Utsick, Jacobsen Cases Cross Paths

As a Florida judge works to wind down the last disputes in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Jack Utsick, one loose thread has been tied up and another can of worms may have been opened.

Utsick-owned companies Worldwide Entertainment, The Entertainment Group Fund and others have been voluntarily dismissed, as a formality, from the 2006 SEC case that sought multimillion-dollar disgorgement and fines, leaving that cost to Utsick alone.

A bit more complicated is U.S. District Court Judge Paul Huck’s Aug. 31 order approving a settlement agreement between Michael Goldberg, the receiver for the Utsick receivership, and the “Jacobsen entities” – including companies once headed up by Australian promoter Kevin Jacobsen.

Those companies allegedly owed millions of dollars to Worldwide Entertainment under agreements related to the global “Dirty Dancing” theatrical productions before the SEC filed its case against Utsick. “Dirty Dancing” has been wildly successful at the box office and continues to be staged worldwide.

The “Jacobsen entities” include companies that themselves are now in receivership in Australia and a Jacobsen family power struggle continues to be waged over just who may make decisions on their behalf. Evidently, the settlement agreement was executed on behalf of the “Jacobsen entities” by Jacobsen’s niece Amber, one of the combatants.

And according to Utsick attorney Richard Kraut of Dilworth Paxson’s Washington, D.C., office, the settlement – which was opposed in court by Kraut – may not be valid if Australian courts determine that Amber has no authority to enter into agreements or transactions on the companies’ behalf.

“[Goldberg] came in with a proposal to settle and [Utsick] took a look at it and said it is being settled for far too little and is not in the best interest of investors, so he instructed us to file an opposition, which we did,” Kraut told Pollstar. “Kevin Jacobsen … sent a letter to the judge indicating that he was in litigation with his niece in Australia over his various companies, including the issue of authority to enter into agreements or transactions on behalf of the companies.

“The judge in Miami recognized that even though the court was approving the settlement, it was still subject to the outcome of the Jacobsen litigation in Australia between the family members. If Amber Jacobsen, the niece, is held not to have authority, then the agreement will not be effective,” Kraut said.

The attorney noted that Utsick remains in Brazil, where he continues “looking for work.”