Legal News
Page: 27
Demetrius “Big Meech” Flenory, the convicted drug trafficker and money-laundering kingpin who was involved in the early careers of rappers Jeezy and T.I. in the 2000s via his label BMF Entertainment, has been released from prison, Billboard has confirmed. Flenory, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2008 after being convicted on several […]
T.I.‘s son Clifford “King” Harris Jr. was arrested earlier this week in Georgia. Fox 5 Atlanta is reporting that jail records indicate the rapper’s 20-year-old son had an open warrant for his arrest in Pickens County for failure to appear in court. The warrant stems from charges of speeding, driving with a suspended license, and […]
Members of 2 Live Crew have won a jury verdict allowing the hip hop legends to regain legal control of much of their catalog from a small record label that owned their copyrights for decades.
After years of litigation, a Florida federal jury said Wednesday that Uncle Luke (Luther Campbell) and the heirs of Fresh Kid Ice (Christopher Wong Won) and Brother Marquis (Mark Ross) were entitled to invoke copyright law’s “termination right” – a provision that allows creators to take back their works decades after they sold them away to a company.
Attorneys for Lil Joe Records, which bought the band’s catalog out of bankruptcy in the 1990s, argued that termination didn’t apply to 2 Live Crew’s albums. Lawyers for Campbell and his late bandmates argued back that the right to terminate was “inalienable” and couldn’t be forfeited.
Trending on Billboard
In Wednesday’s verdict, the jurors sided with 2 Live Crew, finding the band members had lawfully regained control of the five albums at issue in the case — including their provocative 1989 record As Nasty as They Wanna Be, which reached No. 29 on the Billboard 200 and was certified platinum.
In a statement to Billboard, 2 Live’s attorney Scott Alan Burroughs said he and his clients were “extremely pleased” with the outcome: “Our team has fought this battle for nearly four years and are thankful to have had the opportunity to present our case to the jury and see justice served. The verdict was a total and overwhelming victory for our clients and artists everywhere.”
Meanwhile, Richard Wolfe, lead counsel Lil Joe Records and label owner Joe Weinberger, vowed to appeal the verdict, saying it dealt with novel legal questions about the interplay between termination rights and federal bankruptcy law.
“Since this is a matter of first impression … which has never before been heard by any court, it may go to the Supreme Court,” Wolfe told Billboard. “The bankruptcy code is clear that all assets of a bankrupt party are part of the bankruptcy estate. All means all.”
The verdict was first reported by Law360 and confirmed by Billboard.
2 Live Crew, a pioneering hip hop group known for the backlash sparked by its sexually-explicit lyrics, is just the latest classic act to use the termination right, which typically kicks into action 35 years after a song was released.
Jay-Z has already invoked it to win back control of his debut album Reasonable Doubt, a fact revealed during a recent legal dispute over Damon Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Records. Earlier this year, Cher won a legal battle with Sonny Bono’s widow over whether termination trumped a decades-old divorce settlement. And before that, groups of artists filed class actions against Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, seeking to win back control of their masters en masse.
2 Live’s dispute kicked off in November 2020, when Campbell and other members notified Lil Joe that they planned to invoke termination and take back control of their music. Lil Joe and Weinberger had purchased 2 Live Crew’s catalog when the group’s previous label, Luke Records Inc., went bankrupt in 1995. When the two sides could not come to terms, Lil Joe sued the members in federal court.
During the case, the label argued that the bankruptcy sale, which had been signed by a judge, made clear that the album rights were “free and clear of any and all liens” or other caveats. The company also argued the albums were created as “works for hire” – meaning Lil Joe had always been the legal owner of the copyrights, and there were no rights to 2 Live to take back in the first place.
But at the trial this month, 2 Live’s attorneys told a different story. As reported by Law360, Burroughs argued the group had “trusted” Weinberg but that he had “betrayed them and steered them into bankruptcy,” where he was able to purchase the rights to their music on the cheap. He called the story a “tale of deceit and dishonesty that wouldn’t be out of place in a Netflix movie.”
Lil Joe can appeal the outcome, first by asking the judge to overturn the verdict and then by taking the case to a federal appeals court. Such proceedings could take months or even years, depending on how higher courts rule.
Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs are demanding that the government reveal the names of his alleged sexual abuse victims, arguing he cannot fairly defend himself without knowing their identities.
In a motion filed late Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, the star’s attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to filed a so-called bill of particulars, disclosing who exactly was accusing him of abuse.
Citing a “torrent” of anonymous civil accusations ranging from “false to outright absurd,” Combs’ lawyers say they cannot mount an adequate defense without knowing which of those claims forms the basis for the criminal charges.
“The government is forcing him, unfairly, to play a guessing a game—one made all the more challenging by the onslaught of baseless allegations that desperate plaintiffs are lodging at him (for the most part anonymously) in civil suits designed to exact a payoff from Mr. Combs and others,” Combs attorney Marc Agnifilo writes in the filing.
The defense attorneys say the wording of the sex trafficking and racketeering indictment is so vague that it “could be interpreted as treating Mr. Combs’ entire sexual history over the past sixteen years as part of the alleged criminal conspiracy.”
“Without clarity from the government, Mr. Combs has no way of knowing which allegations the government is relying on for purposes of the Indictment,” Agnifilo writes.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what the government says was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.”
The decades-long scheme allegedly involved not only elaborate sexual parties called “freak offs” and other sex abuse, but also forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all of the charges at trial – currently set to start May 5 – Combs potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
With the trial still months away, Combs’ attorneys have already begun to fight back. In a motion last week, they accused the government of leaking evidence to the press, including the infamous video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors have argued back that those “baseless” claims are a strategic move aimed at preventing prosecutors from showing the video to jurors.
In Tuesday’s filing, Combs’ lawyers argued that the continued anonymity of the alleged victims would seriously hamper their practical ability to prepare for the trial
“Mr. Combs … anticipates that the discovery will contain voluminous evidence of consensual sexual activity – making it all the more difficult for Mr. Combs to ascertain which of his prior sexual partners now claim, years later, that they felt coerced,” his lawyers write.
If history is any guide, Combs’ lawyers face an uphill battle in convincing the judge to unmask his alleged victims.
In the similar racketeering case against R. Kelly, prosecutors privately disclosed the names of several alleged victims to Kelly’s legal team, but argued that others must remain hidden, citing concerns that the singer or his entourage might seek to intimidate them.
The judge eventually agreed, saying that federal courts “routinely deny requests for victims’ identities in racketeering cases, especially when the government demonstrates a risk to witness safety [or] the potential for witness intimidation.” At Kelly’s eventual trial in 2021, several victims testified under pseudonyms.
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: Limp Bizkit sues Universal Music Group for $200 million over claims that the band has ‘never’ been paid royalties; a lawsuit against Nelly takes a twist as his former bandmates allegedly push back on the case; Barry White’s estate files a lawsuit over Future and Metro Boomin’s chart-topper “Like That”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Has Limp Bizkit Really Never Gotten Royalties?
At one point in the bombshell, $200 million lawsuit Limp Bizkit filed against Universal Music Group last week, the band’s attorneys explicitly asked the question that everyone was thinking as they read the case: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action against UMG, leading one to ask how on earth that could possibly be true.”
How on earth, indeed. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Limp Bizkit and frontman Fred Durst, the answer is an “appalling and unsettling” scheme by UMG centered on “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies that were “deliberately designed” to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.”
Scathing language aside, the lawsuit really appears to be a long-delayed dispute over recoupment.
Durst says that UMG repeatedly told him that Limp remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances. UMG allegedly told Durst that it had paid out a whopping $43 million in advances over the years, a huge figure that would go a long way to explaining the lack of royalties.
Limp Bizkit’s lawsuit says UMG didn’t provide “any back-up for this alleged amount” – and that the label essentially kept the band in the red with shady bookkeeping, including “intentionally concealing the true amount of sales” and “fraudulent accounting practices.”
“Where did this additional $199,676.00 charged to the account come from?” the band’s lawyers wrote at one point, referring to one such alleged inconsistency. “It seems to have come out of thin air to overdraft Limp Bizkit’s due and payable account in order to defraud Limp Bizkit and show an unrecouped account.”
UMG has not yet publicly commented on the allegations, so we’ll keep you updated when the music giant files its first formal response in court…
Other top stories this week…
ALWAYS MORE DIDDY – Since you last heard from Legal Beat one whole week ago, there have somehow already been four big developments in the story of Sean “Diddy” Combs, who stands accused of decades of sexual abuse. Here goes:
-Attorneys for the rapper filed their opening salvo in an appeal of a ruling denying him pre-trial release on bail, arguing the “sensationalism” of the case led the judge to keep him locked up over “purely speculative” concerns about witness intimidation. In the days since, the appeals court has already declined to issue a quick ruling releasing him; instead, the court will hear the case at normal pace and rule at some point in the next few months on whether he should be set free until trial.
-Less than a day after filing the appeal, Combs’s team accused the government of leaking evidence to the media in order to “taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Combs of his right to a fair trial.” Among other evidence allegedly shared with the press? The infamous surveillance video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie in 2016, which his lawyers say was leaked “to mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself.”
-The judge set a May 5 date for the start of Combs’ criminal trial, in which he will face charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what prosecutors say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The schedule could still be pushed back, particularly if prosecutors file new charges or add defendants to the case, or if Combs eventually gets released on bail and chooses to waive his “speedy trial” right.
-Six new civil lawsuits were filed in Manhattan federal court, including one from a man who says he was sexually assaulted by Combs in 1998 when he was 16 years old and attending one of the rapper’s famed “white parties” in the Hamptons. The cases were the first in a wave of dozens of civil cases that are expected to be filed in the weeks ahead by Los Angeles attorney Andrew Van Arsdale and Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, who earlier this month said they are representing at least 120 such alleged victims.
ST. LUNATICS REBEL – Weeks after Nelly’s former St. Lunatics groupmates sued him for allegedly cutting them out of royalties, an attorney for the star claimed that three of them had never approved the lawsuit in the first place. In a letter sent last month, Nelly’s attorney warned the lawyer who filed the case last month that Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb) had recently retained his services and had “informed me that they did not authorize you to include them as plaintiffs” and were “demanding you remove their names” from the case.
DR. DRE’S DR. DRAMA – Dr. Dre was hit with a lawsuit accusing him a waging a “malicious campaign of harassment” against a psychiatrist served as a marriage counselor and mediator for the rapper and his now-ex-wife Nicole Young. Dr. Charles J. Sophy says the rapper subjected him to a “barrage of threats” via text message, and even sent fake FBI agents to his home to intimidate him. Dre’s attorneys quickly fired back, saying Sophy only sued because Dre is currently seeking to have his medical license revoked over allegations of “dereliction of duties and incredible incompetence” during the divorce.
SAMPLE SPAT – Barry White’s estate filed a copyright lawsuit over allegations that a prominent sample at the heart of Future and Metro Boomin’s chart-topping “Like That” infringes the rights to a 1973 song by the legendary singer — but they didn’t actually file the case against those stars. Instead, they sued duo Rodney-O (Rodney Oliver) & Joe Cooley, the classic hip hop duo behind “Everlasting Bass,” the track that Future and Metro Boomin sampled.
NAME BLAME – Attorneys for Garth Brooks publicly disclosed the name of a woman who sued the country star for sexual assault, naming her as a defendant in a lawsuit that accuses the woman of extortion and defamation. The move drew a sharp rebuke from the woman’s lawyers, who said Brooks had “publicly named a rape victim” in order to “punish” her for speaking out.
THE CASE ISN’T ALRIGHT – A California appeals court sided with The Offspring in a long-running court case filed by former drummer Ron Welty, rejecting his claims that he was owed millions more from the punk band’s $35 million catalog sale to Round Hill Music. A Los Angeles judge rejected those accusations last year, and California’s Court of Appeals ruled that there had been “no reversible error” in that decision.
I WANT MY ROYALTIES BACK, ROYALTIES BACK – What’s going on in the Chili’s legal department? For the second time this year, the huge restaurant chain was sued over accusations that it used copyrighted music on social media without permission — this time by Universal Music Group over dozens songs by Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and other stars. The new case came shortly after the advertising-averse Beastie Boys sued Chili’s over the same thing back in July.
TAKING THE STAND – Amid a lawsuit claiming Martin Shkreli might leak copies of Wu-Tang Clan’s ultra-rare album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, a federal judge ruled that the pharma exec must personally go to court and testify under oath about the fate of the album. Shkreli once owned the album, but was forced to forfeit to federal prosecutors after he was convicted of securities fraud.
YE LAWSUIT UPDATE – Ye (formerly Kanye West) was sued by Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant who claimed that the rapper drugged and sexually assaulted her during a studio session he co-hosted with Diddy. Pisciotta already sued Ye in July for sexual harassment, breach of contract and wrongful termination, but she filed an updated version of the case that includes the Diddy-linked claims.
Seven new sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs were filed Monday (Oct. 14) in Manhattan federal court, the first in a wave of dozens of civil cases expected to be filed in the weeks ahead.
The cases — each filed by an anonymous Jane Doe or John Doe plaintiff — were all filed by Los Angeles attorney Andrew Van Arsdale and Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, who earlier this month said he is representing at least 120 such alleged victims.
“While his wealth has kept him above consequence for years, Combs now faces the awesome power of the American judicial system and ultimately a jury of his peers who will be asked to punish him for the deplorable conduct,” the lawyers wrote in matching language in each complaint.
Five of the cases on Monday were filed by men and two were filed by women. In one, a woman claims that Combs lured her into a bathroom at a 1995 promotional event for a Notorious B.I.G. music video, then violently raped her. “You better not tell anyone about this, or you will disappear,” he allegedly told her after the attack.
Another case was filed by a man who says he was sexually assaulted by Combs in 1998 when he was 16 years old and attending one of the rapper’s famed “white parties” in the Hamptons. The man claims that Combs forced him to remove his pants and demanded he allow him to “inspect” his genitals.
“Combs abruptly then let go of John Doe’s genitals and told him that his people would be in touch,” the lawyers write in that lawsuit. “Combs continued with his party as if nothing had happened, but for John Doe, everything had changed.”
Representatives for Combs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors over accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
In their indictment, prosecutors allege that Combs ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The charges detailed “freak offs” in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with male sex workers, as well as alleged acts of violence and intimidation to keep victims silent.
A trial is currently set for May 5.
In addition to the criminal cases, Combs has also faced a slew of civil lawsuits over the past year, including at least 12 filed prior to Monday’s new lawsuits.
Amid a federal lawsuit, a judge says Martin Shkreli must personally go to court and testify under oath about the extent to which he copied and shared Wu-Tang Clan’s rare album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin.
In a brief ruling Friday (Oct. 11), Judge Pamela K. Chen scheduled a hearing for next month to resolve the issue of what exactly Shkreli did with Once Upon, an ultra-rare Wu-Tang record that he once owned but was forced to forfeit to federal prosecutors after he was convicted of securities fraud.
The judge said the ruling was designed to “resolve the deficiencies” in Shkreli’s previous sworn statements about the fate of the album, in which the pharma exec said he wasn’t sure who might still have copies.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant Shkreli will be called upon to testify under oath regarding the copying and distribution of the album’s tracks,” the judge wrote. “Both parties will be permitted to question defendant Shkreli on these issues.”
Wu-Tang’s fabled album was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. In addition to the bizarre trappings, Once Upon came with strict legal stipulations — namely, that the one-of-a-kind album could not be released to the general public until 2103.
In 2015, Shkreli — soon to become infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications — bought Once Upon at auction for $2 million. But after he was convicted of securities fraud in 2017, he forfeited it to federal prosecutors to help pay his multi-million dollar restitution sentence. PleasrDAO, a collective of early NFT collectors and digital artists, then bought the album from the government in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights for another $750,000.
Amid recent efforts to monetize Once Upon, Pleasr sued Shkreli in June after he made threats to release the album publicly and destroy the exclusivity that the company had purchased. The lawsuit accused him of both breaching the federal forfeiture order and violating federal trade secrets law, which protects valuable proprietary information from misappropriation.
In August, Judge Chen granted Pleasr a preliminary injunction requiring Shkreli to hand over any copies of Once Upon that were still in his possession. Shkreli’s attorneys had argued he had the right to create private copies when he owned the album and could retain them even after he forfeited the original copy, but the judge rejected that argument.
Last month, Shkreli told the judge he had “searched my devices, electronic accounts, and other personal effects” and handed over any copies he owned. He swore that he had done so “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.”
But he also said he didn’t know exactly who he had shared it with, and that some of them probably still have copies.
“Because I shared the musical work several times several years ago, I cannot recall each and every time that I have shared the musical work,” he told the judge. “It is possible, and indeed I find it highly likely, that one of the many people who viewed, heard, or otherwise accessed the musical work via my social media recorded the musical work and retains a copy of the same.”
Attorneys for Pleasr weren’t pleased. In a response filing days later, they told the judge that Shkreli’s disclosure “falls short” of the judge’s requirements and “raises doubts as to whether Defendant has, in fact, made a good faith effort to comply.”
On Friday, Judge Chen responded with her order requiring Shkreli to appear in court. His attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (Oct. 14).
Sean “Diddy” Combs will stand trial on May 5 in his racketeering and sex trafficking case, a federal judge ruled at a court hearing on Thursday (Oct. 10).
The order from Judge Arun Subramanian — who replaced Judge Andrew L. Carter as the presiding judge last week and will handle the eventual trial — was issued from the bench and reported by the Associated Press and other outlets.
The trial date is in line with what the rapper’s legal team wanted. In court documents Wednesday (Oct. 9), they said they were continuing to assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial and would be seeking to get the case before a jury in April or May.
Though a trial date is now set, the schedule could still be pushed back, particularly if prosecutors file new charges or add defendants to the case. It could also be delayed if Combs eventually waives his speedy trial right to give his team more time to prepare — a decision that might hinge on whether he’s granted bail in a pending appeal.
When he does stand trial, Combs will face charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what prosecutors say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The decades-long scheme allegedly involved not only elaborate sexual parties called “freak offs” and other sex abuse, but also forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in their indictment last month. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
Thursday’s hearing came less than 24 hours after Combs’ lawyers accused the government of leaking evidence to the media, including the infamous surveillance video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie in 2016.
At Thursday’s hearing, according to AP, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Johnson pushed back on those “baseless” claims, saying it was simply an effort by Combs’ lawyers to prevent jurors from seeing the “damning” Cassie video: “Not a single one of those alleged leaks are from members of the prosecution team,” Johnson said.
The next court date for Combs’ case is currently set for December.
Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a lawsuit claiming Chili’s used more than 60 copyrighted songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and others on social media without permission, just months after the Beastie Boys accused the restaurant chain of the same thing.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (Oct. 10) in Manhattan federal court, the music giant accused Chili’s owner Brinker International Inc. of willfully using unlicensed music in dozens of promotional videos across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
“In order to draw the attention of consumers in the fast-moving world of social media, defendants chose to rely on the use of popular music as an integral part of their Chili’s messaging,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But despite this success, defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs for the music that serves as the soundtrack for Chili’s social media ads.”
Trending on Billboard
In addition to Grande and Bieber, UMG says the videos featured music from dozens of other stars, including Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, ABBA, Luke Bryan, Travis Scott, Bruno Mars, Lil Nas X, Earth Wind & Fire, The Weeknd and more.
The new case comes less than three months after Chili’s was accused of largely the same thing by the Beastie Boys. In that case, which remains pending, the iconic rap trio accuses the restaurant of using their 1994 smash “Sabotage” online, including in a video that mimicked the song’s 1970s-themed music video.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on television.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in promotional TikTok videos, with Universal and Sony eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. And in July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing.
In Tuesday’s case against Chili’s, UMG argued that a sophisticated company with more than 1,600 restaurant locations would have known that it needed sync licenses to use well-known music in ads — or at least that it should have known.
“Defendants include successful companies promoting multiple restaurant franchises with their own legal departments and protecting their own intellectual property interests,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Despite defendants’ prior history of licensing music from plaintiffs for use in commercials, defendants did not seek to determine which of the videos at issue in this complaint used plaintiffs’ musical works.”
Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
A California appeals court has sided with The Offspring in a long-running court case filed by former drummer Ron Welty, rejecting his claims that he was owed millions more from the punk band’s $35 million catalog sale.
Welty’s lawsuit alleged that lead singer Bryan “Dexter” Holland had tried to “erase” his contributions to the Offspring, including by shorting him on the proceeds of the band’s 2015 catalog sale to Round Hill Music. But a Los Angeles judge rejected those accusations last year.
In a ruling Wednesday, California’s Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, saying there had been “no reversible error” in the lower judge’s decision. Welty raised numerous challenges to how the lower judge had handled the case, but the appeals court was not convinced by any of them: “The judgment and order are affirmed.
Trending on Billboard
Welty joined The Offspring in 1987 and served as the band’s drummer during its heyday, including on its 1998 album Americana that reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200, before leaving the band in 2003 on undisclosed terms.
In his sweeping 2020 lawsuit, Welty accused Holland and the other members of numerous forms of wrongdoing: “This lawsuit seeks, among other things, redress for The Offspring’s failure to pay Mr. Welty his rightful share of the band’s proceeds and a prohibition against their ongoing efforts to harm Mr. Welty, his legacy with the band, and his ongoing career.”
Among other allegations, Welty claimed he had been entitled to a bigger cut of the Round Hill deal, in which the company paid $20 million for the rights to the band’s recorded masters — split among the band’s key performers — and another $15 million for the publishing rights, paid directly to Holland.
Welty claimed he deserved some of that publishing money, and argued in his lawsuit that he was owed at least $2.8 million more from the Round Hill transaction. But at a bench trial in 2022, Judge William F. Fahey largely rejected those accusations, calling some them “completely illogical.” During the proceedings, other members of The Offspring had testified that the structure of the deal was fair since Holland had written all of the band’s music.
In a written decision last year, Fahey ruled that the deal had been “structured in accordance with industry standards” and that Welty had failed to prove that he was entitled to a cut of Holland’s $15 million: “It is hard even to envision a reason why these two other band members would agree to such a structure unless they believed that Holland was the creator and owner of the music compositions.”
In March, the judge issued a final judgment in favor of the band, finalizing the earlier rulings and rejecting the rest of Welty’s claims. It was that ruling that was affirmed by Wednesday’s decision at the appeals court.
Following the ruling, Welty’s attorney, Jordanna G. Thigpen, said her client had “great respect” for the appellate court but was “contemplating the next step of appellate review.” Howard King, an attorney for The Offspring, declined to comment.