Legal News
Page: 28
Facing a federal criminal indictment, New York City Mayor Eric Adams has lawyered up by hiring a prominent litigator with extensive music industry experience, including representing Jay-Z and Megan Thee Stallion.
According to Bloomberg Law, Adams will be defended by Alex Spiro of the firm Quinn Emanuel – an attorney who’s risen to fame in recent years repping Elon Musk and other celebrity clients. Most recently, he won a manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over a shooting on the Rust movie set.
The case against Adams, unsealed on Thursday morning, features five federal charges related to bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals who were “seeking to gain influence over him.” The mayor has denied the allegations.
Trending on Billboard
Spiro, one of Billboard’s Top Music Lawyers, is best known in the music industry for representing Jay-Z and his Roc Nation companies in a range of legal matters.
He handled the rapper’s years-long case over a cologne endorsement deal that went bad, eventually beating a demand for $67 million in damages and actually winning the superstar $7 million in unpaid royalties. Spiro also helped Jay-Z, Meek Mill and other stars pen an open letter in support of legislation that would ban prosecutors from using rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases.
He’s currently working on complicated litigation over the looming auction of Damon Dash’s stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records, filing a motion as recently as this week over the rights to the rapper’s iconic debut album Reasonable Doubt.
Another prominent music client for Spiro is Megan Thee Stallion. He repped her for years in contentious litigation against her former record label 1501 Certified Entertainment, in which she claimed she had been duped into signing an “unconscionable” record deal as a young artist.
Spiro is known as an uncompromising litigator who will aggressively defend his clients’ interests, including outside the courtroom. Amid the Megan Thee Stallion case, he told Billboard in a 2022 interview that her record deal amounted to “indentured servitude” for the superstar: “We’re going to very aggressively take depositions, seek accounting for all the money they sucked out of this, and end it once and for all,” Spiro said at the time.
He also represented Megan in her role as a victim and witness the trial of Tory Lanez, who was convicted in 2022 of shooting the star in the foot during a 2020 argument. When defense attorneys opened that trial by arguing that the case was really about “jealousy,” Spiro didn’t mince words in an interview with ABC News: “It’s obviously absurd and an attempt at distraction. [Tory Lanez] shot her and that’s what the case is about.”
In a widely circulated statement on the Adams indictment on Thursday, Spiro assumed that same aggressive posture for his new client: “Federal agents appeared this morning at Gracie Mansion in an effort to create a spectacle (again) and take Mayor Adams phone (again),” Spiro said, as reported by Bloomberg. “He has not been arrested and looks forward to his day in court.“
Other music industry clients for Spiro have included 21 Savage, who he repped following his 2019 detainment by U.S. immigration authorities; Bobby Shmurda, who he defended in his 2016 murder conspiracy case; and a memorabilia auction house called Gotta Have Rock and Roll, who he represented in a recent dispute with the Michael Jackson estate.
With Sean “Diddy” Combs sitting in jail on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges, he faces an uncertain path ahead in the immediate future — with unresolved issues over his detainment and how quickly he’ll face trial.
Combs, who was arrested and charged last week, stands accused of sweeping criminal wrongdoing, including physical abuse, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
After Judge Andrew L. Carter denied him bail on the grounds that Combs posed a flight risk and might intimidate witnesses, the music mogul’s lead attorney Marc Agnifilo suggested he would appeal that ruling to a federal appeals court. But he has not yet filed that appeal, and such a challenge faces long odds.
Until then, Combs will likely remain at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn — a federal correctional facility that has long been criticized for danger and dysfunction. In July, one of New York’s U.S. Congressmen called for an investigation, citing “chronic understaffing, perpetual solitary confinement and widespread violence.” Last month, a federal judge criticized “dangerous, barbaric conditions” at the facility.
In court filings, Agnifilo has called the MDC “horrific” and “not fit for pre-trial detention,” and he suggested at last week’s bail hearing that he would seek to have Combs transferred elsewhere. But Judge Carter told him that decisions on pre-trial jail placement were not within his purview, and in a court filing on Monday, Agnifilo declined to formally ask the judge for a change in jails.
How long will the embattled mogul be waiting at MDC? That depends on when his trial takes place, which is a harder thing to predict than you might think.
Anyone accused of a crime in the U.S. has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, which in federal cases means a jury trial must start within 70 days. Defendants often waive that right to give their attorneys more time to prepare a defense, since prosecutors usually have a head start. But Agnifilo declined to do so last week, saying he was “going to do everything I can to move his case as quickly as possible.”
“I’m going to try and minimize the amount of time he spends in very, very difficult and, I believe, inhumane housing conditions,” Agnifilo said at a press conference on Wednesday.
The demand for a speedy trial suggests that Diddy’s legal team believes there is more advantage to be gained from forcing prosecutors to quickly put their case before a jury, rather than spending more time preparing themselves or attacking the charges with pre-trial motions. The move could allow the government less time to find additional witnesses, and less time to sift through huge amounts of digital records and other evidence. “They’re going to have to accommodate me and him and give us a quick trial, and I’m going to be pushing for that,” Agnifilo said.
But prosecutors can, and very likely will, seek to slow down that timetable.
Under speedy trial rules, the judge can “exclude” certain time from the 70-day timer for a wide variety of reasons. Already, Judge Carter has said in court orders that he will exclude several weeks of time — starting with the Sept. 18 bail hearing and running to the next hearing next month — “in the interest of justice.” The next court date is a status conference currently scheduled for Oct. 9.
Another cause for delay would be if prosecutors filed so-called superseding indictments — an updated version of the case against Diddy. Such a filing could simply add new charges against Diddy based on newly-discovered evidence or testimony, or it could add new defendants to the case — not an unlikely outcome in a case that repeatedly references unnamed co-conspirators in Diddy’s alleged criminal enterprise.
At a press conference announcing the charges, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams suggested that could be exactly what prosecutors are planning. “I can’t take anything off the table,” Williams said. “Anything is possible. Our investigation is very active and ongoing.”
Did an upstart rival steal Britney Spears and her lucrative fragrance business from Revlon? Or is the cosmetics behemoth just upset that the star took her business elsewhere?
In a new legal filing last week, Give Back Beauty fired back at Revlon’s recent federal lawsuit, which accused the smaller company of working with four ex-Revlon execs to “sabotage” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with the Spears.
Revlon’s case called it a “carefully planned and executed” plot to steal the lucrative relationship. But in its response on Friday, Give Back said Revlon was selling that “false narrative” of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.
Trending on Billboard
“Revlon asks the court to accept that tale as the only possible explanation for why Ms. Spears decided to reject Revlon in favor of GBB,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s motion is more accurately an anticompetitive ruse to damage a competitor because Revlon, weakened in the market by its recent bankruptcy, cannot compete fairly with GBB, and seeks to frustrate GBB’s transition of Britney Brands, at the same time, sending a warning about future competition from an international rival that poses a growing threat to Revlon’s market share.”
In 2004, at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Revlon’s Elizabeth Arden to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released “Curious” later that year, it quickly became the top selling perfume of the year and reportedly pulled in more than $100 million in sales. By 2013, “Curious” had reportedly sold more than 500 million bottles and the overall Spears-Arden partnership, featuring many other scents, was earning $30 million a year in sales.
Revlon sued last month, claiming its own staffers had destroyed that business by jumping ship to Give Back and taking the Britney account with them. Accusing them of stealing trade secrets and breaching their contracts, the case even claimed that one exec had “acted as a double-agent” – working with Give Back while ostensibly negotiating with Britney’s team to renew her Revlon deal.
“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 claimed at the time.
Though the case centers on the Spears account, she is not named as a defendant nor accused of any wrongdoing; at the time, a Revlon spokesman said the company wished her “all the best.”A spokesperson for Britney did not return a request for comment on the dispute.
Earlier this month, Revlon asked for an immediate injunction that would sharply restrict Give Back and the ex-employees while the case plays out. It claimed the defendants were “continuing to misuse Revlon’s trade secrets” and that “this wrongful conduct must stop.”
With Friday’s filing, Give Back responded to that motion — arguing there was no need for any kind of restraining order over Revlon’s “baseless” accusations and that the rival can’t show it will suffer the kind of “irreparable” harm required for such a drastic order.
“The court should not countenance plaintiffs’ thinly-veiled attempt to prevent GBB from safeguarding Ms. Spears’ valuable fragrance brand,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.”
In making that argument, Give Back sharply denied many of the lawsuit’s allegations. On the “double agent” claim, it said the ex-employee had been “unaware that GBB was negotiating a deal with Britney Brands and had no involvement in negotiating the agreement.” It also denied that the staffers had stolen any proprietary information or that Give Back had used any such data.
The real purpose of Revlon’s request for the injunction? Attorneys for the defendants says it’s “entirely vindictive” – aimed at “thwarting Ms. Spears’ decision to hire GBB” and “keeping the option for the public to buy Britney Spears-branded fragrances off of the market so long as Revlon is not the distributor.”
A spokesperson for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment.
In addition to Give Back itself, the lawsuit names the four employees — Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass. They are all represented by the same legal team that filed Friday’s motion.
Less than a week after he was indicted on sex trafficking and racketeering charges, Sean “Diddy” Combs is facing yet another civil sexual abuse case, this time claiming that he and another man “viciously raped” a woman at his New York City studio in 2001.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for Thalia Graves say that Combs and his head of security, Joseph Sherman, isolated her, drugged her and sexually assaulted her at his studio. The lawsuit says the rapper also filmed the attack and later showed it to others.
“For decades, she remained silent and did not report the crime out of fear that defendants would use their power to ruin her life, as they had repeatedly, explicitly threatened to do,” writes Graves’ lawyers, who include well-known attorney Gloria Allred. “To this day, plaintiff suffers from severe depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, and still lives in fear of defendants.”
The case is the latest of at least nine similar civil suits filed against Combs over the past year, each of which accuses him of sexual abuse and other wrongdoing. And it comes just a week after he was arrested and indicted by federal prosecutors on sweeping accusations of sex trafficking and racketeering – charges that, if proven, could see him sent to prison for life.
In the new case, Graves claims she was 25 years old at the time of the attack. She says she was dating one of Combs’ employees, and that he exploited the relationship to “lure” her into meeting him and Sherman alone at the studio.
Once alone, Graves alleges they gave her a drink that was “likely laced with a drug that eventually caused her briefly to lose consciousness.” She says she later “awoke to find herself bound and restrained,” at which time the pair “proceeded to brutally sexually abuse” her. Her attorneys say that “both men were undeterred by plaintiff’s cries for help throughout the attack.”
A representative for Combs did not immediately return a request for comment. Sherman could not immediately be located for comment.
Following the attack, Graves says she “never recovered,” suffering suicidal thoughts and other severe emotional damage. And she says any progress in healing was “dramatically reversed” when she learned last year that Combs had filmed the alleged attack and had “shown the video to multiple men.”
“Plaintiff could not believe that Defendants would record themselves committing such a gruesome crime and then proceed proudly and widely to disseminate the recording of it,” her attorneys write. “This action seeks redress for defendants’ brutalizing, misogynistic, and violent attacks.”
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: Nelly faces a copyright lawsuit over his decades-old album Country Grammar; T.I. and his wife Tiny win a shocking $71 million jury verdict against a toymaker; the Michael Jackson estate takes legal action against a sexual abuse accuser; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: A Legal Blast From The Past
Nearly a quarter century after Nelly’s breakout album, he’s now getting sued over it – and by his childhood friends, no less. The case, filed by members of his early-career St. Lunatics group, claims that Nelly (Cornell Haynes) “manipulated” them into thinking they’d be paid for their work on the 2000 album Country Grammar, but that he ultimately cut them out of the credits and the royalty payments. “Every time plaintiffs confronted defendant Haynes [he] would assure them as ‘friends’ he would never prevent them from receiving the financial success they were entitled to,” the lawsuit reads. “Unfortunately, plaintiffs, reasonably believing that their friend and former band member would never steal credit for writing the original compositions, did not initially pursue any legal remedies.” Copyright lawsuits over years-old songs have become a common sight in the music industry over the past decade, thanks largely to a Supreme Court ruling that said such cases were mostly fair game. But the plaintiffs in the current case – which is styled as an infringement lawsuit but appears to really be more of a dispute over ownership – could still face hurdles over their long delay. To understand why, go read our full story on the lawsuit, with access to the actual lawsuit filed against Nelly.
Other top stories this week…
NOT A TINY VERDICT – T.I. and his wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris won a stunning $71 million jury verdict in their lawsuit claiming that toymaker MGA stole the design of a line of “O.M.G.” toy dolls from their real-life teen pop group OMG Girlz. Following a three-week trial, a jury found that MGA infringed both the trade dress and the likeness rights of the OMG Girlz — a defunct trio created by Tiny featuring her daughter Zonnique “Star” Pullins. JACKSON ESTATE ACTION – Michael Jackson’s estate filed an arbitration case against a man who it claims has threatened to resurface ugly abuse allegations ahead of the upcoming release of Michael, a biopic about the King of Pop. According to the estate, the accuser signed a never-before-reported settlement in 2020 that saw him paid $3.3 million in return for signing a non-disclosure agreement, but now he’s threatening to breach the deal if he’s not paid another $213 million. DIDDY STAYS IN JAIL – Sean “Diddy” Combs was once again refused bail in his sex abuse case, after a federal judge ruled that the indicted rapper and music executive would pose a flight risk and might intimidate witnesses if released. His lawyers renewed their request to let him await trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges under house arrest at his Miami mansion, but Judge Andrew L. Carter ruled Diddy must instead wait for the trial in a Brooklyn federal prison. REASONABLE DOUBT? Raise your hand if you had “Jay-Z argues with New York City over arcane issues of intellectual property law” on your 2024 bingo card. With a court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Records looming, lawyers for the superstar and the city are somehow now wrangling over whether he can use copyright termination to retake control of his debut album Reasonable Doubt. That’s a crucial question for anyone who wants to buy Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella – and for a municipal government that’s trying to use the auction to recoup hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support. DOLAN CASE TOSSED – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan of pressuring a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band toured with the Eagles, ruling that his accuser had failed to meet the requirements of a federal sex trafficking law. But the case, which also includes simpler, state-law allegations of sexual battery and aiding and abetting of sexual assault, will likely be refiled in state court. SPICE SETTLEMENT – Ice Spice reached an agreement to end a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from an earlier track called “In That Mood” by a Brooklyn rapper named D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain). Terms of the apparent settlement were not disclosed in court filings. MANILOW BATTLE – Hipgnosis Songs Fund, one of the most influential players in the catalog acquisition market run-up of recent years, is locked in litigation with Barry Manilow – a two-way, trans-Atlantic legal battle that sheds light on the company’s 2020 deal to buy the singer’s royalty income. Billboard’s Elizabeth Dilts Marshall dove deep into the court filings and breaks it all down here.
Trending on Billboard
Hipgnosis Songs Fund, one of the most influential players in the catalog acquisition market run-up of recent years, and Barry Manilow are embroiled in a pair of lawsuits over $1.5 million in unpaid bonuses Manilow’s team claims Hipgnosis agreed to when it acquired his catalog.
Hipgnosis Songs Fund sued first in the High Court in London on August 12, saying they do not owe Manilow these bonuses, and that Manilow, Manilow Productions and Stiletto Entertainment are in breach of contract for not turning over certain payments they received from Sony Music. The “Mandy” singer and his management company sued back in United States federal court in California on Aug. 28, claiming that Hipgnosis does owe Manilow $1.5 million in bonuses, and that the fund did not actively promote his work, thereby avoiding these performance-linked bonuses — logic Hipgnosis calls flawed.
In other circumstances, this may have been treated like a mundane contract dispute. But Manilow’s legal team allege in the suit that Hipgnosis, through its founder Merck Mercuriadis — the man behind the formerly London-listed fund’s famous appetite for acquisitions — falsely represented that it had the people and know-how to increase the money generated by Manilow’s master recordings. Mercuriadis is not party to either lawsuit, and through a spokesperson he declined to comment for this article.
Trending on Billboard
According to a copy of the contract included in Hipgnosis’ lawsuit, the company acquired 100% of Manilow’s worldwide income (excluding SoundExchange royalties) from his master recordings for $7.5 million. Two bonus payments were to be paid out if, for the first payment, the income Hipgnosis received from its share of the assets increased by at least 10% year-on-year compounding for each of the first three years; and if, for the second payment, the income Hipgnosis received increased by at least 10% year-on-year compounding for years one through four.
Manilow’s legal team says in its suit that Hipgnosis described promotional strategies that included album reissues, special compilations and synch deals, as well as less traditional strategies like a YouTube Karaoke channel, Instagram giphy packs and Copacabana-themed dance trends.
“Hipgnosis did not carry out a single one of its touted promotional strategies; upon information and belief, it did nothing at all in order to keep the cash income below the levels required to meet the condition precedent for the additional purchase price payments,” Manilow and Stiletto Entertainment’s legal team alleges in the complaint. Manilow also missed out on expected complementary increases in the value of his publishing royalties and his Las Vegas residency, they claim in the suit.
In its suit, Hipgnosis alleges that Manilow, Manilow Productions and Stiletto Entertainment breached their contract that laid out when bonuses would be paid because Manilow & co. received two royalty payments from Sony — for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2022, and January 1 to June 30, 2023 — that they ought to have turned over to Hipgnosis but didn’t. In addition, Hipgnosis says in the lawsuit that Sony Music suspended payment of royalties for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2023. Sony Music through a spokesperson declined to comment.
Regardless, Hipgnosis says in the suit it does not owe the bonuses because the income received never met the performance targets, and it is seeking to recover 100,000 pounds from Manilow and his production and management teams.
“The matter of the bonus payment is a routine contractual matter regarding interpretation of certain contract clauses,” a Hipgnosis spokesman said in an emailed statement. “While we regret that this couldn’t be resolved directly between the parties, the court is now best placed to offer a final and definitive opinion on this matter. We have full confidence in our position and the legal process.”
Representatives for Hipgnosis also dispute Manilow’s team’s logic that Hipgnosis did not promote his works so as to keep the income levels below the thresholds that would trigger the bonus payouts, saying that logic is false because acquisition deals are structured to incentivize Hipgnosis to optimize the asset. Performance bonuses by definition are paid out when the asset does well, which benefits the artist and Hipgnosis, they say.
“Hipgnosis’ model is based on a strong alignment of interest between songwriters and artists and our business,” Hipgnosis’ spokesperson said in the emailed statement. “We continue to hold Barry and his music in the highest possible regard. To suggest that Hipgnosis would deliberately withhold promotional efforts for these recordings would not make commercial sense. These claims are baseless, and we will defend them vigorously should that be necessary.”
Manilow’s case is currently a one-off. However, the board of Hipgnosis Songs Fund said that, as of Sept. 30, 2023, it was liable to pay out as much as $68.1 million in catalog bonus provisions across 10 catalogs, of which the disputed Manilow bonuses are just one. Hipgnosis Songs Fund has since been taken private by Blackstone and no longer discloses this level of financial data.
T.I. and his wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris won a stunning $71 million jury verdict Monday in their lawsuit claiming that toymaker MGA stole the design of a line of “O.M.G.” toy dolls from their real-life teen pop group OMG Girlz.
As first reported by Law360, jurors awarded the couple and their companies the huge award after finding that MGA’s dolls infringed both the trade dress and the likeness rights of the OMG Girlz — a defunct musical trio created by Tiny and featuring her daughter Zonnique “Star” Pullins.
Following a three-week trial and a day of deliberations, the jurors awarded the rapper and his wife $17.9 million in actual damages and another $53.6 million in punitive damages. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Trending on Billboard
The legal battle began in 2021, with T.I. (real name Clifford Harris) and Tiny claiming that MGA had committed both “cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property” by stealing the look of a group of “young multicultural women.”
Their complaint against MGA included side-by-side images, aiming to show how each OMG doll was directly based on a particular member of the OMG Girlz – Pullins, Bahja “Beauty” Rodriguez, and Breaunna “Babydoll” Womack.
MGA maintained that it had done nothing wrong — that the dolls were more often branded as L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G., and that consumers would not confuse the toys for the “short-lived” band.
Over three years of litigation, the case already went to trial twice. The first trial, in January 2023, ended in a mistrial after jurors heard inadmissible testimony featuring accusations of racism against MGA. The second trial then ended in a verdict for MGA, with jurors clearing the company of wrongdoing. But that verdict was later overturned on appeal, setting the stage for yet another trial.
On the third try, the outcome swung in favor of T.I. and Tiny. In a livestream on Instagram following the verdict, she said it had been “a hell of a fight” but that “we couldn’t be more happy.”
“We wanted to thank the jurors for just seeing us through this, and just believing in what we said,” she said in the video. “They heard our story and they knew we wasn’t lying. It’s amazing.”
MGA can still appeal the verdict and the damages award, first by asking the judge to set them aside and then by taking the case to a federal appeals court.
Ice Spice has reached an agreement to end a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
The case, filed earlier this year by a rapper named D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain), claimed that Ice Spice’s song – which spent 16 weeks on the Hot 100 in 2023 – was “strikingly similar” to his own 2021 track “In That Mood.”
But in a motion filed in federal court Friday, attorneys for both sides said they had agreed to resolve the lawsuit. Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed in court filings, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Trending on Billboard
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
In a lawsuit filed in January, D.Chamberz claimed that the two songs share so many similarities that the overlaps “cannot be purely coincidental.” He said the similar elements “go [to] the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys wrote at the time. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
The lawsuit claimed the earlier song received “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1, giving Ice Spice and others behind her track a chance to hear it.
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
In April, the defendants formally denied the lawsuit’s allegations, but the case remained in the earliest stages when Friday’s agreement was reached.
Attorneys for Jay-Z are now sparring with lawyers for New York City over whether he can use copyright termination to retake control of his debut album Reasonable Doubt – a crucial question ahead of court-ordered auction of Roc-A-Fella Records co-founder Damon Dash’s one-third stake in the label.
The city’s child services agency, which wants to collect the more than $193,000 that Dash owes in unpaid child support, warned a federal judge in court filings last week that Jay-Z was using “false” threats of an approaching termination to drive down the price of Dash’s stake in his company.
“Jay-Z’s statements to the press have poisoned the environment for the auction,” wrote Gerald Singleton, an attorney for the city. “Those statements are false and extremely damaging to the City’s interests in ensuring that the auction will generate sufficient funds to satisfy all existing child support arrearages and secure future child support payments.”
Trending on Billboard
But on Monday, longtime Jay-Z lawyer Alex Spiro fired right back on behalf of Roc-A-Fella, saying neither the rapper nor his company had issued any such statements and that there was “no merit to NYC’s accusations.” But he also confirmed that Jay-Z was in fact seeking to use termination to take back the album, Reasonable Doubt, in 2031 – and that prospective buyers could make up their own minds about what that means.
“Potential bidders have every right to assess whether they believe the notice of termination would be effective in 2031,” Spiro told the judge.
As early as next month, the U.S. Marshals Service will sell off Dash’s 33.3% interest in Roc-A-Fella Inc., an entity whose only real asset is the sound recording copyright to Reasonable Doubt. Though the court-ordered auction was originally intended to pay off an $823,000 judgment in a civil lawsuit, New York City jumped into the case over Dash’s child support debt. The state of New York later did the same, claiming Dash owes more than $8.7 million in back taxes and penalties.
The owners of the other two-thirds of Roc-A-Fella — label co-founders 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, and the sale could take place as early as Oct. 21.
As the auction approaches, a minimum purchase price has been set at $3 million. But it has remained unclear what exactly a potential winner would be buying.
Streaming and other royalties from Reasonable Doubt would likely provide a buyer with a revenue stream; since its 1996 release, the album 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.
Another key question mark for buyers – and the source of this week’s dispute with NYC – is just how long Roc-A-Fella will continue to own its only real asset.
The termination right, a provision created by congress in the 1970s, empowers authors to reclaim ownership of copyrighted works decades after selling them away. If Jay is eligible for it, termination would allow him to win back the rights to his sound recording of Reasonable Doubt roughly 35 years after he released the album, meaning 2031.
But in their court filing on Friday, attorneys for New York City child services said Jay-Z was not, in fact, eligible for termination. They argued that he had created the album as so-called “work for hire” under a written contract with Roc-A-Fella – meaning the company had always been the legal owner of the copyright, and there were no rights to Jay to take back in the first place.
“He has claimed that he has a termination right under the Copyright Act and that the rights to Reasonable Doubt will revert to him in six years,” wrote Singleton, the NYC attorney. “In fact, he has no such termination right and RAF is entitled to the renewal term [and] will own the copyright rights until the year 2098.”
To address the problem, the city asked the judge to issue a definitive ruling on whether Jay-Z is eligible for termination – and to postpone the auction until he does so.
But in his response Monday, Spiro argued that the city “has no right to seek such a ruling.” He said the demand was premature, since Jay-Z will not formally take back the album until 2031, and that a city agency had no legal standing to raise such questions in court.
“Put simply, this is not the appropriate time, forum, or case to litigate any issues relating to Jay-Z’s notice of termination,” Spiro wrote. “This Court should therefore reject NYC’s request for an impermissible advisory opinion as to the effectiveness of Jay-Z’s notice of termination.”
Michael Jackson’s estate has filed a legal action against a man who it claims has threatened to resurface ugly abuse allegations ahead of the upcoming release of a biopic about the King of Pop, according to multiple media reports.
As detailed by both the Washington Informer and the Financial Times on Friday, Jackson’s estate has filed a private arbitration case against the unnamed accuser, claiming his alleged threats violate an earlier, never-before-reported settlement over the abuse accusations.
In the arbitration case, the estate reportedly alleges that the earlier settlement — struck in 2020 — saw the accuser paid $3.3 million in return for signing a non-disclosure agreement. But the estate reportedly claims he’s now threatening to breach the agreement if he’s not paid another $213 million.
Trending on Billboard
In an interview with the Informer, estate executor John Branca reportedly said: “The associate’s lawyer even said to us, ‘If you don’t meet our demands, we’re going to have to share these allegations with a wider group of people.’ It was a shakedown. Enough is enough.”
The name of Jackson’s accuser and the details of his supposed allegations were not disclosed in media reports. It’s unclear when the arbitration case was filed, or what exactly it alleges. The Jackson estate would not confirm the accuracy of the reports and declined to comment on the matter.
The article from the Financial Times reported that the Jackson estate had also referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. A spokesman for that office did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard.
The threats to go public come as the Jackson estate prepares for the premiere of Michael, a movie about the singer’s life starring his nephew Jaafar Jackson in the titular role. The biopic, directed by Antoine Fuqua, is set for release in April 2025.
Jackson, who died suddenly in 2009, was never convicted or held legally liable on any accusation of child molestation, but is still dogged by such allegations. Two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, continue to claim Jackson sexually abused them as children, spending the last decade pursuing civil lawsuits. And their allegations were amplified in 2019 by HBO docuseries Leaving Neverland, which laid out their claims in disturbing detail.
The Jackson estate has always vehemently denied all such claims, pointing out that the singer was acquitted in a 2005 criminal trial and arguing that his accusers are simply seeking monetary gain from an artist who cannot defend himself because defamation law does not extend to dead individuals.
Shortly before Leaving Neverland aired, the estate sued HBO over the series, claiming that “Michael Jackson is innocent. Period.” The case claimed the network had breached a decades-old contract that it signed to air a Jackson concert back in 1992, which included a provision banning HBO from making “any disparaging remarks” about the singer.
That lawsuit was eventually sent to private arbitration in 2019, where it remains pending. The status of such arbitration cases, similar to the one reported on Friday, are intentionally kept more private than traditional litigation and are difficult to ascertain from public records.