Receiver Says Moviemaker Defrauded Bayou Hedge Fund
Litigation Reports
Kroll Inc., the court-appointed receiver for the defunct Bayou Hedge Fund, sued movie producer Steven Brown, claiming he used more than $3 million that should have gone to repay Bayou's investment in a new movie. Kroll also sued the attorney who helped Bayou invest in Brown's movies after the lawyer jumped over to Brown's side and allegedly stalled negotiations to help Brown avoid repayment.
Kroll has been in charge of recovering Bayou assets since 2006, after Samuel Israel III and former Bayou CFO Daniel Marino were convicted of stealing $450 million from investors. Israel led police on a goose chase in June after faking his suicide to try to avoid prison.
According to this Superior Court complaint, in 2005 Bayou created various companies to invest in three of Brown's movies. Bayou subsidiary Paid Movie I invested $2.7 million in "Yellow." In exchange for financing "Yellow," Brown promised to repay Bayou's investment within 6 months, plus a 15 percent fee. Bayou would also get half of "Yellow's" revenue. Though "Yellow" garnered good reviews at the New York International Latino Film Festival and the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival, Brown never repaid Bayou's original investment and failed to make good on either the 15 percent fee or the additional 50 percent share of revenue, the complaint states.
Paid Movie II, another Bayou subsidiary, allegedly wired Brown $250,000 to finance the movie, "Just Play Dead." The Paid Movie II contract held that Brown would share revenue from "Just Play Dead" and send the company weekly accounting explanations - and repay the loan. Brown did none of that, according to the complaint.
Bayou allegedly loaned Brown $200,000 to finance a third movie, "Affairs of State." Again, Kroll says, Brown failed to repay the loan.
In 2006, when Kroll took over Bayou's attempts to get Brown to cough up the money, Kroll says, former Bayou attorney Barry Reiss hopped over to Brown's side. Reiss had represented Bayou and Paid Movie I, II and III during negotiations with Brown, but jumped ship when Kroll took over, according to the complaint.
Reiss kept Kroll from suing Brown by claiming that the movies would soon make enough money to repay the loans, Kroll says. Reiss represented Brown during negotiations of a new repayment schedule. Kroll says it would never have given Reiss permission to represent Brown and would not have excused Reiss' conflict of interest, had Reiss asked it to.
Instead of complying with the new repayment agreement, Kroll says, Brown used the money he owed to make another movie, "Adrift in Manhattan," starring Heather Graham and William Baldwin.
Kroll wants Brown to repay the loans, plus the 15 and 50 percent fees it promised, and damages. Kroll is represented by Richard Fond with Simke, Chodos & Sasaki.
Related listings
-
Man who sprayed vinegar at Rep. Ilhan Omar during town hall pleads guilty to assault
Litigation Reports 05/09/2026A man who sprayed vinegar at Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis pleaded guilty to assault Thursday in federal court after reaching a deal with prosecutors.Anthony Kazmierczak, 55, is awaiting sentencing.Kazmierczak,...
-
BBC asks US court to dismiss Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit
Litigation Reports 03/20/2026The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against it, warning that the case could have a "chilling effect" on robust reporting on public figures and events.The suit was filed in a Florid...
-
Tax reform may grow donor base but shrink overall nonprofit contributions
Litigation Reports 03/17/2026Millions more Americans will likely donate to nonprofits following changes in tax laws passed by Congress last summer, but those changes will also likely reduce the overall amount of money given to charity, according to new research.The report from t...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.
