That would be CIM Group, the Hollywood-based developers who were given permission by the City Council to place three supergraphics on one of their office buildings - and now, there are somehow six of the suckers. CIM Group also has not removed two billboards from the building's roof, as required under the agreement. This is the same CIM Group that has received all kinds of city funding over the years - as well as investment pledges from the city's pension agencies for up to $115 million. It's also the same CIM Group that has been repeatedly lauded by the local government officials and the press. Oh well. The LAT's David Zahniser tries to set everybody straight:

[CIM’s] office building at 1800 Highland Ave. stands as a symbol of the city's failure to gain control over unpermitted outdoor signs, even among companies that regularly seek financial help from the city. Enforcement has been complicated by a barrage of lawsuits by the advertising industry, including one filed by a company that places supergraphics on CIM Group properties. Building inspectors said last week that they have begun investigating multistory images on six CIM-owned buildings in Hollywood, including 1800 Highland, which has three oversized ads for the movie "Frost/Nixon" and three supergraphics depicting the Statue of Liberty -- the calling card of SkyTag, a company seeking to strike down the city's sign laws.

Last month, SkyTag asked a federal judge to stop the city from enforcing its sign laws at 118 locations, eight of which are CIM buildings, while its lawsuit against Los Angeles is pending. If a judge agrees, CIM could receive temporary permission for the multistory signs, which can generate up to $100,000 per month in advertising revenue. CIM Group representatives had no comment on 1800 Highland and several other properties. In a brief statement, the company said: "CIM is not a party to or involved with the lawsuit between SkyTag Inc. and the city of Los Angeles, and therefore does not have any comment." SkyTag President Michael McNeilly contends that the city cannot engage in selective enforcement, prohibiting some signs while allowing others to go up in special districts such as Hollywood, where the redevelopment agency negotiates sign agreements.