REBECCA Producer Ben Sprecher Suing Press Agent Marc Thibodeau as 'Whisteblower' - Statement Inside + the Details of the Lawsuit

[PatrickDennis92]

Academically speaking, it at least shows premeditation... but alright, I'll go with it. However, what retribution could he have feared? Has anyone, and please educate me, ever heard of a casting director, press agent, general manager, company manager, actor, stage manager, or any other employee of a producer being held liable for performing the duties they were hired to do? He didn't perpetrate the fraud. He had nothing to worry about. If Ben Sprecher wants to take a risk and deal with a potential fraudulent act to fund his show, that's his own affair. His employees do not share in his liabilities.

[lovesclassics]

Actually, if the press agent knew that there was fraud and he continued to promote the show and spin stories to cover up that fraud, I believe he could be considered complicit and held liable along with others involved. He should have just resigned and released one of those vague statements that hints at but doesn't spell out his reasons for leaving. "Irreconcilable differences," or whatever. Let people make inferences from there.

[ghostlight2]

"Actually, if the press agent knew that there was fraud and he continued to promote the show and spin stories to cover up that fraud, I believe he could be considered complicit and held liable along with others involved."

Academically, exactly - but that wasn't what I meant. I meant that it was possible Thibodeau feared retribution from Sprecher for coming forward - which is precisely what has come to pass - and that's why he did it anonymously.

You seem to be taking this all very personally. May I ask why?

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Is someone honestly suggesting that a person who uncovered fraud should've just shut up and gone back to work instead of warning other people?

Jesus Christ, no wonder this country is over a moral and ethical barrel.

[lovesclassics]

ghostlight2, gosh. I'm not taking it personally. I just find the whole thing fascinating and bizarre.

I can certainly understand the press agent's desire to warn off investors. But you would also think that a press agent with such experience would know better than to do it the way he did.

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea what he could or could not have done from a legal standpoint. It just seems strange to me that he chose to send anonymous emails while still working on behalf of the show.

Who knows what his correspondence with Sprecher will reveal. It just seems to me a letter of resignation stating his reasons for leaving would have been more appropriate.

I applaud his ethics in regards to his feelings about the fraud. However, wasn't his way of dealing with it, well, unethical? The irony of it all is just kind of wild.

Great TV movie material for sure!

[ghostlight2]

So sorry for the confusion, lovesclassics. I quoting you to respond to PatrickDennis2, who does seem to me to be taking this personally.

You and I, loveclassics, are mostly in agreement. We agree that Thibodeau did act ethically, from my limited understanding of the situation. I also agree that a letter of resignation (made public, or at least with the investor cc'd) stating clear reasons for his departure - not vague ones - might have been a better choice. I can't blame him, though.

Given that Sprecher is now suing him, I can understand why Thibodeau wanted to remain anonymous. My guess is that, knowing what he knew of Sprecher's character, he assumed that Sprecher would come after him, so he tried to avoid that outcome by being anonymous.

I don't think what Thibodeau was unethical. It might not have been brave, but it was probably the smarter way to go - if he hadn't got caught.

[lovesclassics]

Thanks for the clarification, ghostlight2. These threads can get confusing!

Good distinction between "unethical" and lack of bravery. And like you say, who knows the whole story about what he was dealing with on the inside?

[GavestonPS]

And nowhere in this thread does anyone mention any relationship between the whistleblower and the investor he warned. For all we know, they may have been close friends or longtime associates.

The Broadway community has never been a large one and, despite the righteous indignation heard here, the financing of a Broadway show is often "creative", to use the kindest possible adjective. I love (ok, not really) how Sprecher has now become Vito Corleone.

But I suspect that even more than a horse head in his bed, Thibodeau feared getting a reputation as a rat in a small industry that often relies more on "show" than "business". And I don't think his fear was unwarranted.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

^ So, in other words, I wasn't entirely wrong. (I still reserve the right to believe that maybe the hoax nature of the Abrams thing wasn't entirely unknown to Sprecher, but that he accepted it rather than inform the investors there was a known shady figure in their ranks that anyone with a Google search worth of info would want off the production.)

[GavestonPS]

g.d.e.l.g.i., I don't think I ever said you were wrong. I don't pretend to know exactly what Sprecher OR Thibodeaux knew and when they knew it.

Was Sprecher trying to keep the ship moving forward while he replaced the fraudulent "non-investment"? It wouldn't surprise me. (I know he isn't stupid.)

Was doing so illegal or unethical? That I don't know. I haven't seen the limited partnership agreements, nor am I entirely sure what is considered "normal practice" on Broadway.

But there has been a lot of understandable sympathy here for the cast and crew who lost their jobs. In that light, was Sprecher wrong to try to conceal knowledge of the fraud until he could replace the money and keep everyone working? Was Thibodeaux right to blow the whistle that brought the entire enterprise down and put everyone out of work?

All of this will be hashed out in court, I presume, but the ethical waters seem murky regardless of where one looks.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

g.d.e.l.g.i., I don't think I ever said you were wrong.

Oh no, I know. I'm just proving a point to someone else. Thank you though.

[FindingNamo]

And this is what happens when The Goofy Gophers take over yet another thread.

[GavestonPS]

The Goofy Gophers aren't the worst metaphor I've ever seen for show business and those who run it.

[Taryn]

The investor in question obviously knew the risks of investing in a musical. He didn't "save" them money, as they were prepared to lose it anyway. Almost everyone who invests in theatre is prepared to lose their money. People invest in theatre because they want to support the arts and artists. And anyone who has 2.25m to invest is almost certain to have known what they were doing... it wasn't a sweet little old lady with her life savings.

There is such a huge difference between the regular risk one takes investing in a Broadway show and what happened with Rebecca. There was active conning and fraud going on in this situation. You're acting like Thibodeau was going around bad-mouthing Sprechter and spreading lies about his competence just because he didn't like him or something.

[PatrickDennis92]

I'm not acting like he did anything like that, where would you get that impression? Was it from anything specific I said?

... I'm only saying he was wrong to do what he did. And to hyperbole, I'm not saying that he was wrong to act out in accordance with his ethics, but the fact is, if Marc *KNEW* about fraud, he should have contacted the authorities. If he merely suspected that something didn't seem right, he should have discussed it with his employer... If at that point, Ben Sprecher said to him, "Nothing is wrong, everything is fine" then it is his job to, well, continue to do his job. I can't speak for the allegations of fraud and who knew what when, none of us know the specifics, I'm just saying that I personally believe Thibodeau acted outside of his duties in a gross misjudgmented act of disloyalty, and whether it was "right" of him to do it or not, I can easily imagine a court finding him to have some liability, because he admittedly used false pretenses for the purpose of sabotaging a business venture. We can argue all day about whether or not the business venture was worthwhile or who did who a favor, but when it comes down to Marc Thibodeau's actions served the purpose they intended... to derail the production by scaring away a major investor using what must have been lies (because an email from a person who doesn't exist is a lie from the beginning). It will be a difficult position to defend in court, I think.

[GavestonPS]

Well put, Patrick. IIRC, Sprecher has not been charged with committing fraud himself; so Thibodoeau is not a classic "whistle blower". Rather, he is someone who gave out proprietary information to his boss' investor.

[South Fl Marc]

I disagree totally.

Bravo Thibodoeau!

Anyone who ever deals with Ben Sprecher after this, deserves what they get.

[GavestonPS]

^^^^You disagree with what?

What Patrick posted is fact, based on the available info at this time. (I readily admit that could change with the next press release.)

How do you disagree with a fact?

Whether Thibodeau was morally right to intervene is another question. I don't think we have all the facts.

But it never occurred to me that I had the right to disclose proprietary info to my boss' potential investors or clients. Whatever you may think of Sprecher, to date he has not been charged with a crime.

Anyone who ever deals with Ben Sprecher after this, deserves what they get.

Whence comes this hatred? Is it sheer schaudenfraude?

'Cause last I heard, at worst Sprecher is accused of being too trusting and perhaps neglecting due diligence in his zeal to get his show up on Broadway. Is that really someone we want to excoriate? 'Cause frankly, NO show gets up on Broadway unless it's produced by a giant corporation or some individual producer with that kind of zeal.

Yeah, it backfired this time. But maybe next time he gets a show produced that otherwise wouldn't have had a chance.