This type of tale sounds all too familiar when you’re young, rich, powerful and entitled in Hollywood.
And no one tells you, um, no.
For two years Rihanna has been embroiled in a lawsuit with her former accountant in which she accuses him of improperly advising her on buying a defective Beverly Hills house, blames him for her 2011 tour being a financial flop, and overall, that he played a crucial part in her losing a whopping $9 million bucks.
But Peter Gounis isn’t taking her accusations laying down and, in turn, blames the pop star’s ridiculous over-the-top overspending on her thinner bank account.
In court docs obtained by Celebuzz, Gounis lays out these reasons why RiRi’s “Last Girl on Earth” tour didn’t make the dough that she expected – and it’s probably not what the pop princess wants to hear:
1) The tour was very expensive — acts, scenes and equipment were purchased to make it an “impact” tour.
2) The tour did not make as much money as projected due to the types of venues and cancelations, and RiRi’s decision to “leave the tour to go act in a movie.”
(He’s obviously referring to the high budget flick that sunk big time known as Battleship.)
Gounis goes on to imply the 26-year-old thinks money grows on trees.
“The tour was what she wanted, just as the exorbitant amount of expensive clothing and other purchases she squandered her money on were,” per the docs.
Rihanna claims it was Gounis’s responsibility to tell her she couldn’t buy “extraordinary” amounts of shoes, clothing, jewelry, although he claims that was never his job.
“Not once did Fenty ask Peter Gounis if she should buy any particular item or engage in any particular activity. The only time that she contacted Peter Gounis was to find out if she had exceeded the limit on her credit cards,” as stated in the court docs filed this week.
“At the end of her two year spending spree she had rooms of shoes, clothing and jewelry and fond, if not hazy, memories of extravagant parties, but little cash.
“Was it really necessary to tell her that if you spend money for things you will end up with the things, and not the money?” he asked.
Gounis continues defending himself, saying that he is not responsible for inking the purported bad deal on her former dilapidated $6.9 million digs she bought in 2009 and sold at a major loss for a $5M.
“If you buy a house and the roof leaks, you do not sue the employee accountant, you sue the inspector (which she has),” as stated in the docs. “If a broker misrepresents the value of the house you sue the broker (which she has), not the employee accountant.”
Well, we’re not so sure the “Diamonds” singer has learned her lesson in spending and economics, considering she just moved into a $14.6 million NYC condo.
Ouch! The truth hurts… and Gounis wants the lawsuit thrown out.
