State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 65
A Latin music executive accused of doing business with a concert promoter linked to Mexican drug cartels is now asking a federal judge to dismiss the charges, arguing that the indictment is unfairly vague and the sign of an eventual “sucker punch” by prosecutors.
Angel Del Villar, the CEO of Los Angeles-based Del Records, was charged in 2022 with violating a federal law that bars U.S. residents from doing business with known drug traffickers. Prosecutors say he repeatedly arranged concerts with a Guadalajara-based promoter who has ties to Mexican cartels.
But in a motion filed Thursday, Del Villar’s attorneys say the indictment failed to clearly state what aspects of that federal law he allegedly violated, leaving him unable to properly prepare a defense.
Trending on Billboard
“The purpose of an indictment is to protect individuals from government ambush,” writes Del Villar’s attorney. “A person whose liberty is at stake is entitled to know with certainty what offenses they are alleged to have committed [and] against what theories they must be prepared to contend.”
“The indictment here thwarts those goals,” Del Villar’s lawyers say. “Neither Del Villar nor his codefendants, upon reading it, can be sure from which direction the government’s attack will come — a sure setup for a sucker punch.”
Del Villar is represented by Drew Findling, a well-known criminal defense attorney for music industry figures. The Atlanta lawyer with has previously represented Gucci Mane, YFN Lucci and members of Migos in criminal cases; last year, he successfully defended Cardi B over a microphone-throwing incident in Las Vegas.
Founded by Del Villar in 2008, Del Records has grown into a top record company for Regional Mexican music. The label is home to música mexicana supergroup Eslabon Armado, whose global hit, “Ella Baila Sola” with Peso Pluma, became one of the biggest songs of 2023, as well as Lenin Ramirez and other chart-topping artists.
But in June 2022, Del Villar, 41, and chief financial officer Luca Scalisi, 56, and Del Records itself were all charged with conspiring to violate the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Passed in 1999, the law allows the U.S. to impose targeted sanctions on foreign individuals involved in the illegal drug trade and ban U.S. residents from doing business with them.
In Del Villar’s case, prosecutors claim that he repeatedly worked with Jesus Perez Alvear, a Mexican concert promoter who runs a company called Gallistica Diamente (Ticket Premier). The U.S. Treasury Department added Perez to the sanctions list in 2018, claiming he and Gallistica had helped cartels “exploit the Mexican music industry to launder drug proceeds and glorify their criminal activities.”
Prosecutors claim Del Villar and Scalisi used Perez to arrange four Mexican concerts for an undisclosed Del Records artist, then accepted nearly $200,000 in payments from him, all while clearly aware that Perez had been sanctioned. Charging documents cite a never-sent Del Records press release acknowledging that status, as well as private messages in which Scalisi noted that Perez was “under homeland security watch” and Del Villar was directly told that Perez was “a sanctioned US person.”
Two and a half years later – after the case was pushed back numerous times – both Del Villar and Scalisi are now pushing to dismiss the charges.
In his filing on Thursday, Del Villar’s attorneys argue that the indictment is not clear about which aspect of the Kingpin Act he was accused of violating. Is it a provision banning transactions related to a significant drug trafficker, or another one prohibiting transactions that seek to evade the law itself? Findling says prosecutors “do not specify.”
“It would be one thing had the indictment plainly set out the precise elements of [those separate provisions],” Del Villar’s attorney writes. “It would even be acceptable had the indictment set out facts that would make clear which provision was at issue. But it does neither.”
A response from prosecutors is due next month. If the case is not dismissed, a trial is tentatively scheduled for October.
Young Thug’s attorney Brian Steel will not have to report to jail this weekend on criminal contempt charges after the Georgia Supreme Court granted his emergency motion for bond.
The ruling, issued Wednesday (June 12), came two days after the Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial held Steel in criminal contempt in a bizarre courtroom episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness.
The decision means that Steel’s jail sentence — 20 days, to be served over ten consecutive weekends starting this Friday — will be put on pause until the Supreme Court rules on his appeal of the contempt order, which his attorneys have argued was an abuse of the judge’s authority.
An attorney for Steel did not immediately return a request for comment.
On Monday (June 10), months into the massive racketeering trial, Steel alerted Judge Ural Glanville that he had learned of a secret “ex parte” meeting that morning between the judge, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, had potentially involved coercion of a witness and was clear grounds for a mistrial.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead repeatedly demanded that he divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers, suggesting the leak was illegal: “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.”
Steel refused to do so, saying that it had been the meeting itself that was the problem. “You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” he told the judge. Steel said he had been told that during the meeting, prosecutors and the judge had pressed Copeland to testify by saying he could be held in jail for an extended period of time if he did not do so.
“If that’s true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation,” Steel told Glanville.
In an extraordinary exchange, the two continued to argue until Glanville eventually ordered Steel removed from the courtroom by a court officer. In an order issued later on Monday — with Steel now represented by another well-known Georgia criminal defense attorney —Glanville ultimately sentenced Steel to spend 20 days in jail, to be served over 10 consecutive weekends.
In a dramatic twist, Steel requested that he be allowed to serve that sentence alongside Young Thug, who has been sitting in jail for more than two years as the trial drags on.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Jury selection kicked off in January 2023, but the trial itself did not begin until November and has since been marked by numerous delays. With dozens of witnesses still set to testify in the prosecution case, the trial is expected to run into 2025.
Following Glanville’s contempt ruling against Steel, his attorneys immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the judge’s actions on Monday had been both procedurally and substantively improper. Among other things, they cited the fact that Glanville himself had issued a ruling on an issue that involved his own potentially unethical actions.
“The court involved itself in these proceedings by conducting the ex parte hearing that violated Mr. Steel’s client’s rights,” Steel’s attorney wrote in their appeal. “This created a conflict of interest for the court because its own ethical conduct was at the heart of Mr. Steel’s request.”
“The court then compounded its abuse of power by presiding over the very contempt hearing where its own rules violations prompted the controversy,” Steel’s attorneys continued. “The court should have recused and allowed the contempt proceedings to be handled by a separate court.”
That appeal, filed with a state appeals court on Tuesday (June 11), was passed along to the Supreme Court, which under Georgia case law is tasked with handling such appeals directly. And on Wednesday, the high court accepted the case and ordered Steel’s sentence put on hold until it issues a final ruling on Judge Glanville’s actions.
Following Monday’s dust-up, the YSL trial has continued with more testimony, with Steel present in the courtroom representing Thug. But on Wednesday, attorneys for another defendant (Deamonte Kendrick) argued that Glanville should recuse himself from the case over the alleged secret meeting with prosecutors and the witness. They argued that the meeting had been intended to “harass and intimidate the sworn witness into testifying.”
When presented with that motion in court, Glanville quickly denied it and continued on with the trial.
Drake’s production company is facing a lawsuit from the apparel brand Members Only for allegedly selling tour merch that infringed the company’s trademarks.
The case, filed Tuesday (June 12) in New York federal court, claims that Drake’s company (Away From Home Touring Inc.) has been selling t-shirts, including on his recently-wrapped It’s All a Blur Tour, that are emblazoned with the words “Members Only.”
To be clear, the lawsuit doesn’t claim Drake is selling counterfeit Members Only jackets — the iconic 1980s fad the company made famous. Drake’s shirts feature that phrase (written in large script across the front) simply because it’s the name of a track on his 2023 album For All the Dogs.
But in its complaint filed in federal court, the current owner of the Members Only brand (JR Apparel World LLC) says it doesn’t matter why Drake’s company opted to put their name on a shirt — only that he did so.
Trending on Billboard
“The fact that ‘Members Only’ is a song on Drake’s album ‘For All the Dogs’ does not obviate the likelihood of confusion or give [him] a license to use our client’s ‘Members Only’ marks in such a confusing manner, particularly on or in connection with apparel items,” the company’s lawyers write.
Calling “Members Only” a “famous household name,” the lawsuit claims that Drake’s shirts are going to confuse fans into thinking the real Members Only brand is somehow involved: “Away From Home’s use of ‘Members Only’ … is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers as to the origin of Away From Home’s infringing T-shirts.”
Under U.S. trademark law, the context of how a brand name is used is crucial. Two companies can use the exact same name for different products and peacefully co-exist — think Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, or Dove soap and Dove chocolate. But when used on the same types of products, a similar name can become trademark infringement.
In Drake’s case, his use of the “Members Only” name as a song title almost certainly would not have infringed JR Apparel World rights — both because they’re different products and because the First Amendment gives added protection to use trademarks in creative works like songs. But by using that same name on apparel, the lawsuit says, the legal calculus has changed.
“Away From Home sold … goods bearing the mark ‘Members Only’ that are identical, overlapping, and/or highly similar to the goods that JR Apparel sells bearing its MEMBERS ONLY Marks,” the company’s attorneys write.
A rep for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.
Just hours after convicted “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli was sued over claims that he illegally copied and distributed Wu-Tang Clan’s one-of-a-kind album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, a federal judge has ordered him to appear in court and to immediately stop “causing further damage.”
In a ruling late Tuesday, Judge Pamela Chen issued a temporary restraining order against the disgraced pharma executive, siding with arguments from PleasrDAO — a digital art collective that bought the album in 2021 after Shkreli was forced to forfeit it as part of his criminal case.
“Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable injury—namely, erosion of the Album’s uniqueness as an original work of art,” the judge wrote. She also ordered Shkreli to appear in court later this month and said she might force him to turn over digital records and account for any ill-gotten profits.
Trending on Billboard
And Judge Chen explicitly threatened Shkreli with criminal penalties if he flouts her order: “Defendant is warned that any act by him in violation of any of the terms of this order, after actual notice of this order to defendant, may be considered and prosecuted as contempt of this court.”
The quick restraining order came less than a day after PleasrDAO sued Shkreli over the leak of the album, accusing him of violating both their purchase agreement and the federal forfeiture order that required him to hand it over. They also accused him of violating federal trade secrets law, which protect valuable proprietary information from misappropriation.
“The album was supposed to constitute the sole existing copy of the record, music, data and files, and packaging,” the group’s attorneys wrote earlier on Tuesday. “It now appears, however, that Shkreli improperly retained copies of the data and files at the time of the forfeiture and has released and/or intends to release them to the public.”
In an X post on Tuesday, Shkreli said: “these super nerds are suing me 🤣🤣🤣🤣 the least crypto ethos, whitest, least culturally relevant dorks good luck!” In later posts, he called the lawsuit “frivolous” and also re-shared an X post in which another user suggested the lawsuit would fail: “Even if they win, doesn’t Shkreli just anonymously leak the album online out of spite?”
Shkreli did not immediately return a request for additional comment.
Wu-Tang’s legendary Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. Though the group intended the bizarre trappings as a protest against the commodification of music, Shaolin later became the ultimate commodity. In 2015, Shkreli – already infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications — bought it at auction in 2015 for $2 million.
The deal came with an unusual stipulation: that the album could not be duplicated or otherwise released to the general public in any form until 2103, or 88 years after the initial purchase. According to court documents, the deal did permit for the album to be played for private listening events in “spaces not customarily used as venues for large musical concerts.”
In 2017, Shkreli was found guilty on two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. After he was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to repay $7.4 million, the federal judge overseeing the case ordered him to hand over Shaolin to help pay the restitution.
PleasrDAO says it bought the album from federal prosecutors in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights to the album for $750,000. Last month, the group said it would hold private listening events at an Australian museum, where fans would be able to “experience” certain songs from the album.
But in Tuesday’s lawsuit, PleasrDAO said that Shkreli had unlawfully retained copies of Wu-Tang’s music, and had recently begun threatening to release them to the public.
In April posts on X, he allegedly said “LOL i have the mp3s you moron” and “i can just upload the mp3s if you want?” In May, he allegedly posted an image of a PleasrDAO webpage in which the group said the album would not be available until 2103 and said “look out for a torrent im sick of this shit” – a reference to a method of internet filesharing. On Sunday (June 9), the group says he “played music from the album publicly” over the internet to nearly 5000 listeners.
In their filings, the group argued that the release of the album would cause “incalculable monetary loss,” since the value of the album was based on the “uniqueness” of the single copy: The Album’s potential resale value and the profits that PleasrDAO may earn from playing or exhibiting the music will diminish as the data and files become more widely available.”
In her restraining order later on Tuesday, Judge Chen seemed swayed by those arguments. Saying that PleasrDAO would likely “succeed on the merits” of its case against Shkreli, she ruled that he was immediately barred from “using, disseminating, streaming, or selling any interests in the Album” or “in any way causing further damage to Plaintiff respecting the Album.”Judge Chen also ordered Shkreli to appear in court on June 25 to explain why she should not issue a more robust injunction. Such an order, the judge said, would require Shkreli to account for any copies he retained, who he distributed them to, and what profits he gained from doing so, and would allow for the seizure of any remaining copies of the album that he might still be holding.
LONDON — A U.K. indie label is suing Sony Music-owned Ministry of Sound Recordings over a remix of a song by R&B artist Jay Sean that became a global viral hit on TikTok a decade after its original release.
According to legal papers filed in the London High Court, which have been viewed by Billboard, 2Point9 Records is suing Ministry of Sound for copyright infringement of Sean’s “Ride It” – a Top 20 single in the United Kingdom in 2008.
Attorneys for London-based 2Point9 say that a 2019 remix of “Ride It” by Kosovo-based producer DJ Regard, whose real name is Dardan Aliu, illegally sampled the master recording of Sean’s original track without clearing its use.
Trending on Billboard
First posted on TikTok, Regard’s “Ride It” quickly became a viral hit before being licensed by Sony-owned imprint Ministry of Sound Recordings and officially released in July 2019.
The track peaked at number two in the U.K. singles chart the same year. In the U.S., Regard’s “Ride It” peaked at number 62 on the Hot 100 (where it spent 10 weeks on the chart) and number three on the Billboard Top 100 Hot Dance/Electronic chart.
The song has since gone on to be streamed more than 1.3 billion times on Spotify, while the video has been viewed more than 285 million times on Regard’s official YouTube channel. 2Point9 says total YouTube views of the remix have crossed 500 million and well over 4 million videos have been created by TikTok users.
DJ Regard
Courtesy Photo
The London-based indie, which was founded by Billy Grant and Rob Stuart in 2000, alleges that Ministry of Sound Recordings was notified that the track featured an unauthorized sample of Jay Sean’s 2008 song when it first released it, but “chose not to enter into any meaningful commercial discussions” over clearing the sample.
2Point9’s legal claim is for infringement of the production master recording rights of the original version of “Ride It,” which the label says it owns on a worldwide basis.
The indie label employed producer Alan Sampson in 2007 to work with Jay Sean, real name Kamaljit Singh Jhooti, on a number of songs, including “Ride It.” Sampson is not listed among the claimants and Billboard understands that the producer assigned his share of the master recording rights to 2Point9 under the terms of his 2007 production contract.
Attorneys for 2Point9 say that when Ministry of Sound was first told in 2019 that the DJ Regard version of “Ride It” featured an unauthorized sample, the Sony-owned label rejected their claims and insisted the new song featured a re-recording of Sean’s vocal.
Several months later, Ministry of Sound acknowledged that Regard’s song did feature parts of the original recording and subsequently replaced the infringing sample with a re-recorded version.
The re-recorded “Ride It” was commercially released in late 2019 but was assigned the same ISRC code as the earlier infringing song, say 2Point9. The indie label infers this was done to prevent any distinction being drawn between the two songs when tracking global plays. The original DJ Regard track (featuring the unauthorized sample) still continued to receive regular airplay in the U.K. after the new version was released, claim 2Point9.
“Throughout the entire time we have been pursuing this claim, Ministry of Sound Recordings has treated our label with arrogance and dismissiveness,” said Billy Grant, co-founder of 2Point9 Records, in a statement.
“Why they think that this kind of behaviour against a small label is acceptable is bewildering,” said Grant, noting that prior to Ministry of Sound’s acquisition by Sony Music Entertainment in 2016 it too was an independent label.
Grant vowed to continue his legal fight “until we get justice” and said his company was “determined” to make Ministry of Sound realize “that it is not OK to ride roughshod over the commercial rights of those in the independent sector and that there are consequences for doing so.”
According to legal papers, 2Point9 Records has not yet been able to fully quantify the size of its losses and damages relating to the infringing recording but believes them to be substantial. Sony Music U.K. said it would not be commenting whilst the legal case is ongoing.
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: Young Thug’s trial in Atlanta descends into chaos as the judge orders the rapper’s lawyer thrown into jail; Bad Bunny’s battle with Major League Baseball players’ union gets messier; Madison Square Garden bans a Phish fan over the “first bong hit” at the Las Vegas Sphere; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Trial Goes Off The Rails
Young Thug’s gang trial in Atlanta was already in uncharted territory – it’s now the longest trial in Georgia state history, with dozens of witnesses still scheduled to testify and no clear end in sight until 2025. But on Monday (June 10), it crossed over into the realm of the truly bizarre. It started when Young Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, said he had learned of an allegedly improper secret meeting between Judge Ural Glanville, state prosecutors, and a key witness. It ended with Steel being escorted into custody by a court officer. In between, the attorney and the judge engaged in an extraordinary back-and-forth — broadcast across the internet in real-time — over illegal leaks, witness coercion, and potential jail time. “I’m going to give you five minutes. If you don’t tell me who it is, I’m going to put you in contempt,” Glanville said at one point. “I don’t need five minutes,” Steel fired back. When the dust settled, Glanville had sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail, to be served over 10 consecutive weekends. Capping off the surreal proceedings? Steel demanded to serve that time in jail right alongside Young Thug, who has been locked up for two years as the case drags on. Go read our full story here, and stay tuned at Billboard for more developments — Steel has already filed an appeal, and something tells us this isn’t the last we’ll hear about that secret meeting…
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
BAD MONEY? Major League Baseball’s players’ union fired back hard at a lawsuit claiming it had discriminated against Bad Bunny’s sports agency Rimas Sports — explaining (in great detail) how the company had, in fact, been penalized due to “egregious and systemic” violations of union rules against offering gifts to prospective clients. According to the union, those illegal “inducements” included a $200,000 interest-free loan to one ballplayer, and VIP tickets to Bad Bunny concerts to others. PHISH FUED – A Phish fan who bragged about taking the “first bong hit to ever be ripped” in the Las Vegas Sphere — and posted a viral video of him doing so — received a letter from Madison Square Garden Entertainment’s lawyers permanently banning him from the venue and all other MSG facilities. Though MSG initially stuck by the decision, the company later backtracked after the story made headlines: “There was a breakdown in our process due to a change in personnel which resulted in the letter being sent inadvertently,” said a Sphere Entertainment spokeswoman in a statement. “This customer is not banned from our properties.” KBJ x QUEEN BEY – When the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices released their annual financial disclosures, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reported a cooler-than-usual line item: that Beyoncé had personally gifted her four concert tickets. ‘ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT’ – Travis Scott asked a federal judge to end a copyright lawsuit accusing him of using unlicensed samples on Utopia and Astroworld from “Bitches Reply,” an oft-sampled 1992 track that’s previously been used by Lil Wayne, Cardi B, Kid Cudi and others. In their filing, Scott’s lawyers argued the only material the rapper allegedly copied were the words “alright, alright, alright” — and that such “stock phrases” do not have “even the minimal creativity required for copyright protection.” MADONNA CASE *NOT* SETTLED – A bizarre exchange took place in one of the several lawsuits filed against Madonna over claims that she broke the law by delaying the starts of her concerts. Days after news of a settlement was filed in court by the plaintiff’s attorneys, lawyers for Madonna and Live Nation emphatically denied that any such deal had been reached and told a judge they “will not be harassed into settlement.” The case remains very much pending. MOTOWN SINGER SUES HOSPITAL – Alexander Morris, the current lead singer of the legendary Motown group The Four Tops, is suing a Detroit-area hospital over allegations that staffers “assumed he was mentally ill” and put him in a straitjacket after he informed them that he was a famous musician. Morris claims he was sent for a psychiatric evaluation and deprived of necessary treatment for his heart infraction — until, that is, his wife showed up and staffers watched a video of him performing at the Grammys. COUNTERFEIT COUNTERATTACK – With the problem of bootleg music merch continuing to grow, Billboard’s Steve Knopper chatted with two companies that are fighting back using technological weapons like artificial intelligence, image-matching software and automated takedown notices.
The lead singer of Motown group The Four Tops is suing a Detroit-area hospital over allegations that staffers “assumed he was mentally ill” and put him in a straight jacket when he informed them that he was a famous musician.
In a complaint filed Monday in Michigan federal court, singer Alexander Morris claims that when he visited the emergency room at Ascension Macomb-Oakland Hospital in April 2023 with difficulty breathing and chest pain, he was both racially profiled and unfairly treated as if he was “delusional.”
Even though he was showing “clear symptoms of cardiac distress” and had a history of such problems, Morris says that staffers removed him from oxygen support and ordered a psychological evaluation after he “revealed his identity as a celebrity figure.” When he offered to prove his identity, Morris says a white security guard ordered him to “sit his Black ass down” and physically restrained him.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff had a valid identification on his person and could easily have been identified as a singer in the Four Tops group,” attorneys for Morris’ write. “Defendant hospital … blatantly refused to provide plaintiff with medical treatment due to his race and/or perceived mental disability.”
Eventually, Morris says, his wife arrived and learned “that the doctors thought he was delusional.” When he was able to show a nurse a “video of him performing at the Grammys,” he says the hospital finally agreed to cancel the psych evaluation. He was ultimately diagnosed with heart infraction – and offered what he says was an insulting mea culpa.
“Plaintiff was offered a $25.00 gift card to Meijers as an apology for the dehumanization and discrimination he faced at the hands of the hospital,” the singer’s attorneys write. “He refused to accept the gift card.”
Founded in the early 1950s, The Four Tops roared to widespread success in the 1960s and fueled the rise of the growing Motown record company. The original lineup, consisting of Levi Stubbs, Abdul “Duke” Fakir, Renaldo “Obie” Benson and Lawrence Payton, stuck together for more than 40 years and are enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Fakir is the sole original member still in the group.
Morris, who joined the group in 2019, had already publicized his alleged ordeal in the past. Last spring, he threatened to sue over the alleged incident, claiming that it would have taken “two minutes” to verify his identity: “My health should’ve been first.”
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, a spokesperson for hospital owner Ascension said the company was “unable to provide details on cases under investigation.”
“The health, safety and well-being of our patients, associates and community members remains our top priority,” the spokesperson said. “We remain committed to honoring human dignity and acting with integrity and compassion for all persons and the community. We do not condone racial discrimination of any kind.”
Almost exactly one year after Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin of K-pop boy band EXO first pursued legal action against their longtime label and management agency, SM Entertainment, over contractual issues, a company established by the trio has now declared “full-on war” on the K-pop giant, according to Korean media reports.
Representatives for INB100, the newly established company Baekhyun founded in 2023 — which signed Chen and Xiumin for their respective solo careers, though all three remain contracted under SM for EXO’s group activities — held what has been described as an “emergency press conference” in central Seoul on Monday (June 10). Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin were not in attendance.
Trending on Billboard
During the press conference, as reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, three reps for the trio — who also perform together in a splinter unit called EXO-CBX — said that Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin have been in a monthlong dispute over fees and contracts with SM. Cha Ga-won, president and majority shareholder of INB100’s holding company, One Hundred, and one of the representatives to speak at the press conference, claimed a former SM CEO verbally promised in a recorded agreement to charge INB100 only a 5.5% fee for distributing its music releases through Kakao (the current majority shareholder of SM Entertainment), as opposed to the 15% to 20% percent typically charged to companies outside Kakao’s umbrella. But Cha says SM is now demanding a 10% royalty fee for the members’ use of the agency’s intellectual property (such as the members’ stage names, as well as EXO and EXO-CBX) in exchange for the discounted distribution fee.
“We declare a full-on war against SM Entertainment, which has made a promise that it could not keep and committed what could be perceived as fraud,” said Cha during the press conference, during which INB100 representatives also demanded that SM disclose the breakdown of EXO’s earnings — reigniting the same contract issues that were reportedly resolved last June. The representatives additionally claimed that INB100 sent a formal letter of complaint to SM Entertainment over two months ago concerning the fees and the earnings disclosure but had not received a response.
On Monday evening, SM Entertainment refuted the allegations in a press release. According to SM, an outside company imposed the 10% intellectual property fee following court mediation over past issues with previous EXO members who had exited the label while still under contract. (Between 2014-2105, three other EXO members left the group and broke their contracts with SM to focus on the China market.) SM also claims EXO-CBX’s contract is still valid, and that the trio benefits from the EXO brand but are not fulfilling their contractual obligations with SM despite the agency acting in good faith with a lower distribution rate.
SM’s statement also alleges that Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin were “poached” by Cha and MC Mong — a one-time rapper-producer in Korea who fell out of public favor following allegations that he had dodged the country’s mandatory military draft, and who went on to launch agencies of his own, including BPM Entertainment, which now houses ex-SM artist Taemin of SHINee.
SM added that it did not previously respond to INB100’s letter of complaint to avoid distracting from new EPs released by EXO members Chen, D.O., and Suho over the past month. The company concluded its statement by saying that it will respond with legal action as opposed to trying to sway public opinion through press conferences.
The Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial held the rapper’s attorney in criminal contempt of court Monday (June 10) in a bizarre episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness.
After attorney Brian Steel argued that the so-called ex parte meeting involved the improper coercion of a sworn witness, Judge Ural Glanville repeatedly demanded that Steel divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers. “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.”
Steel refused to do so, saying that it had been the meeting itself that was the problem. “You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” he told the judge. During the meeting, Steel said he had been told, prosecutors and the judge had pressed the witness, Kenneth Copeland, to testify by saying he could be held in jail for an extended period of time if he did not.
“If that’s true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation,” Steel told Glanville, arguing that defense counsel should have been notified of a meeting involving a sworn witness and that it was grounds for a mistrial.
After Steel continued to refuse to share where he received the information, Glanville held him in contempt and eventually ordered him taken into custody. As he was escorted out of the courtroom, into custody, Steel told the judge that Thug did not wish to proceed without his attorney present: “You’re taking away his right to counsel.”
The move to banish Steel led to confusion in the courtroom. Thug’s other attorney, Keith Adams, said he could not continue without his co-counsel, and even prosecutors asked that Steel be present for the remainder of the day if the trial was going to proceed with testimony. Judge Glanville eventually agreed, allowing Steel to re-enter, but said he had not softened his stance.
“You will go into custody at 5 o’clock today … if you don’t tell me who that is,” the judge said. “This is criminal contempt. I have asked you a question related to this particular proceeding and if you don’t tell me you’ll suffer the consequences.”
It’s unclear if the contempt will impact Steel’s ability to continue to represent Thug as the case moves forward. Steel did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Jury selection kicked off in January 2023, but the trial itself did not begin until November and has since been marked by numerous delays. With dozens of witnesses still set to testify in the prosecution case, the trial is expected to run into 2025.
As the founder of LaPolt Law, a Los Angeles-based entertainment firm, I actively seek out talented students from underrepresented backgrounds to promote diversity within my firm and provide these students with an opportunity that their privileged counterparts may take for granted. I have been working with the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), co-founded by my esteemed colleague and co-writer of this piece, Willie “Prophet” Stiggers, since 2021, and I currently serve as their executive leadership council. Our collective aim remains steadfast: to champion diversity and promote developmental opportunities for minorities in the music industry.
Recently, my firm was set to hire a Black woman from Harvard Law School for an internship position. However, the candidate encountered a significant obstacle due to Harvard’s Summer Contribution Policy. I was dismayed when I learned she couldn’t accept the offer because the school’s policy would require that she apply 90% of her summer internship earnings to her tuition bill, which would have made it impossible for her to afford to live in Los Angeles for the summer and pay her bills, while also helping to support her family.
Trending on Billboard
Most aspiring law students seek admission to a top law school for the promise of excellent job prospects. This is particularly true for students from underserved communities and underrepresented students of color who face significant barriers at the outset of their careers. For these underrepresented students able to attend these high-ranked institutions and secure summer employment, it serves as an opportunity to not only change their own circumstances but those of their families. However, at Harvard, the No. 5 law school in the nation, the financial support for need-based students becomes challenging as the institution deducts up to 90% of students’ summer employment income and applies it to the next year’s tuition bill.
Pursuing a career in “Big Law” allows students to earn a salary upwards of $200,000 post-grad and a pro-rated version of this salary as a summer associate. For students from affluent backgrounds, this path often continues building generational wealth. For students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, it offers a chance to change the trajectory of their families’ lives by providing additional income to support household and medical bills.
Harvard Law’s Summer Contribution Policy stretches beyond those students working in Big Law summer associateships by imposing this policy on any student earning over $9,500. Those accepted to Harvard Law are typically aware the school doesn’t offer merit scholarships, but many students only grasp the significant impact of the policy when they embark on their 1L summer job search, often realizing its implications too late. The policy disproportionately impacts those who receive need-based aid, the majority of whom are students of color.
While some entertainment internships may escape the policy’s impact, others, such as at Disney and certain boutique/mid-sized firms, are impacted as their pay can place a student over the $9,500 threshold. Considering the difficulty of breaking into the entertainment industry, forgoing these summer opportunities can make a Harvard Law student’s dream of working in entertainment harder to realize.
With its $9,500 allowance, the Summer Contribution Policy fails to adequately support students, especially those pursuing summer employment in major entertainment cities such as Los Angeles and New York, where the average monthly rent is over $2,000. This perpetuates a cycle for low-income students of color: they receive need-based financial aid, obtain high-earning summer employment opportunities and lose most of their earnings (which are absorbed by Harvard), leaving these students economically disadvantaged or reliant on additional loans. Rinse and repeat. This cycle persists throughout their time at Harvard and contrasts starkly with the experience of wealthier students who do not rely on need-based aid.
Despite numerous attempts to eliminate or amend the policy through longstanding protests, the students’ informal movement has been unsuccessful. In a world where students of color from low socioeconomic backgrounds must work twice as hard to succeed and three times as hard to be heard, Harvard Law’s Summer Contribution Policy reflects the disadvantages these students face and thus, needs to be abolished or modified to accommodate these students instead of targeting them. My recent experience underscores the challenges faced by aspiring professionals from marginalized communities and emphasizes the importance of advocating for equitable policies within educational institutions to ensure equal access to opportunities for all students, regardless of their financial circumstances.
Dina LaPolt, owner and founder of LaPolt Law, P.C., is an entertainment attorney and activist. LaPolt Law is the only firm of its stature owned and operated by a sole female attorney. As a result of her activism in the Black community, Dina was a recipient of the Black Music Action Coalition’s Change Agent Award, and she also serves on the organization’s Executive Leadership Council.
Willie “Prophet” Stiggers is a lifelong activist, music executive and co-founder/CEO/president of the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC). Prophet has built BMAC into a unified force of action for racial equity and justice within the music industry and a catalyst using the power of music to improve communities and drive systemic change.
