Legal News
Page: 29
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from R. Kelly over his 2022 convictions on child pornography and enticement charges, leaving him with no further direct appeals from a verdict that saw him sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Kelly’s attorneys had urged the high court to take up the case, in which a federal jury in Chicago convicted him in September 2022, by arguing that the case should have been barred by the statute of limitations.
But in an order Monday, the justices declined to tackle the case. As is typical, the court did not explain its decision to reject Kelly’s case along with dozens of others. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions per year and only decides to hear a tiny fraction them.
Monday’s order dealt only one of Kelly’s two sets of sex abuse convictions. The other — a September 2021 guilty verdict on racketeering charges brought by prosecutors in New York that resulted in a 30-year prison sentence — is still pending on appeal before a lower appellate court.
In the current case, a different team of federal prosecutors from Chicago accused Kelly of violating child pornography laws, enticing minors for sex and obstructing justice by upending a 2008 criminal trial.
Though he was acquitted on certain counts, Kelly was convicted in September 2022 and later sentenced to 20 years in prison; the vast majority of that sentence will be served concurrently with the New York sentence. The conviction was affirmed by a lower appeals court earlier this year.
In asking the justices to consider overturning that ruling, Kelly’s attorney Jennifer Bonjean cited the statute of limitations. She said that an updated federal law extending the time limit, passed in 2003, could not be applied retroactively to Kelly’s alleged crimes, which occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
“Retroactive application of the 2003 amendment not only fly in the face of congressional intent,” Bonjean writes. “It violates notions of fundamental fairness.”
Barring an unusual outcome at some point in the future, Monday’s decision effectively finalized Kelly’s convictions and sentencing in the Chicago case. The separate convictions in the New York case could still be overturned, however, either by the lower appeals court or by the Supreme Court.
Kelly’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.
RBD‘s five members — Maite Perroni, Christian Chávez and Christopher von Uckermann — announced on Friday (Oct. 4) that “the matter has concluded.”
Rosas and RBD parted ways in January after the Mexican band’s ultra-successful Soy Rebelde World Tour. In May, RBD revealed in a statement issued by its lawyers that there were “significant irregularities” revealed in a forensic accounting investigation led by Critin Cooperman — a services firm that acted as a business manager for the tour and had also conducted a financial audit.
In a statement shared on Friday (Oct. 4) — known to fans as World RBD Day — Perroni, Chávez and von Uckermann wrote: “As set forth in the final agreement, T6H, through its owner Guillermo Rosas, was claiming that Guillermo’s company was entitled to $10,072,811.00 in connection with Guillermo and his company’s management of RBD’s live performance tour in the U.S., Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. Following our filing of a complaint against Guillermo and his company in both Federal Court and with the California Labor Commissioner, in addition to a thorough audit we commissioned, T6H agreed as part of the final settlement agreement to accept the sum of $4,723,591.00, an amount which is $5,349,220.00 less than what Guillermo was claiming to be owed.”
Trending on Billboard
Notably, RBD’s other two members, Anahí and Dulce María, did not sign on to the letter. An RBD representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on their absence.
In December, RBD wrapped its massive world tour, which as of Nov. 30 had grossed $197.1 million since launching in August. Rosas also worked with the band as a concert promoter from 2006 to 2008. Under a new business model designed for RBD’s comeback tour, the group’s first trek in 15 years, the five members and Rosas were deemed equal partners in a new joint venture, splitting all new revenue, including for music.
The statement continues: “This is why we made the decision to take action in this situation. We felt a responsibility to address the challenges that can arise in the industry, with our priority being the protection of artists rights. This is a reminder for young artists to have the courage to stand up for themselves and demand respect. We are very satisfied with the outcome of our action and will continue to advocate for justice and respect in the artistic world.”
Billboard reached out to Guillermo Rosas but had not heard back at press time.
Read Perroni, Chávez and von Uckermann’s statement below in Spanish, Portuguese and English:
Rebel Wilson is countersuing The Deb producers Amanda Ghost, Cameron Gregor and Vince Holden, accusing them of a “troubling pattern” of “theft, bullying and sexual misconduct.”
The cross-complaint comes months after Ghost, Gregor and Holden sued Wilson for defamation in July after she initially accused them of sexual harassment and embezzlement in an Instagram video. The producing trio alleged in their lawsuit that Wilson lied in an attempt to release her movie The Deb — which Wilson directors, produced and starred in — at the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival, as well as secure a writing credit on the film.
Wilson’s new suit alleges that Ghost was sexually harassing the film’s lead actress, Charlotte MacInnes, and “forced MacInnes to live in her Bondi Beach penthouse apartment with her,” where “Ghost took a shower and a bath with MacInnes.” It also claimed that “Ghost was overheard making overtly sexual remarks to MacInnes on set.”
In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, MacInnes said, “There is no truth to the allegations made involving me. I made a statement to the film team when this was first said in September 2023, and I am saying this again now to draw a line under it. Making false accusations undermines real victims, and I won’t be the subject of a fabricated narrative.”
In Wilson’s suit, Ghost, Gregor and Holden are also accused of scheming to inflate the film’s budget and pocket the excess funds, according to the complaint. The suit said they “embezzled AU $900,000 from the film’s budget to be split between them.”
When Wilson reported the allegations to executive producer Danny Cohen, which he allegedly ignored, according to the suit, that’s when the producing trio “orchestrated a malicious and unyielding retaliatory campaign directed at her.”
Wilson claimed that the ongoing threats and intimidation tactics led her to hire “personal security on the set of The Deb,” so she could finish filming. The complaint also alleged that Gregor threatened to “terminate” the project and “fire its approximately 300 cast and crew members,” unless she signed a document “stating she withdrew her complaint about Ghost’s sexual misconduct” allegations.
Wilson’s attorney Bryan Freedman wrote in a statement, “Amanda Ghost, Cameron Gregor, and Vince Holden attempted to manipulate the narrative by recklessly filing an outlandish lawsuit. Their real problem? Only a fraction of their outrageous conduct has been revealed thus far. In their desperation to shift the story, they neglected to consider that this strategy would only lead to RW’s filing of a cross-complaint which exhibits a plethora of their shocking misconduct which there are many witnesses to. Many brave people have come forward who have had similar dealings with Amanda Ghost. While unfortunate, this was not a surprise. Stay tuned, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more to come.”
THR has reached out to reps for Cohen, Ghost, Gregor, and Holden for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
After Garth Brooks was accused of rape and other sexual misconduct in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles on Thursday (Oct. 3), the country star has responded and insists he is “not the man they have painted me to be.” The allegations come from an unnamed woman who claims Brooks sexually assaulted her while she […]
Country music star Garth Brooks is facing a lawsuit over allegations that he sexually assaulted an unnamed woman while she worked for him as a hairstylist and makeup artist.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 3) in Los Angeles court, attorneys for the anonymous Jane Roe accuser claim Brooks raped her during a May 2019 stay in a Los Angeles hotel room and also exposed her to “other appalling sexual conduct” during that same year.
The lawsuit claims that the singer took advantage of the accuser’s mounting financial troubles to subject her to “a side of Brooks that he conceals from the public.”
“This side of Brooks believes he is entitled to sexual gratification when he wants it, and using a female employee to get it is fair game,” Roe’s attorneys write.
Trending on Billboard
Notably, the accuser also alleges that Brooks was behind a mysterious lawsuit filed last month, obtained by Billboard, in which an anonymous “celebrity” plaintiff sued in Mississippi federal court over an an unnamed accuser’s sexual abuse allegations. Calling the accusations false and an “ongoing attempted extortion,” the earlier case asked a judge to stop her from further publicizing them.
“The abusive Mississippi action by Brooks is a blatant attempt to further control and bully his sexual assault victims by utilizing his multimillionaire resources to game the legal system,” Roe’s lawyers write in Thursday’s complaint. “Brooks is desperate to prevent his millions of fans from learning about the horrific things he has said and done to a junior female employee who did nothing to deserve such treatment.”
A representative for Brooks did not immediately return a request for comment.
In her lawsuit, the plaintiff claims she began working in 1999 for Brooks’ wife, Trisha Yearwood, but started to work for Brooks in 2017. When she experienced financial difficulties in 2019, she says Brooks offered to help her by giving her more work.
The first alleged incident occurred earlier in 2019, when Brooks allegedly emerged from the shower naked and forced the accuser to touch his erect penis and said he had fantasized about her performing oral sex on him. She says she denied his advances but continued to work for him.
Months later, in May, Roe claims that when she and Brooks stayed together in a Los Angeles hotel, he booked only a single room for both of them. She claims that during their stay, he violently raped her in the room.
During the months that followed, the plaintiff claims Brooks repeatedly acted inappropriately toward her in other ways, including sending sexually explicit text messages, physically groping her breasts, and making sexually charged remarks toward her.
“We applaud our client’s courage in moving forward with her complaint against Garth Brooks,” said the accuser’s attorneys, from the prominent plaintiff’s firm Wigdor LLP. “The complaint filed today demonstrates that sexual predators exist not only in corporate America, Hollywood and in the rap and rock and roll industries but also in the world of country music.”
Though Brooks has not yet responded to Thursday’s lawsuit, documents filed in the earlier mystery case in Mississippi tell what appears to be his side of the story.
After a former professional associate “encountered financial difficulties” and asked for financial assistance in 2020, the lawsuit says that the unnamed celebrity plaintiff “complied out of loyalty” and offered help. But when he eventually refused her increasing demands, inclduing for salaried employment and medical benefits, the lawsuit says the woman responded with “false and outrageous allegations of sexual misconduct.”
Later, the unnamed woman allegedly “offered to refrain from publicly filing her false and defamatory lawsuit against plaintiff in exchange for a multi-million dollar payment” — a demand that the lawsuit called “extortion.”
“Defendant’s allegations are not true,” the unnamed celebrity wrote in last month’s lawsuit. “Defendant is well aware, however, of the substantial, irreparable damage such false allegations would do to Plaintiff’s well-earned reputation as a decent and caring person, along with the unavoidable damage to his family and the irreparable damage to his career and livelihood that would result if she made good on herthreat to ‘publicly file’ her fabricated lawsuit.”
For years, Hollywood talent managers have grumbled at a California law that puts them in danger of losing their commissions if they’re found to have engaged in activities related to obtaining work for their clients.
The issue relates to the Talent Agencies Act, a licensing scheme that was originally enacted to regulate agents and ensure that they’re acting in their clients’ best interests. The law says that only licensed agents can “procure” work in the entertainment business and that managers caught doing the same can have their contracts voided and commissions forfeited. Although lawmakers’ intent was to prevent unscrupulous business dealings, like conflicts of interests, it grew to be used as a sword largely wielded by talent to sidestep having to pay commissions. At least $250 million in fees have been nullified over the last 55 years, per the trade group representing managers in the entertainment industry.
But in 2020, a former CAA employee recognized a quirk in the law that managers could take advantage of. By his thinking, obtaining a license to secure work opportunities for clients wasn’t required if you could tolerate the risk of getting sued and losing the commission.
Trending on Billboard
“It looks like there is a ‘gray area’ on how managers are supposed to technically procure material since they don’t have a license form the California Labor Commission,” this unidentified ex-CAA employee wrote in an email. “However as long as the artist doesn’t sue the manager … looks like managers are fine?”
The theory outlined in that message became the central business model for Range Media Partners, a management and brand development firm founded later that year by departing partners from a series of agencies, according to a lawsuit filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court from CAA against the company. It seeks a court order blocking Range from further violating the TAA by engaging in activities reserved for licensed agents and representing Writers Guild of America members without permission from the guild, which would effectively foreclose core functions related to securing work opportunities for talent.
The thrust of the complaint is grounded in Range allegedly stealing confidential information to poach clients, but its scope reaches the heart of the firm’s business dealings. CAA claims that Range, which didn’t respond to a request for comment, is actually just a rival talent agency masquerading as a management company, allowing it to skirt laws and guild agreements that give it an unfair advantage over competitors. In practice, Range is performing all the tasks of a talent agency, while also structuring deals in ways that agencies cannot, the lawsuit says. One example: the company can offer high-profile clients the ability to avoid paying a commission in favor of giving it a producer fee or credit on their project.
“The Range Founders told at least some of these CAA clients that they did not ‘need’ a talent agent to procure work for them, because Range could do it all,” states the major talent agency’s complaint, which flags stolen confidential information on client negotiations, revenues, preferences, interests and upcoming projects, among other things.
In a pitch deck to investors, Range proclaimed itself as the “revolutionary” successor to CAA and Endeavor, according to the lawsuit. It touted plans to “recruit high end representatives away from their current incumbent,” and to “rethink the system of representation,” with “production services as a cash cow.”
Since its inception four years ago, Range has surfaced as a competitor — albeit a small one — in a talent agency landscape that’s consolidated into three major players after CAA in 2022 closed its acquisition of ICM Partners. It’s drawn investments from hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen’s Point72 Ventures, media mogul John Malone’s Liberty Global, TPG founder David Bonderman’s Wildcat Capital, family entertainment company Playground Productions and A+E Networks, which serves as a co-producer on scripted TV projects set up at the company.
Range’s emergence coincides with a time in which talent is questioning whether they even want an agent. After the Writers Guild of America in 2019 sued Hollywood’s four biggest talent agencies in a fight over packaging fees and agency-owned production entities, thousands of writers fired their agents, with some power players, like Damon Lindelof, never hiring them back. Some, including Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio, haven’t had agents for years. Those two megastars have their interests represented by Rick Yorn of business management firm LBI Entertainment as Hollywood evolves into a business where there’s often overlapping responsibilities between agents and managers. In practice, both provide career advice and engage in activities related to getting clients work.
Amid this shift, agents are increasingly pivoting to management. Theresa Kang-Lowe and Phil Sun have both left WME in recent years to start their own management firms. Dave Bugliari, Mackenzie Condon Roussos, Rich Cook, Michael Cooper, Susie Fox, Sandra Kang, Rachel Kropa, Chelsea McKinnies, Peter Micelli, Mick Sullivan and Jack Whigham all left top agencies to become founding partners at Range. Some of the ex-CAA employees who left for Range are in arbitration with the agency over cancelled equity.
“Before, the agents were the most powerful. Period,” UTA CEO and cofounder Jeremy Zimmer told Vanity Fair last year of the rise of management firms. “Now there might be a splitting of the power.”
Still, the gambit could backfire on management firms engaged in “procuring” work for clients. The Deftones in 1997 filed a complaint with the California labor commission seeking to void agreements with ex-manager Dave Park for violations of the TAA. A commissioner later voided fees on the basis that Park secured 84 performances for the band. Marathon Entertainment owner Rick Siegal later sued the state Attorney General in a lawsuit claiming it’s unconstitutional to enforce the law on talent managers. After he lost that case, nearly 200 talent managers supported his appeal to challenge the TAA, which still stands.
In its lawsuit, CAA argues that the TAA bars Range from engaging in activities related to obtaining work for clients and that civil lawsuits from talent can’t be the only recourse. But it remains to be seen whether the agency has the right to pursue a court order blocking further violations of the law since it may not have been directly harmed by the conduct.
In that scenario, it may be up to the WGA, which didn’t respond a request for comment, to take action against Range if it’s found to have violated rules related to securing work for clients. CAA alleges that the company is violating a guild rule barring agencies from acting as packaging agents or owning a major stake in a production entity.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
A producer who worked on Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours is suing the creators of the hit Broadway play Stereophonic, claiming they stole material from his memoir about working on the legendary album.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Oct. 2) in Manhattan federal court, Ken Caillat and co-author Steven Stiefel call the Tony Award-winning show an “unauthorized adaptation” of their 2012 book Making Rumours — and accuse playwright David Adjmi of “flagrant and willful infringement.”
“Stereophonic copies the heart and soul of Making Rumours,” attorneys for Caillat and Stiefel write in their complaint. “The striking similarity is readily apparent right from the beginning of the show.”
Trending on Billboard
Featuring the music of Arcade Fire’s Will Butler, Stereophonic debuted on Broadway last fall, eventually winning five Tony Awards including best play, best direction of a play and best featured actor in a play.
Critics quickly noted the similarities to the infamous story of the recording session for Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours, which featured high tensions and heavy drug usage. A reviewer for the Wall Street Journal said the play was “fictionalizing Fleetwood Mac”; another critic said the play “isn’t literally about Fleetwood Mac, but c’mon.”
In their lawsuit, Caillat and Stiefel say the hit play “presents a nearly identical story arc as Making Rumours,” told from the same perspective of a sound engineer in a recording studio, about five characters who are “undeniably analogous to the members of Fleetwood Mac.”
“Stereophonic is undoubtedly a play based on plaintiffs’ memoir Making Rumours because substantial similarities exist between the two works, a reality that has been independently confirmed by those familiar with plaintiffs’ book who have also had the opportunity to review the play,” the duo’s lawyers write.
The new case presents tricky legal questions. Under U.S. law, historical events cannot be monopolized under copyrights, and nobody can claim exclusive ownership over the real story behind the making of Rumours. But specific creative elements of how such a story is told can be protected by copyrights, and film, TV and stage producers often license non-fiction books as the basis for their works.
In their case, Caillat and Stiefel claim that Adjmi copied those exact kinds of creative choices when he created his play: “Stereophonic’s audience not only sits in the same place that Mr. Caillat sat, but the show also depicts Mr. Caillat’s wild ride as it is described in Making Rumours.”
Adjmi is no stranger to copyright litigation. Back in 2014, he filed a preemptive lawsuit over his off-Broadway show called 3C, which riffed on the sitcom Three’s Company. In that case, filed after the sitcom’s owners threatened litigation, Adjmi argued the play was clearly a legal parody of the earlier show. And he eventually won, securing a ruling that his play was a legal “fair use” of the famous show.
In their complaint, Caillat and Stiefel noted that earlier case, but pointedly argued that such a defense would not work this time around: “Stereophonic is not a parody, and it is not in any way a fair use of Making Rumours.”
Reps for Adjmi did not immediately return requests for comment.
A federal judge is refusing to wade into whether Jay-Z can use copyright termination to retake control of the rights to his debut album Reasonable Doubt — meaning that the complex issue won’t be resolved before a court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in the company that owns the album.
The judge had been asked to decide that tricky question because of allegations that Jay-Z was using “false” threats of a looming termination to drive down the auction price for Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Records Inc., which controls the rights to the famous album.
But in a ruling Monday (Sept. 30), Judge Robert W. Lehrburger flatly refused to do so — saying he had no legal power to add complicated questions of copyright law to the already-messy fight over Dash’s stake.
Trending on Billboard
“The asset that is the subject of the auction is Dash’s one-third interest in RAF [Roc-A-Fella] itself, not the work owned by RAF,” the judge wrote. “The Court does not presently have jurisdiction over the validity of Carter’s copyright termination notice.”
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. The rest of the storied label, which Dash co-founded with Jay-Z in 1994, is not involved.
Though the court-ordered auction was originally intended to pay off an $823,000 judgment in a civil lawsuit, it has since expanded to include other Dash creditors. New York City’s child services agency wants some of the proceeds to go toward more than $193,000 that Dash owes in unpaid child support; New York state says they must pay down roughly $8.7 million that Dash owes 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 this month.
As the auction has approached, one major unresolved question for any potential buyer is just how long Roc-A-Fella will continue to own its only real valuable asset.
The so-called termination right, a provision created by Congress in the 1970s, empowers authors to reclaim ownership of copyrighted works decades after they sold them away. If Jay-Z is eligible for it, termination would allow him to take back the rights to his sound recording of Reasonable Doubt roughly 35 years after he released the album, meaning 2031. That would set a clear time limit on the amount of revenue a Roc-A-Fella buyer would derive from their investment.
But last month, attorneys for New York City filed court papers arguing that Jay-Z was not, in fact, eligible for termination — and that he and others were 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, asking the judge to halt the auction and issue a ruling on whether or not Jay-Z could use termination to win back control of Reasonable Doubt.
Days later, Jay-Z lawyer Alex Spiro responded that there was “no merit to NYC’s accusations,” and that the Dash case was not the proper place to decide Jay-Z’s rights to the album: “Put simply, this is not the appropriate time, forum, or case to litigate any issues relating to Jay-Z’s notice of termination.”
In Monday’s ruling, Judge Lehrburger agreed with Spiro and Jay-Z: “[NYC]’s motion to stay the auction for purposes of having this court determine the validity of the copyright termination notice filed by Shawn Carter a/k/a Jay-Z in connection with the work Reasonable Doubt, an asset owned by RAF, is denied.”
The judge also rejected New York City’s attempt to conduct discovery into Roc-A-Fella’s holdings, saying that kind of investigation was also beyond the scope of the current litigation. An attorney for the city declined to comment on the order.
The auction is currently scheduled for Oct. 21, but it has been postponed multiple times and could be delayed again. A minimum purchase price has been set at $3 million.
Facing a federal court order to turn over all his copies of a rare Wu-Tang Clan album, Martin Shkreli is warning a judge that he can’t remember all the people with whom he shared the album – and that it’s “highly likely” that other people still have copies.
In August, Judge Pamela K. Chen ordered Shkreli to hand over any copies of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, an ultra-rare Wu-Tang album that he once owned but was forced to forfeit to federal prosecutors to help pay restitution after he was convicted of securities fraud.
In a sworn statement on Monday, Shkreli promised the judge that he had turned over all copies that he could find in his possession. But he also said he didn’t know exactly who he had shared it with, and that some of them probably still have copies.
Trending on Billboard
“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.”
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. His attorneys had argued Shkreli 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.
Responding to the injunction order on Monday, 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 Judge Chen’s injunction also included another requirement: That he divulge the “names and contact information of the individuals to whom he distributed the data and files.” On that front, Shkreli offered less info on Monday.
“Between 2015 and 2021, I recall occasionally sharing the musical work, primarily by sending digital files of the musical work to others via email, [and] also saved copies of the musical work on USB or other drives and gave those drives to others,” Shkreli said, before saying that he “cannot recall” each of those occasions.
He also told the judge that he had “shared the musical work on my social media pages or livestreams” on at least three occasions, including once in 2023 and again in 2024. It was during these public postings, Shkreli said, that someone likely created copies of the album.
Both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Monday’s filing.
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: A civil war within the Fugees as Pras sues Lauryn Hill for fraud; the latest on Diddy’s legal drama, including an appeal and two new lawsuits; New York mayor Eric Adams hires Jay-Z’s lawyer to defend him against federal criminal charges; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Fugee Feud
The Fugees — a hip hop trio made up of Lauryn Hill, Wyclef Jean and Pras Michel — rose to fame in the mid-1990s with hits like “Killing Me Softly,” “Ready or Not” and “Fu-Gee-La,” launching solo careers for all three. But 25 years later, it appears something is rotten in the state of Fugee.
In a scathing lawsuit Tuesday (Oct. 1) that took personal shots at Hill, Pras accused his bandmate of fraud and breach of contract. He claimed that she had exploited his need for cash amid mounting legal problems to get him to sign onto a plan for a 2023 tour in which she enriched herself at his expense.
Trending on Billboard
“It did not matter to Hill if she took full advantage of Michel’s vulnerability — her friend and creative partner of over 30 years,” his lawyers wrote. “In fact, she counted on exploiting that vulnerability to carry out her scheme.”
Michel also pinned the blame on Hill for the group’s recently canceled 2024 tour, which had been set to kick off in early August but was quietly called off just days before it was set to start. He cited her “gross mismanagement” as a key factor behind poor ticket sales.
Hill quickly responded with a detailed rebuttal, calling it “a baseless lawsuit” that was full of “false claims and unwarranted attacks.” She said Pras had omitted key details — like that she had expanded the tours specifically to help him pay his legal bills and had secured him advances that had not yet been paid back.
For more details on the lawsuit and Hill’s response, go read our entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY, DIDDY & MORE DIDDY – It was a busy week for the indicted hip hop mogul, who stands accused of federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Most notably, his lawyers formally launched an appeal of a judge’s ruling denying him bail, marking their latest effort to get him released ahead of his trial. He was also hit with two new civil lawsuits, one from a woman who claims he raped her in 2001 at his New York City studio, and another from a Florida model who alleges he repeatedly drugged and sexually assaulted her over a four-year period. Oh, and 120 more victims might be suing him soon, if you believe press statements by a Houston plaintiff’s lawyer.
WHAT’S NEXT FOR DIDDY CASE? – If you want a quick primer on the immediate next steps in the case — how soon might the trial be? where is he being jailed? — go read my explainer on the situation.
HIZZONER HIRES JAY-Z’S LAWYER – Facing a federal indictment of his own, New York City Mayor Eric Adams hired Alex Spiro of the law firm Quinn Emanuel, a prominent litigator with extensive music industry experience and a client list including Jay-Z, Megan Thee Stallion and 21 Savage. For a detailed breakdown of Spiro’s music litigation history, go read our full story here.
BRITNEY PERFUME BATTLE – A cosmetics company called Give Back Beauty hit back hard at a recent lawsuit filed by Revlon, which accused the smaller company of working with four ex-Revlon execs to “sabotage” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears. In the response, Give Back argued that Revlon only filed the “baseless” lawsuit because it was upset that Britney made the choice to “reject” the industry titan and sign with a competitor.
SUCKER PUNCH SETTLEMENT – DaBaby settled a civil lawsuit over a 2020 incident in which he allegedly sucker punched a property manager named Gary Pagar during a music video shoot at the man’s Los Angeles mansion. The settlement, reached two months after he took a plea deal to avoid jail time over the same episode, will avoid the need for a trial that had been set to kick off in November.
YSL JUDGE HAS HAD IT – Nearly two years after the trial kicked off, the judge overseeing Young Thug’s sprawling Atlanta gang trial reached her boiling point with the prosecutors trying the case. At a hearing in which she appeared visibly frustrated, Judge Paige Reese Whitaker complained of “poor lawyering, “baffling” decisions and steps to repeatedly “hide the ball.”
AI LAW VETOED – California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a landmark bill aimed at establishing first-in-the-nation safety measures for large artificial intelligence models, a major blow to efforts attempting to rein in the homegrown industry that is rapidly evolving with little oversight. The bill would have established some of the first regulations on large-scale AI models, but Newsom and other critics said it would have had “a chilling effect on the industry.”