Contract analysis

I. Introduction and Purpose I write on behalf of my client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, in connection with the above-captioned matter. As you are aware, Ms. Fonseca's sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for March 6, 2026, before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll. The purpose of this letter is to propose, in advance of that hearing, an agreed-upon restitution amount and a realistic payment schedule under the Mandat

II. The Defense Position on the Proper Restitution Amount A. Overview of the Government's Loss Figure and the Defense Objection The government has requested restitution in the total amount of $14,700,000, which is consistent with the total alleged loss figure reflected in the PSR. As we understand it, this figure is composed of three discrete components:

1. Budget Inflation Diversions: $6,100,000 in alleged inflated budget allocations diverted across five Aurelia Pictures productions;

2. Fraudulently Obtained Tax Credits: $2,800,000 in California Film Commission tax credits that were allegedly obtained through fraudulent representations on three productions; and

3. Diverted Investor Funds: $5,800,000 in investor funds that the government alleges were diverted from their intended purposes. The defense respectfully submits that the government's $14.7 million figure materially overstates the actual and intended loss attributable to the offenses of conviction. This overstatement arises from two principal sources: (1) a significant double-counting problem that inflates the restit

III. Identified Victims and Allocation of Restitution A. Brindoval Investors Group LP Brindoval Investors Group LP ("Brindoval") is the single largest investor in Aurelia Pictures productions relevant to this case. Brindoval invested a total of $8,200,000 across three Aurelia Pictures projects: Meridian, The Cartographer's Daughter, and Blue Signal. Brindoval's Managing Partner is Theodore R. Blackwell, and its princ

IV. Ms. Fonseca's Financial Capacity and Proposed Payment Schedule A. Current Identifiable Assets The defense has conducted a comprehensive review of Ms. Fonseca's financial circumstances in order to provide the Court and the government with an accurate picture of her ability to satisfy a restitution obligation. Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, as of the date of this letter, are as follows: Residence. Ms. Fonseca o

1. Initial Lump-Sum Payment at Sentencing. Ms. Fonseca proposes to make an immediate lump-sum payment at or promptly following sentencing from her currently available liquid assets. Specifically, this initial payment would be composed of the $287,000 in frozen savings and brokerage accounts (which Ms. Fonseca consents to have released for restitution purposes upon entry of the sentencing judgment) and the proceeds fr

2. Sale of Residence. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to discuss the orderly sale of her residence at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068, with the net equity of approximately $1,350,000 to be applied to the restitution obligation upon completion of the sale. However, we respectfully request that the Court allow a reasonable timeline—we propose twelve to eighteen months from the date of sentencing—to effec

3. Receivership Distributions. As discussed above, any distributions from the Aurelia Pictures receivership to Ms. Fonseca personally, or any distributions made directly to identified victims of the offenses of conviction, should be credited against the outstanding restitution balance. The defense is prepared to consent to a provision in the restitution order requiring Ms. Fonseca to promptly remit to the Clerk of Co

4. Monthly Installment Payments During Supervised Release. Following any period of imprisonment imposed by the Court and during any term of supervised release, Ms. Fonseca proposes to make monthly installment payments toward the outstanding restitution balance from her earned income. The specific monthly amount should be determined by the Court based on Ms. Fonseca's actual earning capacity and necessary living expen

5. Summary of Total Immediate and Near-Term Recoveries. Based on the foregoing, the total immediate and near-term recoveries available to victims from Ms. Fonseca's identifiable personal assets are approximately $1,679,000 (low estimate, assuming $0 recovery from the Aurelia Pictures equity interest) to approximately $2,079,000 (high estimate, assuming $400,000 from the Aurelia equity interest). These figures do not

V. Request for Meet-and-Confer The defense respectfully requests that the government agree to a meet-and-confer at the earliest mutually convenient date to discuss the restitution framework outlined in this letter. We believe that a productive discussion between the parties could narrow—and potentially resolve—the areas of disagreement on the restitution issue, to the benefit of the Court and the victims alike. The t

1. The proper total restitution amount: the defense's proposed figure of $8,300,000 versus the government's requested figure of $14,700,000, including the double-counting issue and the reinvested production funds credit;

2. The allocation of the agreed-upon restitution amount among the identified victims, including the pro rata methodology;

3. The proposed payment schedule, including the timing and mechanics of the initial lump-sum payment, the sale of the residence, and the monthly installment payments during supervised release;

4. Credits for receivership recoveries and any amounts recovered by the California Film Commission through its civil or administrative proceedings; and

5. The treatment of Brindoval Investors Group LP's claimed lost profits of $3,100,000, which the defense maintains are not properly included in restitution under the MVRA. We suggest that the meet-and-confer take place no later than February 7, 2026, in order to allow sufficient time for any agreed-upon framework to be reduced to a written stipulation and presented to the Court in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentenc

VI. Reservation of Rights This letter is submitted without prejudice to Ms. Fonseca's right to contest the restitution amount at the sentencing hearing before Judge Driscoll. Nothing in this proposal, or in any subsequent discussions between the parties, constitutes an admission by the defense regarding the proper loss calculation, the scope of restitution, or any other issue relevant to sentencing. The defense expre

VII. Closing We are hopeful that the parties can work cooperatively on the restitution issue. A jointly recommended restitution framework would serve the interests of judicial efficiency, provide certainty and clarity to the victims, and demonstrate to the Court that both sides have engaged in a good-faith effort to resolve a complex financial issue in advance of sentencing. We believe that the proposal set forth in