Feb. 12 by Viguier, Ney and Howard.
Jurors in Santa Monica Superior Court deliberated only one day after hearing the week-long trial. After delivering their verdict, some of the jurors said Viguier’s testimony was contradictory and his memory of events was weak. Howard spoke outside the courtroom, characterizing Viguier as greedy and adding she was never supplied any explanation of why she wasn’t paid.
Jay Woollacott, Viguier’s lawyer, asserted during the trial that Howard’s work for Surf Channel was simply in return for favors supplied earlier by Viguier and said Howard was paid for her expenses. As to Ney, Woollacott said he had already been paid for his work. What’s more, Woollacott argued neither Howard nor Ney could be given shares because company officials had never voted on the matter.
“Let’s be real,” he said in the courtroom, adding the $5 million later invested into the company was simply a nest egg for future growth. “The company at that point had burned up the $200,000 (investor Jean Pierre) Murray had put in... The assets of Surf Channel was not much, if anything... Surf Channel had debts.”
Michael Blaha, attorney for the plaintiffs, conceded company officials had never voted on the shares, but pointed to a written contract guaranteeing Howard 10 percent of the company shares and a verbal contract he said entitled Ney to 8 percent of shares. Blaha further argued that Howard was first promised one-third of company shares, but when paperwork arrived that number dwindled to 10 percent.
The case was heard before Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Lorna Parnell.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 17, 2004. Read the original PDF.