Legal News
Page: 13
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between. This week: Allegations of corporate “sabotage” of Revlon’s Britney Spears partnership; the estate of Isaac Hayes wins an injunction against Donald Trump over music at rallies; a judge rules on Missy Elliot’s copyright battle; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: The Great Britney Fragrance Heist
Corporate espionage AND Britney Spears? We’re in. Two decades after the singer launched a lucrative perfume partnership with Revlon’s Elizabeth Arden, the company is now accusing several former employees and an upstart rival (Give Back Beauty) of effectively stealing the superstar. In a lawsuit filed last week, Revlon’s attorneys called it a “carefully planned and executed grab.” “Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claim. In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of theft of trade secrets and so-called tortious interference with their business and contracts. It also accuses the individual employees of breach of their contracts and breach of their duty of loyalty to Revlon. Britney isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. Give Back Beauty strongly denied the allegations, telling Billboard that the allegations were “entirely without merit” and that it would “aggressively defend any attempt to impugn the integrity of our company. Revlon, for its part, mostly stressed that it wasn’t suing Spears herself: “We value our 20-year partnership and wish Britney all the best.” Revlon doesn’t feel the same way about the departing employees — labeling one as a “double-agent” who assisted a rival company in “taking the Britney Brands business away” while she was outwardly working to renew the account for Elizabeth Arden. For the rest of the lawsuit’s allegations, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
TRUMP INJUNCTION – The estate of Isaac Hayes won a preliminary injunction prohibiting former President Donald Trump and his campaign from playing the singer’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies. Hayes is one of many artists to complain about the former president using their music in the 2024 campaign, but thus far he’s the only one to actually sue over it. MISSY FACES TRIAL – A federal judge ruled that Missy Elliott must face trial in a copyright lawsuit filed by a man named Terry Williams, who claims to have co-written several decades-old songs she released with the group Sistas. The judge did, however, dismiss one of the lawsuit’s key claims: That Terry and Elliott had co-written “Heartbroken,” a 1996 track released by the late Aaliyah. AUCTION DELAYED – A court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records was postponed for three weeks — and the minimum price for the sale was more than doubled to help cover Dash’s massive unpaid tax and child support debts. DEAL IN THE SKY – A lawsuit filed by Journey member Jonathan Cain against bandmate Neal Schon was largely resolved after Schon conceded to the appointment of a neutral third party to resolve the “deadlock” that Cain has claimed is crippling the band’s operations. The case, filed last month, was the latest in a string of legal battles among members of the “Don’t Stop Believin’” band. ROYALTIES ROW – Spotify fired back at a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective that claims the streamer used the addition of audiobooks to “unlawfully” cut its music royalty payments nearly in half. In a motion to dismiss the case, Spotify called it “nonsensical” and claims that it “profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors.” MANILOW v. HIPGNOSIS – Barry Manilow sued Hipgnosis Songs Fund (HSF) in federal court, seeking $1.5 million in unpaid bonuses related to the music rights company’s acquisition of his catalog four years ago. The new case came a month after Hipgnosis sued Manilow in the UK alleging breach of contract relating to the bonus payments.MANSON APPEAL – Marilyn Manson launched an appeal seeking to revive his defamation lawsuit against ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood, arguing a lower judge who dismissed much of the case ignored key evidence. The case, which claims that Wood “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” women to make false abuse allegations against Manson, was largely dismissed last year under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. DMCA DISMISSED – A federal judge ruled that Universal Music Group and Playboi Carti didn’t abuse the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) when they issued a takedown notice — erroneously, it later turned out — against another rapper’s song that used the same beat. The judge ruled that the law’s safeguards against false takedowns only prohibit intentionally false use of the system.
Siding with the estate of Isaac Hayes, a federal judge has issued a temporary order prohibiting former President Donald Trump and his campaign from playing the singer’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies.
Weeks after Hayes’ heirs accused Trump of using the song without a license, Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. granted the estate a preliminary injunction on Tuesday (Sep. 3): “I do order Trump and his campaign to not use the song without proper license,” the judge said at a hearing, as reported by CNN.
The judge’s order bars the campaign from continuing to publicly perform the song at future rallies while the case plays out, according to CNN, but the judge denied a request for a more expansive order that would have forced the campaign to pull down videos of rallies in which the song can be heard.
An attorney for the Hayes estate did not immediately return a request for comment. An attorney for Trump confirmed that the order was issued, though he stressed that the campaign had already agreed to stop using the song at rallies.
Hayes’ estate sued Trump last month, accusing the campaign of using “Hold On” at rallies and in video recordings of those events. Hayes co-wrote the 1966 song, which was performed and released by the duo Sam & Dave.
Every four years, artists complain about the use of their music by politicians — often with mixed results. But the 2024 campaign season has seen a particular outburst of gripes about music used by Trump. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, Jack White, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out against the former president’s use of their songs — some merely with social media posts and others with cease-and-desist letters from their lawyers.
The Hayes estate went a step further, filing a federal lawsuit on Aug. 16 against Trump, his campaign, the Republican National Committee and others. The case accused the campaign of infringing copyrights, but also of violating federal trademark law — essentially claiming that the campaign’s use of the song made it appear that Hayes or his heirs had endorsed Trump’s bid to return to the White House.
The campaign has claimed that its use of Hayes’ song was covered by a so-called blanket license it purchased from BMI, which grants political campaigns the legal right to perform millions of different copyrighted songs at rallies. But the Hayes estate says it withdrew the song from that catalog in June — and that the Trump campaign was notified of the change in writing. It’s also unclear if such a license would cover the use of the song in video recordings of the rallies.
The flurry of complaints against Trump is nothing new. In past election cycles, the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Adele, Rihanna, Aerosmith, Guns N’ Roses, Linkin Park, and the estates of Prince and Tom Petty have all asked the Republican candidate to stop using their music.
Revlon is suing several former employees over allegations that they “sabotaged” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears and took the business to a competitor.
In a case filed Monday (Aug. 26) in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for Revlon and subsidiary Elizabeth Arden claim that four ex-staffers stole trade secrets and breached their contracts when they jumped ship to upstart rival Give Back Beauty and took the Britney account with them.
Though an initial delay in Spears re-signing the 20-year perfume partnership deal was “attributed to Ms. Spears being preoccupied with other matters,” Revlon claims it eventually realized that its own executives had been orchestrating a corporate heist.
Trending on Billboard
“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claim.
The case does not name Spears as a defendant nor accuse her of any wrongdoing.
As defendants, the lawsuit names the four employees — Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass — as well as Give Back Beauty itself. None of the defendants immediately returned messages seeking comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Then at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Elizabeth Arden in 2004 to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released “Curious” later that year, it quickly became the top selling fragrance of the year and reportedly pulled in more than $100 million in sales.
According to a 2013 report by the Hollywood Reporter, “Curious” had sold more than 500 million bottles over its first decade, and the overall Spears-Arden partnership, featuring many other scents, was pulling in $30 million a year in sales.
According to the new lawsuit, Revlon had historically renewed its partnership with Britney in five-year intervals, and the latest iteration was set to expire at the end of 2024. When negotiations began late last year, the company says it had “every expectation that the relationship would continue.”But according to the lawsuit, Give Back Beauty had launched a “campaign to obtain the Britney Brands fragrance business,” including contacting the Elizabeth Arden staffers as early as February: “This was obviously a carefully planned and executed grab by GBB for the Revlon fragrance business.”
Though Revlon says it struck a tentative deal with Britney’s team, the agreement had not been finalized in May, when staffers who had worked on the deal began “decamping to GBB.” Less than a month later, the lawsuit says, Give Back Beauty inked its own deal with Britney.
“The speed with which Britney Brands signed its deal with GBB was unprecedented for the Britney Brands organization and could not have been accomplished without the benefit of the Revlon employees’ deep knowledge of the misappropriated proprietary information about the relationship and GBB’s unlawful utilization of that information,” Revlon’s lawyers write.
The lawsuit takes particular aim at Kidd, a senior vice president for global marketing of fragrances who had spent years working on the Britney account and was allegedly the first to jump ship.
“At the same time that defendant Kidd was negotiating with Britney Brands on Revlon’s behalf, she had interviewed and accepted a job offer with GBB,” the company’s lawyers write. “Kidd effectively acted as a double-agent, assisting GBB in taking the Britney Brands business away from plaintiffs while she was charged with cementing an extension for Elizabeth Arden and purported to be doing so.”
The case claims that before she left, Kidd accessed more than 250 electronic files that contained proprietary information, including about the Britney partnership. Revlon says the “logical inference” is that she was “arming herself and her new employer” with info that could be used to “rapidly recreate the supply and distribution chains Elizabeth Arden had spent 20 years developing.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses the ex-staffers and Give Back Beauty of theft of trade secrets and so-called tortious interference with their business and contracts. It also accuses the individual employees of breach of their contracts and breach of their duty of loyalty to Revlon.
In a statement to Billboard, Revlon stressed that the lawsuit did not accuse Spears or her team of wrongdoing and said “we value our 20-year partnership and wish Britney all the best.” “As a company, we will always take steps to protect our intellectual property,” Revlon said in the statement. “We have filed this complaint because it became clear to us that GBB and the four former employees named in the suit unlawfully used Revlon’s proprietary information and trade secrets — and we are confident in the merits of our case.”
Barry Manilow is suing Hipgnosis Songs Fund (HSF) in federal court in California seeking $1.5 million in unpaid bonuses related to the music rights company’s acquisition of his catalog four years ago. The suit by the “Mandy” singer, along with his management company Hastings, Clayton & Tucker Inc, or Stiletto Entertainment, follows a similar lawsuit […]
A federal judge says Universal Music Group and Playboi Carti didn’t abuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when they issued a takedown notice – erroneously, it turns out – against another rapper’s song that used the same beat.
A rapper named G-Baby (Jordan White) sued the label and artist last year after they red-flagged his song “Oi!” for using the same underlying beat as Carti’s “Right Now.” The takedown turned out to be wrong — G-Baby had legally licensed the same beat that Carti had, and he had actually released his song first.
The lawsuit claimed that the move violated the DMCA’s safeguards against improper takedowns, but a judge dismissed those claims Tuesday – citing previous decisions that such restrictions only prohibit intentionally false use of the takedown system.
Trending on Billboard
“Because the DMCA requires only a good faith belief that material is infringing, a copyright holder is not liable for misrepresentation under the DMCA if they subjectively believe the identified material infringes their copyright, even if that belief is ultimately mistaken,” Judge Analisa Torres wrote.
In G-Baby’s case, the judge noted that he had effectively conceded that the UMG employee who flagged “Oi!” as a copyright infringement did not know that the rapper had properly licensed the beat: “This admission alone dooms White’s claim against UMG,” Torres wrote.
According to Tuesday’s decision, G-Baby paid $250 to producer Pi’erre Bourne (Jordan Timothy Jenks) in 2017 for a non-exclusive license to an instrumental track, which he later used as the basis for “Oi!” The next year, Carti (Jordan Terrell Carter) used the same beat in “Right Now,” a track on the album Die Lit, which reached Number 3 on the Billboard 200.
Shortly after Carti’s song was released, a UMG “content protection specialist” flagged two posts on Twitter in which G-Baby had shared his song. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America filed a DMCA takedown, which succeeded in getting the track pulled down from Twitter.
In his lawsuit, G-Baby claimed that UMG had intentionally sought out his song because of animosity from Carti, who he claimed was unhappy that the same beat had been used by someone else.
“Carter and Jenks knew that ‘Oi!’ was properly licensed and not infringing, yet decided to conspire with Universal,” the rapper wrote in his complaint. “Carter, Jenks, and Universal sought the take-down of White’s song with the specific intent of harming White.”
But in Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Torres ruled that even if Carti and Jenks knew that G-Baby’s song was properly licensed, there is no evidence that this information was ever communicated to the UMG staffer who flagged the song for removal.
“White cites no caselaw for the proposition that one employee’s knowledge that a use may be non-infringing should be imputed to another employee who independently issues a takedown notice on behalf of the company,” the judge wrote.
As for Carti himself, Judge Torres ruled that there was no evidence that the rapper had any involvement in or knowledge of the takedown process – meaning he, too, could not have violated the DMCA’s rules.
“Although Carter may well have been aware of (and displeased with) White’s license to use the beat, White has failed to establish that Carter had any part in the takedown notices,” the judge wrote.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
Marilyn Manson has launched an appeal seeking to revive his defamation lawsuit against ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood, arguing a lower judge who dismissed much of the case ignored key evidence.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood in 2022, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” women to make false abuse allegations against him. But a Los Angeles judge tossed out most of the case in a ruling last year.
That ruling came under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone speaking out about alleged abuse.
But in an appeal lodged on Tuesday, Manson’s lawyers argued that a lower judge had repeatedly misapplied that statute to prematurely end a valid lawsuit that had been aimed at exposing a “malicious campaign” by Wood and others.
“This is an appeal of an order granting two anti-SLAPP motions, in which the trial court rubber-stamped Defendants’ assertions of ‘protected activity’ before weighing and disregarding evidence to conclude that plaintiff Brian Warner could never prevail,” his attorneys write.
Manson also claims that the judge ignored key elements of the case, including “bombshell” testimony from another Manson accuser named Ashley Morgan Smithline, who says she “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against the singer.
Wood strongly denied those allegations, and the judge ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s testimony because it had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. In Wednesday’s appeal, Manson’s lawyers say that was a clear and reversible error.
“The trial court prioritized convenience over the core function of the anti- SLAPP statute, which is to dispose of truly meritless suits before discovery,” Manson’s lawyers write.
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past several years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
In May 2023, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet largely granted that motion, ruling that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
Anti-SLAPP laws, which exist in states across the country, work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In last year’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.
Spotify is demanding that a federal judge toss out a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective over royalty rates, calling the case “nonsensical” and “wasteful.”
The MLC sued earlier this year, claiming Spotify had “unilaterally and unlawfully” chosen to cut its music royalty payments nearly in half through bookmaking trickery – namely, by claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the service entitled the company to pay a lower “bundled” rate.
But in a motion to dismiss filed in court Tuesday, Spotify calls those claims “meritless and wasteful” – arguing that making hundreds of thousands of audiobooks available to subscribers was not a “token” gesture aimed at reducing music royalties.
Trending on Billboard
“MLC’s position is nonsensical and factually unsupportable,” Spotify’s lawyers write. “And it profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors whose works are available with a Spotify Premium subscription—from literary luminaries, to mainstays on best sellers lists, to up-and-coming writers who are finding their audience.”
The MLC, which collects streaming royalties for songwriters and publishers, filed its lawsuit in late May — a week after Billboard estimated that Spotify’s move would result in the company paying roughly $150 million less over the next year. In its complaint, the MLC claimed Spotify was “erroneously recharacterizing” the nature of its streaming services to secure the lower rate.
“The financial consequences of Spotify’s failure to meet its statutory obligations are enormous for songwriters and music publishers,” the group’s attorneys wrote at the time. “If unchecked, the impact on songwriters and music publishers of Spotify’s unlawful underreporting could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
At issue in the lawsuit is Spotify’s recent addition of audiobooks to its premium subscription service. The streamer believes that because of the new offering, it’s now entitled to pay a discounted “bundled” royalty rate under the federal legal settlement that governs how much streamers pay rightsholders.
In Tuesday’s motion, Spotify’s lawyers strongly defend that interpretation. They argue that the market for audiobooks has attracted “billions in consumer dollars” and that adding books was the kind of valuable new perk that had been intended to be covered by the lower bundled rate.
“At the heart of this dispute is an easily answered question: Is audiobook streaming distinct from music streaming, offering greater than token value?” the company’s lawyers write. “The answer is indisputably yes, and there is no need for federal court litigation to confirm it.”
The rule at issue says that streamers can use the bundled rate if they offer “one or more other products or services having more than token value.” Claiming that more than 200,000 audiobooks does not qualify under that rule is “baffling,” Spotify’s lawyers write.
“The creative output of these authors is not merely of ‘token value’,” Tuesday’s filing says. “Acceptance of that unassailable, commonsense proposition should end this meritless and wasteful litigation.”
MLC’s attorneys will file a formal response to the motion in court in the coming months. In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, the group said: “The MLC’s general practice is not to comment publicly on pending litigations. That said, we would reiterate that we take the enforcement obligations assigned to us by Congress extremely seriously and would refer you to the complaint we filed in this matter for more details regarding our position on this matter.”
The most recent legal battle between Journey members Jonathan Cain and Neal Schon appears to be over after Schon conceded to the appointment of a neutral third party to resolve the “deadlock” that Cain has claimed is crippling the band’s operations.
In an order issued Wednesday (Aug. 28), a Delaware judge appointed a so-called custodian to break ties between the two longtime bandmates. The ruling came a month after Cain sued Schon seeking such an umpire, claiming their endless disputes pose “a severe threat of harm” to the band’s “storied history of musical greatness.”
The order comes after Schon agreed to the appointment of such a neutral. In his written ruling, the judge wrote: “Schon does not oppose the court’s appointment of a custodian with the power to act as a third, deadlock breaking director.”
Trending on Billboard
In a statement, a spokesman for Cain said he was “elated with the outcome and looks forward to moving beyond this matter so that Journey can continue the band’s 50th Anniversary Freedom Tour.” An attorney for Schon did not immediately return a request for comment.
Legal battles are nothing new for Cain and Schon, the two key remaining members of an iconic rock band that’s still printing money decades after its “Don’t Stop Believin’” heyday. The two have repeatedly fought in court over the band’s finances over the past two years.
Filed by Cain last month in Delaware’s Chancery Court, the new case largely rehashed those same disagreements over spending — like Cain claiming that Schon unilaterally charts private jets and lavishly spends band funds on personal expenses.
But in technical terms, the case focused narrowly on the governance of Freedom 2020 Inc., a Delaware-based corporate entity they created to operate Journey’s touring. Since Cain and Schon each control exactly 50% of the company, the lawsuit says the two have reached an impasse that has spilled into many aspects of the band’s operations.
“The deadlock between the company’s directors is now interfering with the company’s ability to take even the most basic actions and is causing significant disruptions in the smooth operation of the company,” Cain’s lawyers wrote.
Wednesday’s order aims to resolve that situation by naming Joseph R. Slights, a former Chancery Court judge, as a custodian — a court-appointed official who can cast tie-breaking votes in corporate disputes.
To carry out those duties, the judge said that Slights will be able to “retain advisors or professionals, including music-industry advisors, attorneys, accountants and other professionals,” in order to decide how to resolve disputes between Cain and Schon.
Slights will have his work cut out for him. The complaint lodged last month painted a picture of extreme dysfunction within Journey, ranging from spending decisions to managing employees.
“Petitioner and respondent are deadlocked with regard to issues concerning the hiring and firing of company employees and Band crew members,” Cain’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “It is common that one director will terminate an employee or crew member, and hours or days later, the other director will rehire that same individual.”
In a Facebook post last week, Schon said the accusations leveled by Cain were “slanderous” and that he “can’t stress enough how much it upset me and how wrong they are.” But he hinted that a deal was close to resolve the lawsuit by appointing a neutral third party like Slights.
“We’re going to bring in someone impartial to help us resolve our disputes, bring clarity to what we’re doing and allow us, as a band, to get back to what we should all focus on — making music and performing for our fans,” Schon wrote at the time.
A federal judge says Missy Elliott must face trial in a lawsuit filed by a man who claims to have co-written several of her decades-old songs, though the judge dismissed allegations over one particular song released by Aaliyah. In a ruling Tuesday (Aug. 27), Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed […]
A court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records has been postponed for at least three weeks, court documents show, and the minimum price for the sale will be more than doubled to help cover Dash’s massive unpaid tax and child support debts.
The auction – in which the U.S. Marshals Service will sell off Dash’s 33.3% interest in the storied record company – had been set to be held Thursday. But in an order Tuesday, a federal judge granted a motion to extend the deadline for the event to Sept. 21.
The delay will give more time to sort out who will get paid first from the proceeds. The auction was originally intended to pay off an $823,000 judgment against Dash won by movie producer Josh Webber in a civil lawsuit over a failed film partnership. But New York City has jumped into the case to demand more than $193,000 in unpaid child support, and New York state later claimed that the auction must also help pay down more than $8.7 million Dash owes in back taxes.
Trending on Billboard
In a court filing on Monday, Webber’s attorney Chris Brown alerted the judge that he had reached an agreement with New York City and New York state to sort out a pecking order for the proceeds, but he also asked to push back the auction; it was that request that was granted by the judge on Tuesday.
Under the agreement, the minimum bid for Dash’s stake will be increased from $1.2 million to $3 million. New York City will get first dibs at that money, taking at least $193,000 to cover the money Dash owes in child support. That will be followed by $1.7 million going to the state to cover part of the massive tax bill, followed by the original $823,000 in legal damages owed to Webber. After other civil litigants are paid smaller sums, the remainder of the tax bill – roughly $7 million – will be paid to New York state. If anything is left, it will go to Dash himself.
Other issues remain to be ironed out. New York City is still seeking an additional deposit of nearly $70,000 more from Dash to cover ongoing child support payments in the future, and wants any payouts from the auction paused until a judge decides the issue. Brown has opposed that motion, and a hearing before the judge to decide the issue is set for next month.
Dash himself was not involved in the deal. In court filings, his attorney Natraj Bhushan said his client was “not privy to these discussions, had no input on the same, and disagrees with the priority given.” In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, he said the pecking order had yet to be finalized.
“We look forward to upcoming court conference so that all interested parties can be heard and the court can decide who gets what, and in what priority from the forthcoming public auction,” Bhushan said.
Brown declined to comment on Wednesday. Attorneys for New York City and New York state did not immediately return requests for comment.
Whenever it happens, the auction will be for Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Inc., an entity whose primary asset is Jay-Z’s iconic debut album Reasonable Doubt. The rest of the catalog of music released by Roc-A-Fella, which dissolved as an active label in 2013, isn’t involved.
The owners of the other two-thirds of Roc-A-Fella — label cofounders Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) and Kareem “Biggs” Burke — have already attempted to stop the auction, including making changes to the company’s bylaws and intervening in the lawsuit. But a federal judge rejected such opposition in February.
Though the auction’s minimum bid has now been increased, it’s entirely unclear how much a potential buyer is going to be willing to spend on Dash’s one-third stake.
The royalties from Reasonable Doubt would likely provide them a revenue stream; since its 1996 release, Reasonable Doubt has racked up 2.2 million equivalent album units in the U.S., according to Luminate, including 21,500 units so far this year. But the eventual buyer also would be a minority owner in a company controlled by hostile partners, with little ability to perform typical due diligence on the asset they’re about to purchase. And Roc-A-Fella’s rights to Reasonable Doubt will potentially expire in 2031 thanks to copyright law’s termination right, which would allow Jay-Z himself to reclaim full control.