State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 88
Former Grammys CEO Mike Greene and the Recording Academy are facing a lawsuit alleging Greene sexually assaulted an Academy employee in the 1990s.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Los Angeles court, Terri McIntyre claims that during her tenure at the Academy from 1994 to 1996, she was “forced to endure pervasive, incessant and routine sexual harassment and/or sexual assault” from Greene, who oversaw the Grammys ceremony for 14 years.
The lawsuit accuses Greene of sexual assault and battery and accuses the Academy itself of negligence and other forms of wrongdoing for allegedly enabling the abuse, including by trying to “actively cover-up, conceal and/or repeatedly excuse Greene’s sexual misconduct.”
Greene did not immediately return a request for comment. In a statement, the Academy said: “In light of pending litigation, the Academy declines to comment on these allegations, which occurred nearly 30 years ago. Today’s Recording Academy has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual misconduct and we will remain steadfast in that commitment.”
The new case comes just weeks after another former Recording Academy CEO, Neil Portnow, was sued by an unnamed female musician who says he drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2018. That case, which also named the Academy as a defendant, was filed by the same law firm as Wednesday’s new suit.
Greene, who transformed the Grammy Awards from an industry ritual into a global television event, abruptly resigned from the Academy in 2002 amid accusations of sexual harassment. Though an internal Academy investigation cleared him of wrongdoing and he was paid an $8 million severance, Greene had long been dogged by criticism that ran the organization “almost as a personal fiefdom.”
In Wednesday’s lawsuit, McIntyre says that shortly after starting her “dream job” as the Academy’s Los Angeles chapter executive director in 1994, Greene began to sexually harass her — including by allegedly telling her directly that “he expected plaintiff to perform sex acts for defendant Greene in order to remain employed and progress at defendant Academy.”
“Defendant Greene repeatedly told plaintiff that she needed to ‘give some head to get ahead’,” her lawyers write in the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, harassment then progressed into assault. McIntyre claims that after she drank champagne with Greene and others in his hotel room during a May 1994 work trip to Hawaii, she “quickly began to feel unwell and began to lose control of her physical movements.” She says she then awoke nude in his bed the next morning.
“Plaintiff knew what defendant had done to her,” her lawyers write. “Plaintiff felt wetness between her legs and smelled of intercourse.”
McIntyre says she did not report the incident because Greene “held the power to effectively block her from any further positions in the music industry.” But she claims that he continued to subject her to harassment and unwanted touching, including “groping her buttocks” and breasts.
In another incident, McIntyre says Greene brought her to his home under the guise of a work meeting but then forced her to perform oral sex on him, including by grabbing her by the back of the head and forcing her to continue as she “tried to get away.”
When she finally reported Greene’s behavior to her supervisor, McIntyre says she was told that she “should just find a way to get along” with Green and that if she could not do so, she “would not be successful, or employed, at defendant Academy for very long.”
The lawsuit says McIntyre later resigned and was forced to quit the music industry entirely, moving to her hometown and applying for entry-level jobs. “Plaintiff came to understand that her hopes, dreams, and aspirations to work in the music industry were defunct and unreachable,” her lawyers say, after she spent two years “being prey to a predator that defendant Academy could have stopped.”
McIntyre’s case was filed under California’s AB 2777, a state law that created a temporary window for survivors of sexual assault to file lawsuits that would normally be barred by the statute of limitations. The law, which doesn’t expire until 2026, is similar to New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which led to a flurry of sexual abuse cases in that state over the past month.
Another woman – the fourth in three weeks – is suing Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims she was “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” by Combs, former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre and another man in 2003 when she was 17 years old.
“Ms. Doe has lived with her memories of this fateful night for 20 years, during which time she has suffered extreme emotional distress that has impacted nearly every aspect of her life and personal relationships,” the woman’s lawyers write. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.
The new case comes just weeks after Combs was hit with explosive allegations of rape by R&B singer and longtime romantic partner Cassie. That case quickly settled, but Combs was then sued by two other women who say they were sexually assaulted by the hip hop mogul. Combs has strongly denied all of the allegations. Another case was filed against Pierre and Bad Boy, alleging sexual assault.
In the complaint filed in court Wednesday, the accuser’s lawyer Douglas Wigdor (the same attorney who represented Cassie) says the new allegations “are in many ways even more egregious” than the prior cases. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.”
In a public statement in response to the new allegations, Combs said: “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.”
“For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy,” Combs wrote. “Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
Pierre could not immediately be reached for comment.
The new lawsuit contains graphic allegations of sexual assault.
The alleged victim claims that she met Pierre at a Detroit club in 2003, when she was just a junior in high school. After he “smoked crack cocaine” and “sexually assaulted Ms. Doe by forcing her to give him oral sex,” she says she flew to New York on Combs’ private jet to visit him in his Manhattan recording studio.
While at the studio, the lawsuit claims that Combs, Pierre and an unnamed third man “plied Ms. Doe with drugs and alcohol” until she was so inebriated that she “she could not possibly have consented to having sex with anyone, much less someone twice her age.”
“While at the studio, Ms. Doe was gang raped by Mr. Combs, the Third Assailant and Mr. Pierre, in that order,” Wigdor writes in the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the unnamed man “raped Ms. Doe as she told him to stop,” and that Pierre “violently forced her to give him oral sex, during which Ms. Doe was choking and struggling to breathe.”
After the attack, the lawsuit says the accuser “could barely stand up” and “had to be helped to walk out of the building and back into a car.” She says she was then flown back to Michigan.
“Defendants preyed on a vulnerable high school teenager,” Wigdor said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The depravity of these abhorrent acts has, not surprisingly, scarred our client for life.”
The previous cases against Combs – as well as the flurry of other high-profile sexual assault cases filed over the last month – were brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a law that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for bringing such cases.
Wednesday’s case was not filed under the ASA, because that law expired on Thanksgiving. Instead, it was filed under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, a New York City provision that created a similar “lookback” window that doesn’t expire until 2025.
A federal appeals court has sided with Vans and ruled that Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers – a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool – likely violate the shoe company’s trademarks.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Released last year by a New York art collective called MSCHF, the sneakers were a clear riff on the Vans shoe – a warped, surreal version of the Old Skool. Vans filed a lawsuit calling it “blatant trademark infringement, but the creators claimed that it was legal parody protected by the First Amendment, designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture.
In a ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn’t buy that argument, upholding an earlier ruling that banned MSCHF from selling any more pairs of Wavy Baby. The court said that “no special First Amendment protections apply” and that the sneaker likely violates Vans’ trademark rights.
“If a parodic use of protected marks and trade dress leaves confusion as to the source of a product, the parody has not ‘succeeded’ for purposes of the [federal trademark law], and the infringement is unlawful,” the court wrote.
Tyga announced the Wavy Baby in April 2022, sparking plenty of buzz but also immediate comparisons to Vans. Footwear News said the shoe “appears to be loosely based on the classic Vans Old Skool” that had been altered with a “wave-like aesthetic.” The site HighSnobiety went with a bolder headline: “MSCHF & Tyga’s Insane Skate Shoes Look Like Liquified Vans.”
Three days before the shoes were set to drop on April 18, Vans filed a lawsuit – claiming MSCHF’s sneakers violated its trademark rights and demanding an immediate restraining order. (The lawsuit did not name Tyga, whose real name is Micheal Stevenson, as a defendant.) Legal trouble was nothing new for MSCHF: the group had previously partnered with Lil Nas X to release a “Satan Shoe” that looked like a pair of Nikes – and had been promptly hit with a similar infringement lawsuit from that sneaker giant.
In the case over Tyga’s sneaker, Vans that consumers would think Wavy Baby was an authorized product artist endorsement deal rather than a parody by a separate company. The company cited previous partnerships with A$AP Rocky, Metallica and Foo Fighters.
“Given Vans’ history of collaborations with musical artists, on information and belief, the collaboration between MSCHF and Michael Stevenson is intended to deceive consumers into believing they arepurchasing a product made by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Vans,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
MSCHF fired back with the First Amendment. It admitted that the Wavy Baby was based on the Old Skool, but said it had a legal right to use the shoe as “the cultural and physical anchor when creating its art.” The company said it wanted to critique “consumerism inherent in sneakerhead culture” and “the phenomenon of sneaker companies collaborating with anyone to garner clout and shoe sales.”
Weeks later, a federal judge rejected those arguments and issued a restraining order banning MSCHF from selling any more Wavy Babys. In issuing his ruling, Judge William F. Kuntz said that he – and, more importantly, consumers – didn’t quite get the joke.
“Whatever the actual artistic merits of the Wavy Baby shoes, the shoes do not meet the requirements for a successful parody,” the judge wrote at the time. “While the manifesto accompanying the shoes may contain protected parodic expression, the Wavy Baby shoes and packaging in and of themselves fail to convey the satirical message.”
On Tuesday, the Second Circuit upheld Judge Kuntz’s ruling and injunction. Among other reasons, the court cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in which the justices ruled that Jack Daniels could sue over dog toys that parodied its whiskey bottles – a decision that lowered First Amendment protections for such parodies.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
BERLIN — SUISA Digital Licensing is suing Twitter International in Munich District Court for copyright infringement on X, the online platform formerly known as Twitter. The suit alleges that music compositions controlled by SUISA Digital are found on the platform, and that the company has made no effort to license them or act promptly to remove the infringing content.
“SUISA Digital is using all of the resources at its disposal to defend the interests of authors and publishers it represents,” said SUISA Digital CEO Fabian Niggemeier in a press release about the lawsuit. “This is the only way we can effectively represent the interests of authors and publishers and ensure that they are compensated fairly by Twitter International.”
Rights to the songs in question, many of which were found in full videos on X, are represented by SUISA Digital, a subsidiary of SUISA, the Swiss collecting society. (SUISA Digital represents both public performance rights and mechanical rights for the works in question.) SUISA Digital says that it has tried to get in touch with X/Twitter in order to negotiate licensing arrangements, but it has yet to receive a serious response.
SUISA Digital also works closely with the U.S. performing rights society SESAC, as partners in their joint venture MINT. “SUISA Digital has our full backing in its lawsuit against Twitter International,” said SESAC International president Alexander Wolf in the press release.
Although SUISA Digital is officially based in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, the organization filed the lawsuit in Munich, since it’s part of a larger market, as well as one that has traditionally been friendly to copyright.
This isn’t the only music infringement lawsuit against X/Twitter. In June, dozens of music publishers sued the company for similar behavior. But there are several important differences between the two cases. In the U.S., X operates under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which offers online platforms “safe harbor” for infringement committed by their users, as long as they act to remove unauthorized content. (The publishers’ suit alleges that the company didn’t do that, or have a policy to ban repeat infringers.)
In Germany, the equivalent law falls under the European Copyright Directive, which is broadly similar but requires platforms to make efforts to license content – which the SESAC lawsuit alleges that Twitter did not do.
The other difference is damages. While the music publishers’ suit could be worth as much as $255 million, although that’s a maximum based on statutory damages, in Germany the case would have to establish damages based on the value of the licenses Twitter needed but did not get. Presumably, the idea behind this lawsuit is to force the Elon Musk-led company to enter into serious licensing negotiations.
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 judge issues a ruling in the Hall & Oates lawsuit after the dispute turns public and personal, Young Thug’s RICO trial gets underway in Atlanta with opening statements and witness testimony, Kelly Clarkson wins a California labor law ruling against her ex-husband, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Hall v. Oates Goes Public
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates got a lot clearer last week – with detailed filings from each artist, a hearing in open court, and a judge’s ruling on how the case will proceed.
To catch you up: After a decades-long, highly-lucrative musical partnership, Daryl Hall sued John Oates last month in Nashville court. The case was initially filed under seal, leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo had become a house divided. Eventually, unsealed documents showed that Hall had sued Oates to block him from selling part of their joint venture to Primary Wave.
Last Wednesday, the case burst fully into the open. First, Hall filed court papers accusing partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly arranging the Primary Wave deal – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.” Oates responded hours later, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
The filings were packed with new details – not just about the exact contours of the legal dispute, but also about the duo’s broader “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about each man’s personal feelings toward his former partner. Go read our full story here.
A day later, attorneys for the pair headed to court for their first showdown. Hall was repped by Christine Lepera of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who urged a judge to extend a restraining order preventing Oates from completing the Primary Wave sale until an arbitrator can hear Hall’s objections. Oates was repped by Derek Crownover from Loeb & Loeb LLP, who argued that no such order was necessary.
On Thursday afternoon, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend the restraining order, blocking Oates from selling to Primary Wave until February or until the arbitrator tackles the case – whichever comes first. Go read our full story explaining why.
The case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled. Stay tuned…
THE OTHER BIG STORY: YSL RICO Trial Begins
More than 18 months after chart-topping rapper Young Thug was indicted on accusations that he ran a violent Atlanta street gang, he finally headed to trial last week.
In their opening statements, Atlanta prosecutors claimed that Thug was “King Slime,” a powerful boss operating his “Young Slime Life” gang like a “pack” of wolves – even reading a passage from The Jungle Book for jurors. And they defended their controversial use of his music to help prove it.
“We didn’t chase any lyrics to solve any murders,” Adriane Love told jurors. Instead, she said prosecutors in this case “chased the murders and found the lyrics” that pointed to true, specific events.
A day later, Thug’s lawyer responded by telling jurors that his client had been “born into a society filled with despair” and had merely rapped about violent crime because “these are the stories he knew” — and that prosecutors had cherry-picked lyrics that matched the crimes they hoped to pin against him.
“This is the environment he grew up in. These are the people he knew, these are the stories he knew. These are the words he rhymed,” Brian Steel told the jury. “This is art. This is freedom of speech.”
After opening statements concluded, prosecutors began presenting witnesses – a process that is expected to last months.
Other top stories this week…
SINCE U BEEN GONE – Kelly Clarkson won a legal ruling in California that said her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him while he serving as her manager. The decision, issued by California’s labor commissioner, said Blackstock had “unlawfully procured” a number of business deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
‘FICTITIOUS’ CONCERTS? – Rapper Polo G sued a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
YOUTUBER SLAPPS BACK – YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry — prevailed in a defamation lawsuit filed by wealth coach Derek Moneyberg. The case, which concerned YouTube interviews in which Moneyberg was termed a “Charlatan,” was tossed out under California’s anti-SLAPP law – a statute aimed to quash lawsuits that threaten free speech.
TIKTOK BAN BLOCKED – Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked by a federal judge who ruled that the statute likely violates the First Amendment. The judge ruled that the law “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses.”
ARETHA ESTATE BATTLE – A judge overseeing the estate of Aretha Franklin awarded real estate to the late star’s sons, citing a handwritten will from 2014 that was found between couch cushions. The ruling came months after a Detroit-area jury said the document was a valid will under Michigan law, despite scribbles and many hard-to-read passages. Franklin had signed it and put a smiley face in the letter “A.”
An appeals court upheld the disorderly conduct convictions Friday (Dec. 1) of actor Jussie Smollett, who was accused of staging a racist, homophobic attack against himself in 2019 and lying about it to Chicago police.
Smollett, who appeared in the TV show Empire, challenged the role of a special prosecutor, jury selection, evidence and many other aspects of the case. But all were turned aside in a 2-1 opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court.
Smollett had reported to police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The search for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself, leading to his arrest on charges he had orchestrated the whole thing.
Authorities said he paid two men whom he knew from work on Empire, which filmed in Chicago. Prosecutors said Smollett told the men what slurs to shout, and to yell that he was in “MAGA Country,” a reference to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign slogan.
A jury convicted Smollett in 2021 on five felony counts of disorderly conduct, a charge that can be filed in Illinois when a person lies to police.
He now will have to finish a 150-day stint in jail that was part of his sentence. Smollett spent just six days in jail while his appeal was pending.
Lawyers for Smollett, who is Black and gay, have publicly claimed that he was the target of a racist justice system and people playing politics.
“We are preparing to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court,” Smollett spokeswoman Holly Baird said, referring to Illinois’ highest court and also noting that the opinion at the appellate court wasn’t unanimous.
Appellate Justice Freddrenna Lyle would have thrown out the convictions. She said it was “fundamentally unfair” to appoint a special prosecutor and charge Smollett when he had already performed community service as part of a 2019 deal with Cook County prosecutors to close the case.
“It was common sense that Smollett was bargaining for a complete resolution of the matter, not simply a temporary one,” Lyle said.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to look into why the case was dropped. A grand jury subsequently restored charges against Smollett in 2020, and Webb concluded there were “substantial abuses of discretion” in the state’s attorney office during the earlier round.
Smollett was not immune to a fresh round of charges, appellate Justices David Navarro and Mary Ellen Coghlan said in the majority opinion.
“The record does not contain any evidence that (prosecutors) agreed Smollett would not be further prosecuted in exchange for forfeiting his bond and performing community service,” they said.
Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked Thursday, one month before it was set to take effect, by a federal judge who called the measure unconstitutional.
The ruling delivered a temporary win for the social media company that has argued Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature went “completely overboard” in trying to regulate the app. A final ruling will come at a later date after the legal challenge moves through the courts.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said the ban “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses” while singling out the state for its fixation on purported Chinese influence.
“Despite the state’s attempt to defend (the law) as a consumer protection bill, the current record leaves little doubt that Montana’s legislature and Attorney General were more interested in targeting China’s ostensible role in TikTok than with protecting Montana consumers,” Molloy wrote Thursday in granting the preliminary injunction. “This is especially apparent in that the same legislature enacted an entirely separate law that purports to broadly protect consumers’ digital data and privacy.”
Montana lawmakers in May made the state the first in the U.S. to pass a complete ban on the app based on the argument that the Chinese government could gain access to user information from TikTok, whose parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing.
The ban, which was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, was first brought before the Montana Legislature a few weeks after a Chinese spy balloon flew over the state.
It would prohibit downloads of TikTok in the state and fine any “entity” — an app store or TikTok — $10,000 per day for each time someone “is offered the ability” to access or download the app. There would not be penalties for users.
TikTok spokesperson Jamal Brown issued a statement saying the company was pleased that “the judge rejected this unconstitutional law and hundreds of thousands of Montanans can continue to express themselves, earn a living, and find community on TikTok.”
A spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, also a Republican, tried to downplay the significance of the ruling in a statement.
“The judge indicated several times that the analysis could change as the case proceeds,” said Emily Cantrell, spokeswoman for Knudsen. “We look forward to presenting the complete legal argument to defend the law that protects Montanans from the Chinese Communist Party obtaining and using their data.”
Western governments have expressed worries that the popular social media platform could put sensitive data in the hands of the Chinese government or be used as a tool to spread misinformation. Chinese law allows the government to order companies to help it gather intelligence.
More than half of U.S. states and the federal government have banned TikTok on official devices. The company has called the bans “political theatre” and says further restrictions are unnecessary due to the efforts it is taking to protect U.S. data by storing it on Oracle servers. The company has said it has not received any requests for U.S. user data from the Chinese government and would not provide any if it were asked.
“The extent to which China controls TikTok, and has access to its users’ data, forms the heart of this controversy,” the judge wrote.
Attorneys for TikTok and the content creators argued on Oct. 12 that the state had gone too far in trying to regulate TikTok and is essentially trying to implement its own foreign policy over unproven concerns that TikTok might share user data with the Chinese government.
TikTok has said in court filings that Montana could have limited the kinds of data TikTok could collect from its users rather than enacting a complete ban. Meanwhile, the content creators said the ban violates free speech rights and could cause economic harm for their businesses.
Christian Corrigan, the state’s solicitor general, argued Montana’s law was less a statement of foreign policy and instead addresses “serious, widespread concerns about data privacy.”
The state hasn’t offered any evidence of TikTok’s “allegedly harmful data practices,” Molloy wrote.
Molloy noted during the hearing that TikTok users consent to the company’s data collection policies and that Knudsen — whose office drafted the legislation — could air public service announcements warning people about the data TikTok collects.
The American Civil Liberties Union, its Montana chapter and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights advocacy group, have submitted an amicus brief in support of the challenge. Meanwhile, 18 attorneys generals from mostly Republican-led states are backing Montana and asking the judge to let the law be implemented. Even if that happens, cybersecurity experts have said it could be challenging to enforce.
Online investigator and YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry, money in hip-hop and get-rich-quick social influencers — has prevailed in a long-running defamation lawsuit filed by Derek Moneyberg, the online persona of self-proclaimed wealth coach Dale Buczkowski.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Buczkowski operates a number of big-ticket wealth management coaching services, including his “Mastermind Network” — which charges users a $20,000 initiation fee and a $5,000 annual renewal fee — and his “1-ON-1 Training,” which starts at $75,000 per year, according to his attorney Tamara Beatty Peterson.
The defamation suit — filed on June 21, 2021, in U.S. District Court in Nevada — accused Cornelia of making false and defamatory statements against Buczkowski during two interviews with a former friend and associate of Buczkowski named John Mulvehill, whom Buczkowski also sued. During the interviews with Cornelia, Mulvehill questioned Buczkowski’s academic credentials and suggested Buczkowski’s success was due in part to criminal behavior. On a later broadcast, Cornelia openly mused about nominating Buczkowski for his annual “Charlatan of the Year” award.
Over the course of several months in summer 2023, U.S. District Court Judge James C Mahan dismissed the complaints against both Mulvehill and Cornelia. On July 23, Mahan ruled in favor of Mulvehill, finding that Buczkowski lacked jurisdiction to file his lawsuit in Nevada since Buczkowski couldn’t provide any evidence he lived in the state beyond “a handful of pieces of mail.”
Then, in late September, Judge Mahan tossed the defamation charges filed against Cornelia, ruling that Buczkowski was a public figure — a designation that requires a finding that Cornelia acted with actual malice, meaning “a statement is made with falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.”
“Here, all of the allegedly defamatory statements were uttered by Mulvehill, not Cornelia. Cornelia was simply interviewing Mulvehill,” Mahan wrote in his September ruling. “Regardless of this fact, the evidence in the record shows that Cornelia did not act with reckless disregard in conducting his interview with Mulvehill,” noting that “Cornelia published his videos based on reasonable information he received from reliable sources.”
That included a video from a former employee of Buczkowski “who corroborated claims about plaintiffs’ unethical business practices and their using young, unqualified people to write the instructional and promotional material for plaintiffs’ courses,” Mahan wrote. In his deposition, Buczkowski was asked about his claims that he had been interviewed by major magazines and television outlets seeking his financial acuity but was unable to name a publication he hadn’t paid to be featured in.
“Even if Cornelia were mistaken, his conduct is not remotely close to constituting reckless disregard. Thus, defendants did not act with actual malice, and the court grants their motion for summary judgment.”
Buczkowski has already filed an appeal of the ruling, and Cornelia has indicated he too plans to appeal Judge Mahan’s denial of Cornelia’s anti-SLAPP motion — a type of request that asks the court to dismiss a case on grounds that it attacks protected speech. Had Mahan granted the motion, Buczkowski could be found liable for Cornelia’s legal expenses.
“I feel incredibly relieved that the judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all claims. It was the correct ruling and another reminder to angry litigants that the legal system will deter those attempting to engage in lawfare,” Cornelia told Billboard in a statement.
“Because Moneyberg’s only interest is dragging this case as long as possible and attempting to defeat an underfunded litigant by spending his way to victory, he decided to appeal the judge’s ruling,” Cornelia continued. “I am excited for the finality of this case following the appeals process and seeing a judgment against Moneyberg for a significant amount of money. I will be pursuing him for 100% of my attorneys fees when this case is over.”
Billboard reached out to representatives for Buczkowski and did not receive a response.
Kelly Clarkson has won a legal ruling that her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him for procuring business deals while he served as her manager.
In a Nov. 21 decision, California’s labor commissioner ruled that Blackstock procured a number of deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
By doing so, Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower ruled that Blackstock violated California’s Talent Agencies Act (TAA), which bans anyone other than a licensed talent agent from procuring work for artists.
All told, Blackstock must pay back commissions earned on four deals: $1,983,155.70 for securing Clarkson’s role on The Voice; $208,125 for a deal to promote Norweigan Cruise Lines; $450,000 for an agreement to promote Wayfair; and $93.30 to host the Billboard Music Awards in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Importantly, the commissioner rejected Clarkson’s claim that Blackstock was also required to pay back commissions he earned from helping to secure The Kelly Clarkson Show — which could have seen him owe much more. His involvement in that deal, including “strategizing” with her agents, was clearly “at the request of CAA” and thus not a violation of the law, the commissioner ruled.
“When a manager strategizes with the agent during a negotiation and does not approach the potential employer without the agent’s permission, they are doing exactly what the TAA demands of them,” Garcia-Brower wrote.
After a marriage of seven years, Clarkson filed for divorce from Blackstock in June 2020. The case was finalized two years later, with the singer agreeing to pay her ex-husband monthly child support of $45,601 for their two children, plus a one-time payment of just over $1.3 million.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on this month’s decision.
The Nashville judge overseeing the bitter lawsuit between Hall & Oates sided with Daryl Hall on Thursday (Nov. 3) and ruled that John Oates temporarily cannot sell his share of the band’s joint venture to Primary Wave until a private arbitrator hears the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Hours after attorneys for the two singers squared off in court, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend an existing restraining order that’s been blocking Oates from selling his share of their joint venture to industry heavyweight Primary Wave.
Without such an order in place, Perkins ruled that Hall might face the “irreparable harm” of the sale being finalized before he is able to prove his claim that the deal violates the terms of their partnership deal.
“If the transfer goes forward before the arbitrator has an opportunity to consider and rule upon plaintiffs’ application for interim injunctive relief in the arbitration, then it could, as a practical matter, render much of the relief Plaintiffs are seeking in the arbitration ineffectual,” Perkins wrote.
The new restraining order bars Oates from completing his sale to Primary Wave until February or until an arbitrator can decide whether to impose a similar restraining order — whichever comes first.
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday.
Hall & Oates pumped out six chart-topping singles and four chart-topping albums during the 1970s and 1980s and continued to successfully tour as recently as last year. But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, accusing him of violating their partnership agreement by attempting to sell his half to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that’s purchased catalogs and other IP linked to many iconic musicians in recent years.
Fearing the deal would close before the arbitration case was heard, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale. Perkins quickly did so, blocking the Primary Wave sale from closing until Thursday when he could hear from both sides.
At a live hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court earlier on Thursday, a who’s-who of music attorneys battled over whether to extend the restraining order. Representing Hall was Christine Lepera of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who argued that it would be “most efficient” to put the sale on ice until the arbitrator could weigh in. Derek Crownover from the firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, representing Oates, fired back that no additional injunction was needed — that Hall was “not entitled to any relief at all.”
Though the case started out under seal and shrouded in mystery, the legal battle between Hall & Oates has turned increasingly public — and increasingly nasty — over the last week.
On Wednesday, Hall said he had been “blindsided” by the Primary Wave deal and called it the “ultimate partnership betrayal” by his former partner. “Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates said in his own declaration that he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall would make such “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements” about him. “I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
Following Thursday’s decision, the case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled.
