12/23/2024
Filmmakers’ contracts and capital plan addressed at end of year FRI board meeting
> Board votes to not declare dividends ahead of annual shareholder meeting
(Los Angeles, CA) It was a very heavy agenda for the end of year Board of Directors meeting of Film Regions International, Inc. (FRI) on December 18th.
John Blythe, president of the company, briefly recapped the challenges of 2024 focusing on four major financial “headaches”. Over budget issues on film productions was number one on that list. Diminishing revenues due to extensive cost recoupments, ineffective monetization of filmed entertainment assets and underutilized joint ventures “just about ruined cash flow”; reduction in incentives and economic stagnation/decline of the film industry in California and the failed distribution/aggregation contracts with Buffalo 8, Gravitas Entertainment, among others resulted in “a real tragic year” Blythe said. According to the administration, some of these distributors still owe FRI a “great deal of money”.
Blythe commended the board, personnel and its retained consultants for meeting the challenges and helping put together the turnaround business plan in place for recovery.
Due to the financial challenges this year, the Board voted unanimously to not declare any shareholder dividends, ahead of the company's annual shareholders meeting which is usually held every January.
Earlier in the meeting, Blythe brought to the Board’s attention inquiries from a few of its filmmaker clients. Amanda Iswan, director of the Indonesian foreign language horror film “Zeta” which FRI licensed through its worldwide distribution contract with Buffalo 8, asked that her contract be rescinded over “reporting concerns”. Blythe indicated that Buffalo 8’s prints & advertising (P&A) costs had not fully been recouped which has been one of the challenges FRI has been navigating through. Board member Ron Puleio asked how much money needed to be recouped by Buffalo 8 before the film started to report in the black, Blythe estimated that it was not a significant amount but admits sometimes the exact figures are “hard to pinpoint”. In a previous meeting, Blythe had been advised by FRI’s consultants to try and renegotiate these contracts, but was unsuccessful, therefore it was recommended Buffalo 8 push a marketing campaign in October for the Halloween season, particularly since “Zeta” for example being a horror film, may have a better chance through VOD sales. Blythe indicated that those figures would not show up for the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2024 until the end of January however, and stated that if the film does not begin to turn around financially, the contract can be placed on a future agenda for board consideration to take action.
In another written inquiry, some of FRI’s debt holders have expressed concern about its growing film investment debts and whether the distribution contracts are meeting recoupment of these film’s negative costs. FRI co-chairman Myron Ward brought to the attention of the company’s balance sheet and wondered if better utilization of Film Hub has an alternative would be easier for reducing filmed entertainment asset depreciation instead of direct distribution contracts. Blythe mentioned that all options should be put on the table and that the company needs to take better care of getting these debts paid through the best possible distribution method and these options have also been advised by consultants.
Ward and Blythe agree that some of the quarterly and yearly reporting of its distribution contracts is concerning and whether FRI can continue sustaining it long-term. Blythe used FRI’s contract with IFC Films as a hypothetical example, “IFC pays FRI a fair amount of what we bring in as filmed entertainment revenue. The problem is, once all of the other third party contracts are paid their portion of that revenue from IFC, FRI is left with a fraction of what is left over.”
As Blythe puts it, when it comes to film distribution, it becomes a catch 22 situation. On the one hand, a direct distribution contract in some cases pays a minimum guarantee to the company and distributes the film out into various markets with its own massive P&A campaign, however those are recoupable costs and they take distribution fees. On the other hand, with an aggregation service provider such as Film Hub, FRI could directly distribute its film through an 80% revenue share, with 20% paid to Film Hub, however FRI would need to come up with its own in-house P&A costs.
Veeresh Devireddy, business advisor with SCORE also presented to the Board a list of three areas that he felt FRI should focus immediate priority on within its current turnaround business plan – first, recruiting a VOD specialist to negotiate and execute these distribution deals. Deivreddy also stated that with Film Hub, advertising-VOD and streaming-VOD had a 550% growth rate over transactional-VOD. Devireddy also recommended exploring effective partnerships/management agreements and establishing co-productions as an alternative for FRI to receive additional producer fees and reduce in-house film investment debt. Board member Stephen Wu agreed that these were good initiatives, but had concerns with exactly how co-productions would work, “whether FRI would have to solicit these future projects on its own acting as a minority producing entity.” Blythe agreed to look into more specifics but that FRI needed to start addressing these priorities seriously and with more urgency. “We definitely need shareholder or outside support at this point.”
Blythe stated that these three priorities would be adopted as a specific capital plan proposal and presented in the company’s 2025 budget. He is hopeful to get some kind of support from FRI’s shareholders at its upcoming annual meeting next month and for a motion to consider.