State Champ Radio Business
Page: 8
Trending on Billboard
Paris Jackson says she’s “increasingly concerned” that the work of Michael Jackson’s estate, including the long-anticipated biopic Michael, has been designed to “enrich and aggrandize” her late father’s executors rather than build long-term wealth for the family.
The claims are the latest in a back-and-forth between Paris and the co-executors of Michael’s estate, A&R executive John McClain and lawyer John Branca. Paris brought a petition this summer challenging the estate’s spending on outside attorneys, but a Los Angeles probate referee struck the claims on Nov. 10 — and ordered Paris to refund the estate for its troubles — after finding that the petition improperly sought liability for statements in court that are shielded under legal privilege rules.
Related
Paris is now trying a different tactic to air her grievances, submitting an objection to the estate’s 2021 account statements on Tuesday (Nov. 18) in probate court. The objection alleges the executors have “completely failed to competently invest cash, while at the same time deploying capital only where it had the potential to compensate them personally.”
According to Paris, McClain and Branca have let more than $464 million sit idle because they “do not share in the upside” from long-term investments. She says they’ve “instead focused on funneling as much cash as possible into entertainment-industry related projects,” for which she says the executors have received a 15% commission.
“Paris is increasingly concerned the estate has become the vehicle for John Branca to enrich and aggrandize himself, rather than serve the beneficiaries’ best interests and steadfastly preserve her father’s legacy,” reads the court filing. “Indeed, it appears that Mr. Branca used his position as an executive producer, a role he has never before performed in connection with any dramatic feature film, to cast the sole A-list actor in the production, Miles Teller, to play himself in the upcoming feature biopic Michael.”
Related
This isn’t the first time Paris has publicly criticized Michael, which is set for release in April 2026 after years of setbacks and delays. In a series of Instagram posts in September, she said the script had “a lot of inaccuracy” and “full-blown lies.”
The highly anticipated biopic is the latest of the estate’s endeavors to monetize Michael’s intellectual property, including catalog deals, two Cirque du Soleil shows and the Broadway production MJ: The Musical. These efforts have been remarkably lucrative; though Michael died in 2009 with more than $500 million in debt, the estate is now worth $2 billion, according to Branca and McClain, who cited those numbers in responding to Paris’ previous court petition, saying their business strategies have brought “unprecedented success” to the estate.
“The executors did not follow the typical — and most defensible — playbook used by personal representatives of an estate in such dire circumstances, i.e., sell the assets, pay off the debts, put what little was left into the trust, and take substantial statutory fees for their trouble,” wrote the executors on Sept. 15. “Instead, they waived their executors’ fees altogether and bet on their ability to turn the estate around.”
The executors said their legal spending, which Paris had challenged as overinflated, has been integral to accomplishing these goals. They also argued that attorney services are necessary to fight multiple ongoing lawsuits claiming Michael sexually abused children during his life, which the estate vehemently denies.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday (Nov. 19), a source close to the estate said the latest objection is “another misguided attempt by Paris Jackson’s attorneys to provide themselves some cover.”
“The fact is Paris Jackson’s lawyers lost their latest case against the estate and have been ordered to pay the estate’s attorneys’ fees,” added the source. “All the beneficiaries are well taken care of by the estate. This is a weak attempt to change the narrative of their loss.”
Trending on Billboard
There’s a reason that New York University is a perennial honoree on Billboard’s Top Music Business Schools list each year: There aren’t too many universities where students can sit down for an exclusive Q&A with industry behemoth Clive Davis and 21st century hitmaker Mark Ronson on a casual Tuesday night to hear insightful, revealing stories about everyone from Aretha Franklin to Adele.
On Tuesday (Nov. 18) night in Manhattan, a couple hundred industry power players, artists, educators and students at NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts/Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music sat down to watch an unreleased film (a visual mixtape, really) spanning Davis’ legendary career, a run that saw him boost everyone from Billy Joel to Aerosmith to Patti Smith to Whitney Houston to TLC to Brooks & Dunn to the top. Do You Remember? — first screened at Davis’ 90th birthday and produced by Ronson, Erich Bergen and DJ Earworm — was followed by a Q&A between Davis and Ronson moderated by Anthony DeCurtis.
Both Davis and Ronson have written acclaimed memoirs about their very different careers (Ronson’s book, Night People: How to Be a DJ in ’90s New York City, came out just this year), but much of the discussion covered territory that was brand new or vaguely familiar to the student body in the audience. “Just hit after hit after hit!” exclaimed one astonished student after the screening. “So many different eras.”
What’s fascinating about Davis isn’t just that he was “The Man With the Golden Ear,” but the fact that he refused to do one genre at a time, working with Barry Manilow while also helping Earth, Wind & Fire, or giving the Grateful Dead a late-career win around the same time he was working with golden-age rap group Whodini and sax juggernaut Kenny G.
Guided by DeCurtis (who assisted Davis’ memoir, The Soundtrack of My Life), Davis regaled the crowd with stories about Aretha Franklin’s four bodyguards eating their way up to a massive bill at three-Michelin star Manhattan restaurant Le Bernardin and John Lennon explaining why he didn’t need to listen to the radio to make music: “Do you think Picasso goes to the galleries to see what’s being painted?“ (Lennon, incidentally, had this to say when Davis introduced himself in a diner: “I read Billboard. I know who you are.”)
Ronson also shared some wisdom with the crowd of aspirants, telling students that he only broke through (with Amy Winehouse, incidentally) when he stopped chasing trends and focused on making music he loved — and that sometimes you have to eat crow at a songwriting session and admit that someone else’s idea is better.
Whitney Houston, who was discovered and signed by Davis and remained a lifelong friend until her passing in 2012, was naturally touched upon, though Davis refused to answer the loaded question “Aretha or Whitney” when it reared its head. He did, however, share that at one point, Houston wondered if she should start cowriting her own material, given that Madonna and Janet Jackson did so. His response? If you’re going to do it, the standard to reach is “The Greatest Love of All” (a three-week No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1986). Davis said that after that exchange, she never brought up the idea again.
Though both men have enjoyed very different careers, that story tips to a through line in the Q&A — whether you’re a singer, a songwriter or an executive, you need to know when it’s time to put your foot down and when it’s time to take the L. Because as both Davis and Ronson have demonstrated over the course of their lengthy careers, you can suffer defeat and still emerge victorious when the dust has settled.
Trending on Billboard
Warner Music Group (WMG) has reached a “landmark” licensing deal with Udio as part of a settlement to resolve the label’s lawsuit against the artificial intelligence music company.
The deal comes weeks after Universal Music Group signed a similar agreement with Udio, under which the AI firm said it would relaunch its platform next year as a more limited subscription service that pays for music rights and gives artists the right to opt out.
Related
Warner’s agreement will follow the same basic framework — with Udio paying a compensatory settlement to resolve Warner’s claims of past copyright infringement, and a licensing deal to allow the company to use the label’s music in the future.
“We’re unwaveringly committed to the protection of the rights of our artists and songwriters, and Udio has taken meaningful steps to ensure that the music on its service will be authorized and licensed,” WMG CEO Robert Kyncl said in a statement. “This collaboration aligns with our broader efforts to responsibly unlock AI’s potential — fueling new creative and commercial possibilities while continuing to deliver innovative experiences for fans.”
Andrew Sanchez, co-founder and CEO of Udio, said the Warner deal “marks a significant milestone in our mission to redefine how AI and the music industry evolve together.” The revamped Udio will let users make remixes, covers and new songs using the voices of artists that opt in, the companies said.
“This partnership is a crucial step towards realizing a future in which technology amplifies creativity and unlocks new opportunities for artists and songwriters,” Sanchez said, adding that it would “enable experiences where fans can create alongside their favorite artists” but in an environment where artists have “control.”
UMG, Sony Music and WMG teamed up last year to sue both Udio and Suno — the other leading AI music firm — for allegedly “trampling the rights of copyright owners” by exploiting vast numbers of songs to train its models. The cases are part of a trillion-dollar legal battle over whether AI firms can use copyrighted works like books, movies and songs to create platforms that spit out new ones.
Wednesday’s deal will not impact the separate case against Suno, which has pulled ahead of Udio as the market-leading AI music platform and has scored key wins like the success of AI-powered artists like Xania Monet. Suno announced on Wednesday that it had raised $250 million in a deal that values the company at $2.45 billion. A rep for Suno did not return a request for comment.
The Suno case will continue forward, as will Sony’s claims against Udio. But the deal certainly lends momentum for Udio to strike a deal with Sony, as the licensed AI music platform is not an exclusive partnership with either WMG or UMG. A rep for Sony did not immediately return a request for comment.
The planned Udio 2.0 will be substantially different than the current services offered by Udio and Suno, which allow users to generate entire songs based on a text prompt. The new service will be a “walled garden” in which users can experiment with AI and listen to the results, but they cannot download or share songs outside the service. It will also not feature the music or voice of any artists who opt out, a potentially large group of excluded songs in a world where artists are leery of AI.
In Wednesday’s announcement, Warner and Udio called those changes a “significant evolution” that was “shifting the company’s focus to a platform built in collaboration with artists and songwriters.” They said the “reimagined” service would only apply to choose to participate, and it would feature “expanded protections and other measures designed to safeguard the rights of artists and songwriters.”
Trending on Billboard Warner Music Group and Stability AI have formed a strategic partnership to advance what they’re calling “responsible AI in music creation.” The companies say the alliance, announced Wednesday (Nov. 19), is designed to help build an ethical music ecosystem that supports artists and songwriters. The initiative will focus on building professional-grade tools […]
Trending on Billboard
Usher is suing music producer Bryan-Michael Cox and other organizers of a failed Atlanta restaurant project, claiming in a new lawsuit that they still owe him $700,000 and misused money he lent to buy the property.
In a case filed last week in Georgia court and obtained by Billboard, the Atlanta superstar says he lent more than $1.7 to Cox and others to help purchase a building for “Homage ATL,” a high-end restaurant and lounge in the city’s tony Buckhead neighborhood.
Related
When the deal didn’t go through, Usher’s lawyers say he demanded his money back, but the Homage organizers only returned $1 million – because the rest had allegedly been used elsewhere without permission.
“Plaintiff loaned [the money] for the sole purpose of purchasing the Buckhead property,” Usher’s attorneys write. “The defendant investor group failed to purchase the Buckhead property and, instead, diverted the Raymond loan balance for [other] purposes.”
Cox is a well-known R&B producer who’s produced hits for Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey and Usher himself. The other defendants are alleged project partners Keith Thomas and Charles Hughes, as well as attorney Alcide Honoré and several companies allegedly tied to the project.
In a statement on Instagram, Cox seemed to pin the blame for the dispute on others: “My legal team has … advised me of a lawsuit involving a company where I am only a passive minority shareholder. I was not a participant in that business transaction and have no involvement in the ongoing legal process. While I’m unable to share more details right now, I want to make one thing absolutely clear: my 27-year friendship with @usher remains fully intact.”
But Usher’s lawyers don’t seem to be in a friendly mood. They claim Cox and the rest of the Homage organizers were “unjustly enriched” by using the remaining loan funds for other reasons, “which was to plaintiff’s detriment, damage, and expense.”
Related
Usher’s case claims that Cox, Hughes and Thomas approached him last year about the project, which was “intended to offer the public a unique dining lounge experience.” Though he says they wanted the locally-raised superstar to sign onto the project as a full-fledged partner, Usher says he “declined to become an investor” and instead opted merely to loan the group money to buy the restaurant’s location for more than $6 million.
As the “days and months passed” in early 2025, the two sides continued to negotiate a potential investment by Usher, but no deal was ever reached and the Buckhead property was never purchased. Eventually, the star says he demanded his money back – but that Honoré effectively told him that some of the funds had been used elsewhere.
“Honoré all but admitted that the Raymond loan balance was disbursed when he stated that returning that balance was ‘not that easy’ because plaintiff’s funds had been deployed for ‘other purposes’,” Usher’s attorneys write. “Honoré stated [that Usher] would be repaid once the Buckhead property was purchased and the property was refinanced, indicating that he apparently no longer had possession, custody, or control over the funds.”
Several of the lawsuit’s claims are aimed solely at Honoré, including breach of bailment – meaning he failed to return Usher’s property – as well as various other forms of wrongdoing, including negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. He did not return a request for comment. The case accuses the rest of the investors of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and keeping money that wasn’t theirs. Thomas and Hughes could not immediately be reached for comment.
Trending on Billboard Suno, the leading AI tool for making music, said on Wednesday it raised $250 million from a group of investors led by Menlo Ventures that values the company at $2.45 billion. Other investors in the series C round included NVIDIA’s venture capital arm NVentures, Hallwood Media, Lightspeed and Matrix. Related Founded in […]
Trending on Billboard Avex Music Group is launching a new division that will offer artists the type of comprehensive career direction that’s typically associated with managers, the company tells Billboard. Related Dubbed Artist Advisor Services, the division — led by Avex Music Group CEO Brandon Silverstein — will offer artists strategic support via an à la […]
Trending on Billboard
Attorneys for Live Nation and Ticketmaster are hoping to end the Department of Justice’s sweeping antitrust case before it goes to trial, filing a 51-page summary-judgment motion that argues the claims of the DOJ and the 41 state AGs who joined the suit have failed to prove that the concert giant operates like a monopoly.
The filing, submitted to Federal Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York, casts the government’s lawsuit as an overreach that collapses due to a lack of evidence.
Related
Live Nation’s attorneys at Latham Watkins and Cravath, Swaine & Moore allege that the DOJ began the litigation with harsh accusations against Live Nation, saying the DOJ accused the global promoter of operating “multiple, self-reinforcing monopolies” replete with “‘systematic’ and ‘intentional’ corruption of competition across ‘virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem.’”
“Strong words,” Live Nation lawyers write. “If there was a lick of truth to them, one would expect Plaintiffs to now have mountains of evidence… And yet… Plaintiffs have barely a molehill.”
Live Nation’s attorneys go on to argue that the government has not proven the most fundamental element of a monopolization claim: monopoly power. Citing long-standing Supreme Court precedent, the company notes that “monopoly power is the foundational element of every monopoly maintenance case,” and insists the DOJ has failed to meet that threshold.
Instead of using traditional evidence of monopoly power to make its case – like high prices or significant barriers to entry — Live Nation says the DOJ case is built on inferences and derivative legal arguments, relying on “gerrymandered” market definitions to make its case. According to the motion, the government relies on a convoluted formula to define a “major concert venue,” singling out venues with capacities above 8,000 that host 10 or more concerts during at least one year in the 2017–2024 period. Stadiums, large theaters, smaller amphitheaters and many other common concert venues are excluded.
Related
Live Nation argues this structure ignores how competition in the concert business actually works, noting that “made-for-litigation markets plainly do not encompass ‘the area of effective competition’ that the law requires,” pointing out that rival ticketing companies such as SeatGeek, AXS, Eventim and Paciolan compete broadly and do not restrict their efforts to the DOJ’s handpicked venues.
Company attorneys argue that the DOJ’s narrowed market definition is the only way the government can claim Ticketmaster has a monopoly. According to Live Nation, the DOJ’s own expert calculated that Ticketmaster’s market share would fall from 86% to 49% if stadiums — venues the DOJ included when it challenged the Live Nation–Ticketmaster merger in 2010 — were defined as “major concert venues.”
“Far from having the ‘power to exclude competition,’ Ticketmaster has lost over 30 points of market share since the merger,” in 2011 between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the company’s attorneys claim.
Beyond market definition, the company spends considerable space pushing back on one of the DOJ’s central theories: that Ticketmaster’s long-term exclusive ticketing contracts with venues hamper competition. Live Nation argues that exclusivity has been the industry standard in North America for decades and remains preferred by venues because it leads to higher up-front payments, smoother operations, integrated technology, and reduced consumer confusion about where to buy tickets.
“Every venue witness has testified that they seek and prefer exclusive ticketing contracts,” the memo reads, arguing that no venue manager interviewed in the lawsuit claimed to be coerced into an exclusive contract or pushed for a multi-ticketer system and was prevented from pursuing one.
Related
The DOJ has also accused Live Nation of tying concert promotion to its Ticketmaster’s offering, alleging that the company threatens or retaliates against venues by steering Live Nation-promoted tours away from buildings that choose rival ticketing services. Live Nation’s lawyers said evidence behind these allegations was paper thin, writing, “At most three venue witnesses support this claim—one in the last five years. … Three out of thousands could not possibly prove the market-wide anticompetitive effects required for a monopolization claim.”
According to the filing, the rest of the government’s evidence comes from rival ticketing companies — statements Live Nation calls inadmissible hearsay that cannot survive summary judgment. The company further notes that similar allegations were investigated by the DOJ in 2019, leading to a modification of the consent decree but not a finding of systemic misconduct. Since then, Live Nation says, “the outside antitrust monitor… has not reported a single violation.”
The company also disputes the government’s claims tied to Live Nation’s amphitheaters. Prosecutors allege that Live Nation illegally ties access to amphitheaters to its own promotion services, discouraging artists from working with independent promoters. Live Nation responds that this theory is contradicted by how touring actually works: artists, it says, control routing decisions, approve venues, set ticket prices, and choose their promoters based on guarantees and deal terms. The filing points out that the DOJ deposed only one artist throughout the entire case and that his testimony did not support the government’s claim. According to the motion, the artist “answered, without ambiguity or qualification,” that he had not been coerced to hire Live Nation as a condition of playing an amphitheater. “That is no basis for a trial,” the filing states.
Live Nation insists its amphitheaters are a competitive asset and not a leverage point to suppress competition. The company analogizes amphitheaters to tools of the trade: promoters, not artists, rent the venues, and the ability to offer those venues is part of how promoters compete for tours. The motion argues that amphitheaters typically are not rented to competing promoters for structural business reasons, not because of an anticompetitive scheme.
Related
Throughout the filing, Live Nation repeatedly invokes the DOJ’s own prior statements from 2010 in which the agency acknowledged the benefits of the company’s vertical integration with Ticketmaster. In approving the Live Nation–Ticketmaster merger, the DOJ wrote that “vertical integration can produce procompetitive benefits” and that “most instances of vertical integration… are economically beneficial.”
Live Nation attorneys also argue regularly in their memo that the DOJ cannot show harm to consumers—not through higher prices, a drop in shows or a decline in concert quality. Citing Microsoft and other precedent, Live Nation argues that such evidence is indispensable in a monopolization case. The filing states, “There must be evidence of actual harm to consumers; ‘harm to one or more competitors will not suffice.’ Plaintiffs never show that anything Defendants have done harmed artists or venues.”
The motion concludes by arguing that after extensive discovery, there are no triable issues remaining to be adjudicated. “The faithful application of law to the evidence adduced should yield summary judgment for Live Nation and Ticketmaster,” the filing states.
Attorneys for the government will have their chance to file a response in the coming weeks before Judge Subramanian determines whether the case proceeds to trial. If the summary-judgment motion is granted, much or all of the government’s case could be dismissed outright or the government could be forced to refile parts of its lawsuit.
Live Nation is also facing a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission over how the company operates its secondary ticket business.
Trending on Billboard
Music financing platform beatBread named former CD Baby and Downtown Music executive Tracy Maddux interim CEO following the death of beatBread co-founder and CEO, Peter Sinclair, the company announced on Wednesday (Nov. 19).
“Under Maddux’s interim leadership, beatBread will focus on maintaining its strong growth trajectory, advancing platform innovation, expanding partnerships, and ensuring operational excellence,” according to a beatBread press release. “He will also play an active role in the company’s search for a permanent CEO, ensuring a seamless transition and long-term continuity.”
Related
Related
Maddux was Downtown Music’s chief commercial officer from 2020 to 2023, when he was in charge of the distribution, monetization and promotion of Downtown’s umbrella companies CD Baby, FUGA, AdRev, Curve Royalty Systems and DashGo. Prior to that, he served as CEO of CD Baby from 2010 to 2020, via Downtown’s acquisition of the company from AVL Digital. More recently, Maddux invested in and took a seat on the board of rights management platform OpenPlay. He will serve as a long-term advisor to beatBread’s board, the company said.
Sinclair, the company’s late CEO, was a former McKinsey and Green Dot industry veteran and longtime senior vp of consumer and e-commerce at Universal Music Group (UMG). He died earlier this year at the age of 50 after a brief illness.
“Peter Sinclair built beatBread on the belief that independent artists deserve access to the same financial tools as major-label acts, without sacrificing ownership or control,” said Maddux in a statement. “Having known Peter and admired his approach since beatBread’s founding, I’m deeply honored to help carry that vision forward. The company has built an exceptional foundation … and I see enormous potential.”
Earlier this year, beatBread announced it had raised $124 million from equity investors, including banking giant Citigroup and venture investors Deciens Capital and Mucker Capital, as well as loans from financiers Advantage Capital and GMO. In October, the company launched its $100 million Global Independence Fund to support indie labels and distributors, partly in response to UMG’s move to acquire Maddux’s former company, Downtown Music. That deal, which is pending regulatory approval by the European Commission, has faced opposition from several leading independent music organizations, including IMPALA, Beggars Group, IMPF, A2IM and Secretly Group.
Ishan Sachdev, general partner at beatBread’s longtime investor, Deciens, said Maddux’s experience presents “a rare combination” of industry expertise and operational discipline that beatBread needs “right now as labels continue to strive to maintain their independence in an environment that’s been impacted by Downtown’s sale to Universal.”
“Tracy shares Peter’s exceptional commitment to empowering independence, and he’ll work with beatBread’s remarkable team, to advance the company’s growth while maintaining its artist-first mission,” Sachdev said in a statement.
Trending on Billboard
SXSW London has confirmed its first wave of speakers for its 2026 conference, featuring figures from the worlds of business, technology and culture.
The festival will be returning to the capital from June 1 to 6, following the debut of its U.K. iteration in 2025. Among the first names announced include entrepreneur Jamie Laing, who has pivoted from a successful reality television career (Made In Chelsea) to spearheading confectionary business Candy Kittens and podcast studio Jampot Productions in recent years.
Related
Related
There will also be talks from Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, as well as Thomas Cwik of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Footballer Lotte Wubben-Moy – who plays for Arsenal in the Women’s Super League and the English national team – will be discussing the intersection of sports and culture, while Hovhannes Avoyan, founder and CEO of photo-editing app Picsart, has been enlisted to chat about the development of his globally successful platform.
Other additions to the conference line-up include names from different corners of the evolving AI landscape, such as Ioannis Antonoglou (co-founder and CTO, Reflection AI), Joleen Liang, (CEO, Squirrel AI North America), and Josh Payne (CEO, Nscale), among others. Further details can be found at the official SXSW London website.
The list of speakers has been partly derived from an online submissions process, which allows potential candidates to directly pitch discussion proposals. From there, a community voting system, known as PanelPicker, opened up to the public, so that fans could help select a portion of SXSW’s conference programming.
According to the SXSW London website, public votes account for 30% of the decision-making process. The remaining percentage is determined by SXSW London staff (30%) and a board of industry experts (40%), to ensure a balanced programme. Further conference line-up announcements are expected to arrive in the coming months.
SXSW arrived in London for the first time this summer, following the continued success of its Austin and Sydney counterparts. The inaugural edition took place in Shoreditch, saw appearances from King Charles and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and welcomed over 20,500 international delegates.
The event also played host to Billboard presents THE STAGE at SXSW London, which featured a performance by global superstar Tems at east London’s iconic Troxy venue. It followed the publication of Billboard’s annual Global Power Players list and its first U.K. Power Players list, whose honorees were recognized at an exclusive gathering.
