Both sides in ‘Sahara’ trial claim victory

After a marathon battle of big egos and a long-winded 14-week civil trial, author Clive Cussler and billionaire industrialist Philip Anschutz both claimed victory Tuesday, but neither walked away with the huge financial win he’d sought.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that Cussler breached his contract with the producers of the 2005 adventure film “Sahara,” awarding Anschutz’s Crusader Entertainment $5 million.

But jurors also deemed that Crusader, now called Bristol Bay Productions, should pay Cussler about $8.5 million the author said he was owed for a second novel in his Dirk Pitt series that was never made into a movie.

“I’m greatly relieved it’s over,” Cussler, 75, said outside the courtroom Tuesday. “I think I’m happy just to go home and take up my life again. We’ve been here for four months.”

The jury found that Cussler fraudulently misrepresented the number of books he’d sold, but that Crusader had not been harmed by it. Jurors awarded no damages on the fraud claim, nor did they levy punitive damages.

Anschutz was not present for the jury’s findings, but his attorney, Marvin Putnam, said he was elated with the outcome -- despite a $5-million award that probably wouldn’t cover either side’s legal bills.

“It was a complete finding of liability, just not a finding of damages,” Putnam said. “It’s a complete victory.”

Putnam said he would contest Cussler’s $8.5-million award when Judge John P. Shook convenes a hearing to decide whether he will approve the jury’s findings.

Jurors deliberated for eight days to determine who was responsible for the financial failure of “Sahara,” which starred Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz and has lost about $105 million to date.

Cussler initially sued in January 2004, demanding about $40 million on his claims that Anschutz’s producers failed to honor contractual rights that gave him “sole and absolute” approval over the “Sahara” screenplay.

In his countersuit, Anschutz alleged that Cussler fraudulently inflated sales numbers for the Pitt series to land a $10-million-per-book movie deal and that he refused to promote “Sahara” as promised. Anschutz sought $115 million in damages.

On Tuesday, several jurors described deliberations as often contentious, as the panel split 9 to 3 on several key questions on the 60-item verdict form.

Foreman Anthony Villa said jurors ultimately decided that each side was entitled to something.

“It was the most equitable thing,” Villa said.

But juror Sylvia Flores said she thought Anschutz’s company deserved nothing.

“I don’t think Crusader lost any money,” she said.

Jurors were so divided, Flores said, that Tuesday morning they were ready to declare themselves deadlocked.

“There were points where we were just going to throw in the towel,” she said. “Actually, just this morning we still had four more questions [to decide]. We wrote up the little paper to tell the judge we were hung.”

But the jurors decided “that wouldn’t be fair to either side” in light of the time and expense of the trial, she said, and worked out a compromise.

Anschutz, who made his fortune in oil and gas, railroads, real estate and telecommunications, was looking to make his first big splash in Hollywood when he teamed up with Cussler. He envisioned Cussler’s Dirk Pitt series as a profitable movie franchise, much like the James Bond or Indiana Jones films.

Anschutz not only agreed to pay a whopping $10 million per book for rights to “Sahara” and one other Pitt novel but also gave Cussler extraordinary creative control. Cussler had final say over the director and casting of the lead actors as well as approval rights over the script.

But Cussler became so exasperated with the development process that he ridiculed the project, saying he didn’t even know what book the producers were adapting. He also accused producers of refusing to adapt one of at least three screenplays he approved.

“They deceived me right from the beginning,” the author testified in a deposition.

Cussler sought to halt release of the film with his lawsuit. Anschutz countersued, claiming the author had acted unreasonably in exercising his approval rights.

Anschutz’s lawyers filed a new claim last year, alleging that Cussler “perpetrated a massive fraud” to secure the $10-million-per-book movie rights deal. They argued that Anschutz never would have paid a premium for the author’s large fan base if he knew that Cussler had exaggerated the numbers.

Cussler’s lawyer, Bertram Fields, downplayed the jury’s finding of misrepresentation by his client because no damages were awarded.

“We feel like Cussler is the clear winner,” he said, noting that his client will net $3.5 million from the verdict and regain the rights to all of his books if Shook blesses the verdict.

Putnam disagreed, saying the verdict showed Cussler to be a liar.

“He absolutely, fraudulently and repeatedly misrepresented his book sales,” Putnam said.

Perhaps the most dramatic testimony came at the end of the trial, when Cussler stumbled and stammered about the sales figures. Asked for his assessment of Cussler’s testimony, foreman Villa hinted that he was not impressed.

“Can I take the Fifth on that?” he said.

kim.christensen@latimes.com

glenn.bunting@latimes.com