Ke S, Lakeshia Person Or Entity Named Herein to File This Claim on Their Behalf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Film- Und Fernsehproduktion in Nordrhein-Westfalen Im Vergleich Zu Anderen Bundesländern 2017 Und 2018
Film- und Fernsehproduktion in Nordrhein-Westfalen im Vergleich zu anderen Bundesländern 2017 und 2018 FORMATT-Institut Dortmund Februar 2020 FORMATT-Institut 2 Eine Studie des FORMATT-Instituts, Dortmund unter Mitarbeit der Formatt Medienforschung UG, Köln und text und design Sabine Spieckermann, Dortmund Copyright des Titelbildes: iStock.com / TommL FORMATT-Institut 3 Inhalt 3 1. Zentrale Ergebnisse der Produktionsstudie für 2017 und 2018 5 2. Auftrag und Ziel des Projekts 14 Projektdesign, Definitionen 3. Die Entwicklung der Produktionsbranche 2017 und 2018 20 3.1 Aktive Produktionsfirmen 20 3.2 Die größten Produktionsgruppen 24 3.2.1 All3Media-Gruppe 27 3.2.2 UFA/RTL-Gruppe 29 3.2.3 ITV-Gruppe 31 3.2.4 Constantin Film AG / Highlight Communications AG 32 3.2.5 Janus TV 35 3.2.6 Studio Hamburg GmbH 35 3.2.7 ZDF Enterprises GmbH 38 3.2.8 ProSiebenSat.1-Gruppe 40 3.2.9 Bavaria Film GmbH 41 3.2.10 Warner Bros.-Gruppe 44 3.2.11 Endemol Shine-Gruppe 44 3.2.12 Fernsehmacher 47 3.2.13 Good Times Fernsehproduktions-GmbH 47 3.2.14 99 pro media GmbH 48 3.2.15 I & U Information und Unterhaltung 48 3.2.16 Spiegel TV 49 3.2.17 Burda-Gruppe 49 3.2.18 Banijay-Gruppe (zuvor Brainpool) 50 3.2.19 Story House Productions GmbH, Berlin 50 3.2.20 drefa-Gruppe 51 3.2.21 Encanto Film- und Fernsehproduktions GmbH 52 3.2.22 Beta Film / Eos 52 3.2.23 KKR / Leonie Holding GmbH 55 FORMATT-Institut 4 4. -
KEK Konzentrationsbericht 2018
Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im digitalen Zeitalter Bericht der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich (KEK) über die Entwicklung der Konzentration und über Maßnahmen zur Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im privaten Rundfunk Schriftenreihe der Landesmedienanstalten 52 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Herausgeber die medienanstalten – ALM GbR Friedrichstraße 60 10117 Berlin Tel: + 49 30 206 46 90 0 Fax: + 49 30 206 46 90 99 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.kek-online.de Verantwortlich Prof. Dr. Georgios Gounalakis Gestaltung und Satz Rosendahl Borngräber UG Kastanienallee 71 10435 Berlin Tel: + 49 30 44 01 28 00 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.rosendahl-berlin.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten Druck Printsystem GmbH Stand: August 2018 Der Konzentrationsbericht der KEK wird klimaneutral und auf FSC Papier gedruckt. Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im digitalen Zeitalter Bericht der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich (KEK) über die Entwicklung der Konzentration und über Maßnahmen zur Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im privaten Rundfunk Konzentrationsbericht der KEK nach § 26 Abs. 6 RStV Vorwort Prof. Dr. Georgios Gounalakis Vorsitzender der Kommission zur Ermittlung der Konzentration im Medienbereich (KEK) Weitreichende Entwicklungen haben den Medienbereich in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehn- ten verändert, welche die Eignung der geltenden ordnungsrechtlichen Vorkehrungen zum Schutz der Meinungsvielfalt zunehmend in Frage stellen. Die bei Konstituierung der KEK im Jahre 1997 noch sinnvolle fernsehbasierte Konzentrationskontrolle verlangt daher dringend nach Anpassung. Berücksichtigungsbedürftige Veränderungen finden sich sowohl auf Seiten der Anbieter von publizistischen Inhalten als auch in den Verhaltensweisen der Medien- empfänger und Mediennutzer. -
Vorlage 17/3615
Der Ministerprasident des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen An den Vorsitzenden des Ausschusses fur Kultur und Medien des Landtags Nordrhein-Westfalen Herrn Oliver Keymis MdL Platz des Landtags 1 40221 Dusseldorf . Juli 2020 Studie „Film- und Fernsehproduktion in Nordrhein-Westfalen im Vergleich zu anderen Bundeslandern 2017 und 2018 Sehr geehrter Herr Vorsitzender, anbei ubersende ich Ihnen die aktuelle Studie „Film- und Fernsehpro¬ duktion in Nordrhein-Westfalen im Vergleich zu anderen Bundeslandern 2017 und 2018 zur Weiterleitung an die Mitglieder des Ausschusses fur Kultur und Medien. Diese sogenannte Formatt-Studie untersucht bereits seit 1998 unter an- derem das Produktions olumen sowie die Anzahl der Produktionsbe- triebe im gesamtdeutschen Vergleich. Die vorliegende Studie fur die Jahre 2017 und 2018 wurde in der Zeit von August 2018 bis Februar 2020 im Auftrag der Staatskanzlei Nordrhein-Westfalen durch das Dort- munder Formatt-lnstitut erarbeitet. Am 6. Juli 2020 wird die Studie im Rahmen eines Pressegesprachs der Offentlichkeit vorgestellt. Mit freundlichen GruGen In Vertretung Horionplatz 1 40213 Dusseldorf Chef der Staatskanzlei des Telefon 0211 837-01 Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen poststelle@stk. nrw.de Film- und Fernsehproduktion in Nordrhein-Westfalen im Vergleich zu anderen Bundesländern 2017 und 2018 FORMATT-Institut Dortmund Februar 2020 FORMATT-Institut 2 Eine Studie des FORMATT-Instituts, Dortmund unter Mitarbeit der Formatt Medienforschung UG, Köln und text und design Sabine Spieckermann, Dortmund Copyright des Titelbildes: -
Proposed Model for an Audit Certificate
Banijay Group Year ended December 31, 2020 Statutory auditor’s report on consolidated financial statements ERNST & YOUNG et Autres ERNST & YOUNG et Autres Tél. : +33 (0) 1 46 93 60 00 Tour First www.ey.com/fr TSA 14444 92037 Paris-La Défense cedex Banijay Group Year ended December 31, 2020 Statutory auditor’s report on consolidated financial statements To the President, Opinion In our capacity as statutory auditor of Banijay Group and in accordance with your request in connection with the shareholders’ agreement, we have audited the consolidated financial statements of Banijay Group and its subsidiaries (the Group), which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position and notes to the consolidated financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies. These financial statements were approved by the President, on March 5, 2021, on the basis of the elements available at that date, in the evolving context of the health crisis related to Covid-19. In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial statements give a true and fair view of the consolidated financial position of the Group as at December 31, 2020, and of its consolidated financial performance and consolidated cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the EU. Basis for Opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are independent of the Group in accordance with the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards) (IESBA Code) together with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the consolidated financial statements in France, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements and the IESBA Code. -
Joint Petition to Participate of the Mpaa-Represented Program Suppliers
Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. ___________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2013) Distribution of the 2013 ) Cable Royalty Funds ) ___________________________________ ) JOINT PETITION TO PARTICIPATE OF THE MPAA-REPRESENTED PROGRAM SUPPLIERS Pursuant to the notice published in the Federal Register announcing the commencement of a distribution proceeding regarding the 2013 cable royalty funds (“2013 Proceeding”) and requesting petitions to participate from interested parties, 80 Fed. Reg. 32182 (June 5, 2015) (“Notice”), the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (“MPAA”), its member companies and other producers and distributors of syndicated series, movies, specials, and non-team sports broadcast by television stations and retransmitted by cable systems who have agreed to representation by MPAA (“MPAA-represented Program Suppliers”),1 hereby petition the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) to participate in both Phase I and Phase II of the 2013 Proceeding, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 351.1(b)(2)(ii). Historically, at the Phase I level of each royalty year’s distribution proceeding, MPAA has represented the interests of all Program Suppliers. MPAA intends to represent those same interests in Phase I of the 2013 Proceeding. 1 The definitions of the “Program Suppliers” and other Phase I program categories were adopted by the Phase I parties in a prior proceeding and continue to be followed by the parties. See Joint Motion Of The Phase I Parties To Adopt Stipulation As To Claimant Group Categorization And Scope Of Claims, Docket No. 2007-3 CRB CD 2004- 2005 at Exhibit A (October 2, 2009). 6923119.2/43507-00075 In Phase II of the 2013 Proceeding, MPAA will represent the MPAA-represented Program Suppliers exclusively. -
Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C
Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. ___________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0011-SD (2013) Distribution of the 2013 ) Satellite Royalty Funds ) ___________________________________ ) JOINT PETITION TO PARTICIPATE OF THE MPAA-REPRESENTED PROGRAM SUPPLIERS Pursuant to the notice published in the Federal Register announcing the commencement of a distribution proceeding regarding the 2013 satellite royalty funds (“2013 Proceeding”) and requesting petitions to participate from interested parties, 80 Fed. Reg. 32182 (June 5, 2015) (“Notice”), the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (“MPAA”), its member companies and other producers and distributors of network and syndicated series, movies, specials, and non- team sports broadcast by television stations and retransmitted by satellite systems who have agreed to representation by MPAA (“MPAA-represented Program Suppliers”),1 hereby petition the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) to participate in both Phase I and Phase II of the 2013 Proceeding, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 351.1(b)(2)(ii). Historically, at the Phase I level of each royalty year’s distribution proceeding, MPAA has represented the interests of all Program Suppliers. MPAA intends to represent those same interests in Phase I of the 2013 Proceeding. 1 The definitions of the “Program Suppliers” and other Phase I program categories were adopted by the Phase I parties in a prior proceeding and continue to be followed by the parties, see Joint Motion Of The Phase I Parties To Adopt Stipulation As To Claimant Group Categorization And Scope Of Claims, Docket No. 2007-3 CRB CD 2004- 2005 at Exhibit A (October 2, 2009) , except that for satellite royalty distribution purposes, network programs are compensable. -
Joint Petition to Participate of the Mpaa-Represented Program Suppliers
Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. p6 2015 In the Matter of Docket No. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2013) Distribution of the 2013 Cable Royalty Funds Rcccived JUL ij 6 2015 JOINT PETITION TO PARTICIPATE OF THE MPAA-REPRESENTED PROGRAM SUPPLIERS Pursuant to the notice published in the Federal Register atmouncing the commencement of a distribution proceeding regarding the 2013 cable royalty funds ("2013 Proceeding") and requesting petitions to participate from interested parties, 80 Fed. Reg. 32182 (June 5, 2015) ("Notice"), the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ("MPAA"), its member companies and other producers and distributors of syndicated series, movies, specials, and non-team sports broadcast by television stations and retransmitted by cable systems who have agreed to representation by MPAA ("MPAA-represented Program Suppliers"),'ereby petition the Copyright Royalty Judges ("Judges") to participate in both Phase I and Phase II of the 2013 Proceeding, as required by 37 C.F.R. $ 351.1(b)(2)(ii). Historically, at the Phase I level of each royalty year's distribution proceeding, MPAA has represented the interests of all Program Suppliers. MPAA intends to represent those same interests in Phase I of the 2013 Proceeding. 'he definitions of the "Program Suppliers" and other Phase I program categories were adopted by the Phase I parties in a prior proceeding and continue to be followed by the parties. See Joint Motion Of The Phase I Parties To Adopt Stipulation As To Claimant Group Categorization And Scope Of Claims, Docket No. 2007-3 CRB CD 2004- 2005 at Exhibit A (October 2, 2009).