Amended suit versus. merger seeks trial, damages

With ballots starting to hit members' mail boxes, competitors from the SAG-AFTRA merger have amended their suit against SAG to request for any jury trial and financial damages. Move comes per week following the four-count civil complaint was filed in La. Litigants allege the Screen Stars Guild and it is leaders are trying to merge using the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists "without performing the required research." SAG has labeled the suit "a obvious attempt for circumventing the desire from the membership" and "a pr stunt" and it has gone to live in write it off.Plaintiffs' attorney David Casselman of Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten told Variety that SAG is investing a lot more than $2.5 million around the merger. Ballots are now being mailed to 120,000 SAG people and 70,000 AFTRA people, offering the combo as giving entertainers more negotiating clout. To become approved, the merger must receive a minimum of 60% from the votes from each union.The suit is targeted at stopping SAG from counting the votes on March 30. The amended complaint alleges the litigants had asked for a delay in investing until SAG satisfied its very own fiduciary rules."The person accused deliberately and knowingly declined to follow the SAG constitutional needs, board resolutions as well as their fiduciary obligations towards the people," the complaint stated. "They ought to certainly be obligated to pay SAG for those funds consumed, whether by staff or otherwise, for time and money connected with this particular unnecessary and improper merger effort."The suit, filed by a lot more than 60 SAG people including Martin Sheen and Erectile dysfunction Harris, also suggests that SAG is breaking its very own rules by not performing an extensive analysis of mixing the SAG and AFTRA pension and health plans -- that are operated individually in the unions and overseen by union-industry boards. The unions' review of the feasibility study, that contains opinions of seven lawyers with experience of the area, noted that hundreds of multi-employer pensions have merged in the last twenty five years which there's no legal obstacle to merging the SAG and AFTRA pension and health plans.Monday's filings through the competitors incorporated a declaration by Alex H. Brucker, a lawyer with 30 years of expertise in worker pension and health plans, that blasted SAG for saying that merging the unions and also the plans would "only benefit" participants which "merger is the easiest method to safeguard our benefits.""These aren't supportable claims of fact," Brucker stated.Merger backers contend that mixing SAG and AFTRA can make it simpler to mix the plans like a foundation solving the issue that entertainers face for making contributions towards the separate plans after which not meeting the income qualifications. Brucker stated in the declaration the question of merging SAG and AFTRA is "indistinguishable" in the question of merging the plans and should not be looked at individually."I believe, according to my consideration of the problem, that the plan merger boosts complex issues, could create serious problems and conflicts and could cause lack of benefits for SAG and AFTRA people," Brucker stated. "The actual effect on plan benefits (or needed member and co-sponsor contributions) can't be correctly evaluated with no ERISA (Worker Retirement Earnings Security Act) Impact Report."SAG people switched lower merger plans in 1999 and 2003 while AFTRA people supported both combinations.Casselman also filed a declaration by Patrick Byrnes, leader of Actuarial Consultants, who stated that the present SAG type of pension is "relatively more potent and much more advantageous" to SAG people, compared to existing AFTRA plan. "In most cases, according to my experience, it's not easy to merge an agenda with greater benefits along with a plan with lower benefits and (without additional funding) create a joint plan supplying the same as the greater benefit formula for those participants," Byrnes stated. Younger crowd stated that with no study to find out the way the pension plans could be merged, there is no method to predict the actual outcome. "But, in my opinion, chances are the mixture of the present SAG and AFTRA plans will either require additional funding or SAG benefits would need to be reduced," Byrnes added.SAG didn't have comment Monday concerning the amended complaint. Each side requested U.S. District Court Judge James Otero for any hearing on March 26.The guild filed pleadings Monday to dismiss the suit a pleading fighting the competitors lack standing to file for as well as an anti-SLAPP (proper suit against public participation) motion. Additionally, it filed a declaration by SAG national professional director David Whitened, including his assertion the merger continues to be talked about on numerous websites, webpages on well-known social networking sites, blogs, along with other online communication automobiles dedicated to internal SAG issues a few of which are member driven, most of which are maintained through the Guild and AFTRA, some by professional-merger groups, some by anti-merger groups, plus some that take no official position."Thus, the people of SAG and AFTRA have countless shops to think about the sights and knowledge of others around the merger question, and contributetheir own towards the debate," he stated. Contact Dork McNary at dork.mcnary@variety.com