Epstein Secrets

ertising, for the sale of advertising space on NITE's members' movie screens. The contract provided that at least fifty percent of the net revenues Cinemavision collected from its advertisers for the participating theatres would ['.5] be paid directly to the Film Fund. The contract required NITE to use its

ceive a discount on the rental of these movies in return for their contributions to the Fund. Daily Variety, a leading trade newspaper, reported on the NITE Film Fund in a front-page story on April 26, 1977. The story related strong interest in the program from film producers and exhibitors alike. r605] In June 1

ies, numerous theatre exhibitors withdrew from the NITE program; they could not afford to lose their principal sources of supply. At the same time, Cinemavision tried to separate itself from SAFFCO and NITE in order to save its business. These efforts came too late, and in 1978 Cinemavision went out of busi

threatened to compete vigorously in their oligopolistic market. The plaintiffs alleged that the statements by the defendants' executives concerning the NITE Film Fund and the subsequent meeting of the MPAA Advertising-Publicity Committee evidenced this conspiracy and that Warner Brothers' and Twentieth Century Fo

ertising, for the sale of advertising space on NITE's members' movie screens. The contract provided that at least fifty percent of the net revenues Cinemavision collected from its advertisers for the participating theatres would ["5] be paid directly to the Film Fund. The contract required NITE to use its b

ceive a discount on the rental of these movies in return for their contributions to the Fund. Daily Variety, a leading trade newspaper, reported on the NITE Film Fund in a front-page story on April 26, 1977. The story related strong interest in the program from film producers and exhibitors alike. ?605] In June 1