Cussler’s tale is laced with lies, defense says

After a small Hollywood production company teamed up with billionaire Philip Anschutz in 2000, Clive Cussler and his literary agent wasted little time upping their $3-million-per-book asking price for the popular Dirk Pitt adventure series.

“What they really wanted was 10 million bucks per book,” Anschutz’s lead attorney, Marvin Putnam, said Wednesday during his closing arguments in a bruising legal battle over the film “Sahara.” “And they lied to do it. They thought they could get away with it. And they almost did.”

Putnam devoted the better part of his daylong remarks to jurors detailing how Cussler and agent Peter Lampack allegedly duped Anschutz into overpaying for film rights by claiming that the Pitt series had sold more than 100 million books.

“We are here because a lot of really bad things happened,” Putnam told the jury panel of nine women and three men. “You heard the lies. There was deceit. And most of all there was a faulty premise.”

The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations this morning in the 14-week-old trial that pits Anschutz, the Denver industrialist, against Cussler. Both sides are sparring over who is responsible for the financial failure of “Sahara,” which stars Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz. Released in April 2005, the adventure film has lost about $105 million.

Cussler initially sued in January 2004, alleging that Crusader Entertainment, Anschutz’s production company, refused to honor a written agreement that granted the author extraordinary approval rights over the screenplay. Anschutz countersued, claiming that Cussler fraudulently inflated the sales of his novels and acted unreasonably in exercising his approvals.

“Mr. Putnam’s presentation was long on harsh accusations but short on evidence,” Bertram Fields, Cussler’s attorney, said in an interview. “I only wish I had a chance to show the jury all the misinterpretations he created. He claims that in making the deal Cussler represented he sold 100 million books. He can’t explain why the contract lists over 30 representations on which Crusader is relying, but never mentions the number of books sold.”

Putnam told the jury that Anschutz’s production company is seeking $115 million in damages. “They are here to get back what they deserve,” Putnam said.

Clad in a dark blue suit and bright red tie, Putnam began by comparing the “Sahara” production to a large start-up company with about 1,000 employees and a $250-million budget including promotions and advertising.

Throughout his closing statement, Putnam mocked Cussler’s responses on the witness stand during six days of grueling cross-examination.

“Then, like every other time after [a Cussler answer] was shown to be absurd ... you got a giggle. You got a ‘whatever.’ And you got ‘it didn’t matter,’ ” Putnam recalled for the jury.

“You know as well as I do that that wasn’t true. It did matter. A quarter-billion dollar business was built on a sham. And that is not OK.”

Cussler and Lampack denied under oath ever using the 100 million figure in meetings with Anschutz, his lawyers and other Crusader executives. They testified that it was impossible to know the total number of copies sold for Cussler’s 35 books during the last three decades.

The number of books sold determines the cost of adaptation rights and the size of movie budgets, Putnam explained. He recounted sworn testimony from Anschutz and three former Crusader executives that Cussler and Lampack frequently cited sales exceeding 100 million books to justify getting paid an unprecedented $10 million per book.

Anschutz’s lawyers learned that Cussler’s books had sold at most 40 million through June 2000, Putnam said, only after the author was forced to produce extensive royalty statements and other publishing records during discovery in the “Sahara” case.

“It was a lie. Period,” Putnam said. “It was calculated, it was determined and it was constant.... It’s a fraud that went on for a long time.”

As Putnam attacked the credibility of the novelist and his agent, Cussler sat directly in front of the jurors, staring blankly at a vacant witness stand, and Lampack flashed an occasional smirk from his seat in the gallery of the cramped downtown courtroom.

Although Cussler is seeking $40 million in damages and the return of his film rights to the Pitt franchise, Putnam said the author has cashed in on the “Sahara” movie. This included a $10-million adaptation fee, increased paperback sales of 400,000 copies and a $100-million promotion and advertising campaign that introduced Cussler to millions of people who had never heard of him.

The only entity that put money at risk in the venture was Anschutz’s production company, Putnam said. Putnam then urged the jurors to levy punitive damages against Cussler.

“No one is above the law. The rest is up to you now.... You’ve got to hold him accountable.”

The attorney also responded to sharp criticism of Anschutz that was leveled the day before during closing arguments by Cussler’s lawyer. Fields had chastised Anschutz for failing to testify during the trial and face “the heat of cross-examination like everyone else.”

Putnam told the jury that Anschutz was an investor in Crusader not an officer of the company, now called Bristol Bay Productions. Fields had questioned Anschutz in three different depositions, he said.

“Why are they calling him out?” Putnam asked. “Think about it. He was painted like Daddy Warbucks....[He] makes for an easy and big target when you need one.”

*

glenn.bunting@latimes.com

Researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.