Ellen Barkin’s divorce settlement from Revlon chairman Ronald Perelman was governed by a prenuptial agreement that guaranteed her a $20 million payout, though friends of Perelman later claimed the total value reached about $60 million once jewelry and other gifts were counted. Barkin’s camp disputed that figure, insisting she received “not one penny more” than the prenup’s $20 million.1New York Post. Perelman Barkin Settle Dispute Over Movie Studio in Divorce Battle The exact terms were sealed under a confidentiality clause, and the couple spent the next five years fighting in court over a separate film company before a final, undisclosed settlement in January 2011.
The Prenup and Why Perelman Filed When He Did
Perelman and Barkin married in June 2000. Before the wedding, they signed a prenuptial agreement that promised Barkin a $20 million payout in a divorce.2New York Post. Im Free Revlon Ron Crows After He Dumps Movie Star The agreement also contained a time-based escalation clause: if the marriage lasted past a specified number of years, that payout would rise sharply.3The Globe and Mail. With Prenup Ticking Perelman Files for Divorce Annual alimony was also part of the deal, though the number was disputed by people close to the couple. A friend of Perelman’s told New York Magazine it was $3 million a year; someone in Barkin’s circle said $2 million.4New York Magazine. Tough Love
The split became public on January 20, 2006, roughly a week and a half after a fight on the couple’s yacht in St. Barts. The New York Post reported that Perelman moved quickly because the prenup’s escalation clause was about to kick in.4New York Magazine. Tough Love The divorce was finalized on February 14, 2006, less than a month later, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.5FindLaw. Applehead Pictures LLC v Perelman
What Barkin Actually Received
The terms were confidential, and the two sides gave very different accounts. A friend of Perelman put the total at roughly $60 million, including about $35 million in “convertible assets” — jewelry and other gifts he had given Barkin during the marriage. By that math, the cash portion was much smaller and the headline number was padded with things Barkin already owned.4New York Magazine. Tough Love
Barkin’s side rejected the accounting. A friend told the New York Post she got no more than the $20 million promised under the prenup, and accused Perelman of counting gifts as settlement to inflate the figure.1New York Post. Perelman Barkin Settle Dispute Over Movie Studio in Divorce Battle Media coverage landed in between. The New York Times DealBook reported a $40 million settlement.6The New York Times DealBook. Judge Orders Perelman Pay Funds to Barkins Studio The Daily News put it at $60 million.7New York Daily News. Ellen Barkin and Billionaire Ex Ron Perelman Settle Nasty Legal Battle Over Film Company
One provision has been reported consistently: the agreement gave Barkin money to buy a home. The original figure was $5 million, which Perelman later doubled to $10 million. Barkin’s camp said that bump came only after she gave up her share of a jointly owned asset worth about $5 million, making it closer to a swap than an increase.4New York Magazine. Tough Love
The Christie’s Jewelry Auction
On October 10, 2006, months after the divorce was finalized, Christie’s in New York sold 103 pieces from Barkin’s jewelry collection, most of them gifts from Perelman, for a combined $20.3 million including commissions. Christie’s called it the highest single-owner jewelry sale in the United States in 15 years.8CBS News. Sold Ellen Barkins Jewels Fetch 20M The top lot was a 22.76-carat diamond ring designed by JAR, which brought $1.8 million. Barkin’s wedding band, set with four rows of bell-cut diamonds in 18-karat gold, sold for $130,000 against a presale estimate of $50,000.9JCK Online. Love on the Rocks Nets 20 Million for Ellen Barkin Whether those proceeds counted as part of the divorce settlement or as Barkin’s separate property was itself part of the fight over what she had really been paid.
The Applehead Pictures Lawsuits
The divorce decree did not end the couple’s legal entanglements. During the marriage, Perelman, Barkin, and Barkin’s brother George had co-founded Applehead Pictures, a Manhattan film production company. They hired executive Caroline Kaplan and acquired screen rights to Richard Yates’s novel The Easter Parade, with plans for three to five films.10Variety. Kaplan Seeds Applehead With Barkins According to court filings, Perelman disapproved of Barkin’s acting career, and Applehead was meant to give her work behind the camera.11New York Post. Ellen Barkin Due 4.3M From Ex Ron Perelman Appeals Court
Perelman made an initial $465,000 payment to Applehead in 2005 and, in an agreement signed before the divorce, committed to an additional $3.4 million. After the divorce, he refused to pay.6The New York Times DealBook. Judge Orders Perelman Pay Funds to Barkins Studio
Suit and Countersuit
In August 2007, Applehead sued Perelman in New York State Supreme Court for breach of contract, seeking the $3.4 million. Barkin’s lawyer, Jacob Buchdahl, put it plainly: “There was a signed agreement to pay money. That money was not paid.”12ABC News (Australia). Barkins Film Company Sues Ex
Perelman countersued in November 2007. He alleged that Barkin and her brother had used Applehead as a “personal piggy bank,” siphoning funds to pay George Barkin a $250,000 annual salary, to cover costs at Barkin’s separate company, and to finance the lawsuit against him.13South Coast Today. Barkins Ex Claims Misappropriation He also argued that his obligation to fund Applehead was void because Barkin had breached the divorce agreement in two ways: by discussing the marriage with New York Magazine and by failing to obtain a “get,” or Jewish religious divorce.
The Rulings
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Debra A. James ruled against Perelman in a decision entered January 7, 2010, ordering him to pay $3.4 million plus interest, for a total of roughly $4.3 million. Justice James found that the Applehead funding agreement and the divorce agreement were “completely separate deals,” so a dispute under one could not be used to nullify the other.14New York Post. Lip Ticking It to Ron The court also denied Perelman’s motion to seal the records, noting he had attached matrimonial documents to his own filings without first seeking a protective order.15New York Courts. Applehead Pictures LLC v Perelman, 2010 NY Slip Op 08876
Perelman appealed. On December 2, 2010, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed. Writing for the panel, Justice Nardelli held that the separation agreement and the Applehead operating agreement were not a single “unitary contract”: they involved different parties, served different purposes, contained no cross-references, and were governed by different states’ laws, New York for the divorce and Delaware for the LLC. Under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, a member’s obligation to contribute capital is enforceable “even if the member is unable to perform because of death, disability or any other reason,” and can only be released with the consent of all members.15New York Courts. Applehead Pictures LLC v Perelman, 2010 NY Slip Op 08876
The appeals court also rejected Perelman’s two breach-of-contract defenses. On the magazine issue, it noted that New York Magazine itself had stated Barkin declined to comment because of the confidentiality clause, and Perelman had produced no admissible evidence otherwise. On the religious divorce, the court pointed out that the separation agreement required Barkin only to “cooperate in obtaining a get,” not to initiate one, and that Perelman himself had not approached the religious tribunals until April 2008, two years after the civil divorce.11New York Post. Ellen Barkin Due 4.3M From Ex Ron Perelman Appeals Court
The 2011 Settlement
In January 2011, the remaining claims between the two sides were resolved. Buchdahl said only that “the case is settled. All the claims are dismissed. It’s gone away.” Financial terms were not disclosed.16Reuters. Perelman and Ex Wife Settle Dispute Over Company Applehead Pictures never produced a completed film, and no public records show the company operating after the litigation ended.
Why the Applehead Ruling Matters
The appellate decision in Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman is cited for the principle that a personal contract and a business contract signed by the same parties are not automatically linked. A dispute under one cannot excuse performance under the other, especially where the business entity is a Delaware LLC and capital-contribution obligations are treated as essentially absolute.5FindLaw. Applehead Pictures LLC v Perelman For anyone tempted to use an unrelated agreement as leverage in a post-divorce fight, the ruling is a caution against assuming courts will merge the two.