A3 may be dead, but the legal war between onetime agency chairman Adam Bold and his former top executives rages on.
Broadening the horizon of the flurry of filings in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hollywood heavyweight lawyer Bryan Freedman has offered to help the much-accused and allegedly drug-addicted Bold get sober and “embark on a program of recovery.”
In a town literally and figuratively built on fiction, you seriously couldn’t make some of this stuff up.
Hitting back at lurid accusations and what he calls a “smear campaign” in a December 2023 suit from now former A3 partners Robert Attermann and Brian Cho citing hardcore drug use, sexual harassment, and overall claims of having “squandered everything” at the agency he took over in 2018, Bold’s acrimonious response and attempt to have the initial suit tossed out takes a lot of big swings itself. For one, mutual fund chief Bold asserts that Cho and Attermann’s suit suggesting he “would deliberately drive the company into bankruptcy for personal gain is not only false but also absurd.” In fact, in a scorched earth tactic, Bold throws back all of A3’s recent collapse on the ex-CEO and president, as well as their attorney.
Freedman, often controversial and sparring, is a constant target in the response with Bold and his lawyers trying to tie a lot of threads together. (Read Adam Bold’s response here.)
“To recap, Bryan Freedman is actually with a straight face trying to claim that Brian Cho is both an abused person and an abuser of others, and that Adam Bold is the sex pest even though Freedman himself is alleged to have committed worse sexual misconduct,” the response reads in part.
Still, characterized as inept would-be Brutuses, Cho and Attermann clearly have a special place in Bold’s Hell. Slamming Cho for his supposed “conservative right-wing agenda, and excessive greed” and Attermann’s “tolerance of homophobic, racist, rage prone outbursts,” Bold’s efforts at lacerating the two makes you wonder why he ever worked with them after buying A3 five years ago.
“Their actions, rife with hypocrisy and manipulation, culminated in a baseless lawsuit, a desperate attempt to extract further funds from Bold’s coffers under the guise of legal recourse,” the amended answered filed Thursday night states in one of its more polite sections. “The allegations levied against Bold, regarding mismanagement, are not only unfounded but serve as a smokescreen for Plaintiffs’ own transgressions.”
From “ostentatious displays,” corporate revenge, a “greedy” lawyer in Freedman, hypocrisy, failing computers and “Cho’s own alleged indiscretions,” those so-called transgressions are examined at length in Bold’s often repetitive 50-page response.
“Adam Bold never alienated employees or staff,” the filing claims in a direct rebuttal to what Cho and Atterman stated in their December 2023 suit, before Gresh hovered up the digital divisions of A3 and the rest withered on the vine to shut the doors for good this week. At the same time, there is an ongoing effort to launch a new company by remaining former A3 agents.
“The only alienation at A3 by staff was towards Cho and Attermann, specifically those who despised Robert Attermann’s tolerance of racist outburst, and Brian Cho’s improprieties when interacting with women, gay and same-sex couples, liberals, and others who he deemed ‘lesser-thans,’” Bold’s filing of February 15 reads. “Cho and Attermann’s elitist and despicable views are well documented and known around A3 offices. At A3, Attermann and Cho through their incompetence and misdirection from their counsel burned A3 to the ground. Furthermore, accusations of personal misconduct against Adam Bold, particularly regarding substance abuse, are serious and should not be made lightly. Such claims, especially when presented without evidence, are defamatory and can have significant consequences.”
“Brian Cho should not throw stones as he lives in a glass house,” the filing adds. In a divide and conquer move, it declares that “much of the tension in the company regarding bonuses came from Brian Cho alleging Robert Attermann was inept and was affecting his own pocketbook. Now Cho is singing a different tune when the dollar figure is in his favor to be buddies with Attermann.
Attacking the duo and the “extreme liberties to the point of fabrication” brought up by Freedman, Bold’s filing focuses on them spotlighting accusations from supposedly sealed documents in his divorce case involving his now “scorned ex-wife.” Bold is actually involved in two disputes with his ex and mother of his child, an individual Bold calls a “former spouse with a documented history of drug use herself” who lacks “any weight or credibility.”
Slagged repeatedly in Bold’s response from attorneys at LA’s Parker Shaffie LLP, Freedman had a response of his own. A response that, when it comes to allegations of copious cocaine use by the mockingly called “father-of-the-year,” comes with an apparent kind hand in a velvet glove:
The statements set forth in Adam Bold’s Amended Answer to the Robert Attermann et. al Complaint is a weak attempt at changing the narrative of his destructive personality.
Unfortunately for Bold, a 50-page fictional response cannot change the facts, history or the damage he has done to numerous A3 employees and others. Bold’s Amended Answer is filled with inaccuracies, too many to name. This is quickly evident by those in Hollywood who have had to deal with him over the past few years. I assure you that this will all be brought to light when the plethora of former A3 employees, and others, testify at trial regarding Bold’s destructive and sleezy behavior and management style. One wonders what his excuse will be after hearing damaging testimony of the type of man he is.
It appears Bold was more interested in crafting a lengthy narrative than actually getting the facts correct. Not a surprise for those who know him. For example, Bold claims that Brian, Robert and myself exposed information in the Complaint from sealed documents clearly shows that he is a complete liar and out of touch with reality. These documents are all publicly accessible from the Los Angeles Superior Court website and can be obtained by anyone. These documents include a declaration from his wife that she caught Adam on a security camera doing drugs in his closet while leaving his young daughter alone in a bathtub when he was supposed to be supervising her. As if this father-of-the-year video was not evidence enough, his own doctor’s findings – also attached to the publicly-accessible documents and attached here, leave no room for any other conclusion. His own doctor found that after doing a CT scan performed on a high resolution multi detector determined that he had “nasal perforation and destruction with associated destruction of the bilateral interior turbinates compatible with cocaine use.” His doctor also found Bold had “congenital midline cleft palate and less likely focal midline destruction due to cocaine use.”
Out of the kindness of my heart, I am willing to sponsor Adam because I know he needs help. Much of my life has been, and will continue to be, focused on helping those addicts who are unable to surrender to get the help they need. We work on programs that makes it unnecessary for them to lie, and instead focus on being a good person. My offer to Adam stands as I would like him to one day be able to set an example of being a great and sober father. I have been on the sobriety journey for 23 years. I actually get why Adam lies; he’s an addict but I truly hope I can help him embark on a program of recovery. I am saddened that my own sister overdosed a year ago and hope Adam has willingness to get help and to let me help him. Unfortunately, it does taking looking at one’s own faults and admitting them so he or she can clear up the wreckage of one’s past. My hand is out to Adam to let me help him. I will take him to meetings and help him in his journey toward recovery. I know his life will change for the better.
For his own part, Bold says in the filing that the “Plaintiffs’ audacity knows no bounds,” and that “it is time for Plaintiffs to stop hiding behind baseless accusations and accept responsibility for their own decisions.” It adds: “Bold has always acted with integrity and professionalism, and it is high time Plaintiffs followed suit.”
Of course, being that A3 ceased to exist for the most part as of February 12 just over a month after the the sale of its digital and alternative divisions to Gersh was finalized, this now becomes a battle of reputations.
