| Ziggy: innovative | ||||||
David Bowie was a big hit when he debuted in the securities market. His $55 million bond issue securitized by future royalties on his back catalogue of records was an innovative transaction, appeared to herald a slew of similar deals, and made a star out of banker David Pullman.
It’s been five years since the deal and the 8% bond has matured. The market, however, has not. Only Pullman has survived as a player in intellectual property securitization. The Pullman Group has trademarked such deals as Pullman Bonds and he has structured similar deals for James Brown, Ashford and Simpson, the Isley Brothers and Holland, Dozier and Holland. Other hopeful entrants, notably Nomura, have pulled out.
To celebrate his success and the fifth anniversary of the Bowie deal, Pullman has arranged for songs included in the deals to be played on United Airlines flights. They also provide the on-hold music for his office phones.
But Pullman’s biggest single project is a lawsuit he brought nearly three years ago. He is suing Prudential Financial, Prudential Insurance, CAK/ Universal Credit corporation and the Rascoff/ Zysblatt organization (Bowie’s manager) for $3.5 billion on 35 counts. Pullman claims that these parties reneged on a contract committing all parties to developing business based off the Bowie bonds.
The case is descending into farce, if recent developments are any indication. Witness the press release put out by Pullman entitled: “Prudential Financial only days old, in big-trouble again in multi-billion dollar case” (Prudential had just completed its IPO a few days earlier).
Describing the other side’s reaction to the judge’s setting of the trial date for the beginning of the year, Pullman wrote: “The Prudential Insurance Co attorney went into a fit before the Judge stating ‘You must be kidding.’ To which the Judge replied, ‘No, I’m not.’ The renegade Prudential Insurance attorney dressed in a hot red sports jacket continued this tantrum, to the point where the court observers described him as having a conniption in front of the bench until the judge waved him off.”
Later, the release advises that “Prudential attorneys may as well read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged while awaiting a jury verdict.”
The case continues.
