The City of London rarely glances westward, but yesterday’s sentencing of Matthew Perry’s assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa, to 41 months for the actor’s ketamine overdose demands attention. It is a stark reminder that even in the celebrity economy, there is no escape from the bottom line: privilege does not immunise against consequences. Iwamasa, who admitted to administering the fatal dose, now faces the market correction of his actions.
For years, Hollywood has operated like a poorly regulated emerging market. Risky behaviour is masked by glamour, and the usual due diligence is ignored. But when the bubble bursts, the losses are real. Perry’s death was an avoidable tragedy, a failure of oversight at every level. Iwamasa’s role was not that of a pusher but of an enabler, a symptom of a system that treats addiction as a lifestyle choice rather than a crisis.
The 41-month sentence is a fraction of what the law could impose, but it signals a shift. The court is sending a message to the entertainment industry: the days of treating personal assistants as disposable assets in a high-risk portfolio are over. The judge’s remarks about “a culture of enabling” suggest that this is not a one-off write-down but the beginning of a broader audit.
Consider the parallels with financial misconduct. In the City, we have seen how lax oversight inflates asset bubbles. Here, the asset was a human life. Iwamasa’s role was akin to a rogue trader, ignoring compliance in pursuit of a short-term high. But unlike a bank, there was no bailout for Perry. The systemic risk in Hollywood is not to the economy but to human capital, and the bill has come due.
Investors in the celebrity market should take note. The willingness to turn a blind eye to illegal practices for profit is a red flag. Perry’s long battle with addiction was public knowledge, yet those around him prioritised convenience over care. That is a failing of corporate governance in its purest form.
The fallout will not stop here. Hollywood’s reliance on a grey market of unregulated substances is unsustainable. As capital flees from risky narratives, the industry may be forced to tighten its own controls. Or, as with any market under pressure, external regulators will step in. The 41 months are a penalty, but the real cost is the erosion of trust.
In the meantime, the City watches. This is not a story about one man’s tragedy; it is about the mispricing of risk in an industry that has long assumed immunity. The sentence is a correction. Whether the market has learned its lesson remains to be seen.
