Disney

Disney’s role in this account is defined by its ownership of Miramax and by the boundary the Weinstein brothers eventually drew between their film business and its parent company. That corporate position shaped the stakes of Zelda Perkins and Rowena Chiu’s negotiations, but the evidence does not establish that Disney itself directed those talks or accepted Perkins’s proposed reforms.

Disney and Miramax

At the time Perkins and Chiu sought legal advice in London, Disney owned Miramax. Their lawyers warned that the two women, both in their twenties, would be confronting Harvey Weinstein and potentially Disney, a prospect set against their lack of physical evidence and the fact that they had not reported the incident to police in Venice. The lawyers presented a financial settlement as the usual path, rather than criminal proceedings. Disney’s ownership therefore formed part of the imbalance the women faced, even though the account does not identify Disney as a participant in their legal consultations.

Perkins resisted treating the matter as a private payment alone. She proposed that Miramax adopt a sexual-harassment policy, provide training, and establish a three-person group to review complaints, including an attorney. She also sought a rule for the following two years: if another similar allegation arose, Disney would be informed or Weinstein would be dismissed, with a settlement of at least £35,000 or six months’ salary. These were Perkins’s negotiating demands, not safeguards shown to have been adopted by Disney or Miramax. Weinstein’s lawyers fought back, and the negotiations concluded with Perkins and Chiu each receiving £125,000 under substantial restrictions.

The Weinstein brothers’ break with Disney

Disney later became the corporate counterparty in a broader dispute with the Weinstein brothers. When Disney refused to distribute Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, David Boies helped the brothers regain control of the film and take it to Lionsgate Films. The episode places Disney’s relationship with the brothers in the practical terrain of film distribution: control of a project and its route to release were contested between the parent company and the filmmakers.

In 2005, the brothers left Disney and formed The Weinstein Company. Boies helped secure contracts specifying that they could be fired only if convicted of a felony. The account presents this provision as a condition of the brothers’ new company arrangements; it does not describe Disney as party to those contracts. The separation ended Disney’s direct corporate connection to the brothers’ new enterprise, while the earlier Miramax ownership remained relevant to the women’s account of the settlement system.

Corporate position and limits of the record

Across these episodes, Disney occupies two related but distinct positions: it owned the studio where Perkins and Chiu had worked, and it later became the company from which the Weinstein brothers separated after a dispute over a film. In the settlement episode, Disney’s possible notification was part of Perkins’s attempt to make future complaints consequential beyond a private agreement. The eventual payment and restrictions do not establish that her proposed reporting mechanism took effect.

That distinction matters to the account of institutional responsibility. Disney’s ownership of Miramax helps explain why the women understood their opponents as potentially extending beyond Weinstein himself, while the reported negotiations and settlements were handled by lawyers representing the parties. The book documents corporate proximity and a proposed route of escalation, not a finding that Disney knew of, approved, or intervened in the specific allegations.