State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 95
Five months after an Instagram account first accused New York City radio host DJ Envy of being complicit in a multi-million dollar real estate investment scam in New Jersey, the situation has turned into a sprawling web of lawsuits, countersuits, bankruptcies and media coverage.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In at least 20 civil cases filed in recent months, dozens of investors claim that Cesar Pina and wife Jennifer Pina, New Jersey developers with famous friends, ripped them off — either through failed house flipping, a stalled apartment development project, or a startup they said would empower small investments in real estate.
Many of those lawsuits, including one filed by music industry veteran Anthony Martini, name DJ Envy (RaaShaun Casey) as a co-defendant, citing close ties to Pina. They claim Envy helped to promote the alleged schemers, including through appearances on The Breakfast Club, his nationally-syndicated hip hop radio show. One case says Envy “aided and abetted” the fraudsters by “using his public likeness as a well-known radio disc jockey to promote their real estate scheme.”
Firing back, Envy says those kinds of allegations are not only false — he says he himself is also a victim of Pina’s alleged scheme — but also defamatory. He’s suing the social media influencer who first publicized the allegations, claiming he “spewed” lies to promote his own real estate business, and he’s demanding to be dismissed from the investor lawsuits.
“They’re sensationalizing this situation,” said Envy’s lawyer, Massimo F. D’Angelo of the law firm Blank Rome, in a phone interview with Billboard. “Envy had no involvement whatsoever. The only reason he’s being dragged into this is because he’s a public figure.”
How did we get here? What exactly are the accusations? And what comes next? Here’s everything you need to know about the growing scandal.
Who is Cesar Pina?
Pina has long pitched himself a real estate guru, frequently posting about his work to a star-studded Instagram page featuring shots of Pina with Snoop Dogg, 50 Cent, Post Malone and Meek Mill. On his website, he says he’s been rehabbing and flipping homes in the Garden State for over a decade; he claims to own 1,100 rental properties in Paterson, N.J., alone.
One of the celebs frequently pictured with Pina was DJ Envy, who for more than a decade has co-hosted The Breakfast Club, a popular hip hop-focused radio talk show on New York’s Power 105.1. And the two had a close public relationship beyond social media: Over the years, Pina has repeatedly appeared on the show as a guest, and he and Envy co-hosted a series of seminars on real estate investing from 2018 onward.
As recently as June 2022, Pina made an appearance on The Breakfast Club to plug an investment platform he was launching called Flip 2 Dao, which would allow users to make small, fractional investments in real estate projects. Throughout the interview, Envy repeatedly touted his relationship with the developer and the value of the new investment tool.
“People always ask, how can I invest with you guys? And we never take anybody’s money,” Envy told listeners. “Now there will be a way where people can actually invest to be a part owner on some of the projects that we actually buy.”
What are the accusations?
Back in May, an Instagram account called TonyTheCloser (real name Tony Robinson) began making serious allegations of wrongdoing against Pina. In a series of videos and live streams, Robinson claimed that Pina had used his celebrity status to defraud numerous people, taking their money to invest in flipping properties with the promise of big profits, but ultimately returning little or nothing.
He also claimed that Envy had played a key role in the fraud by promoting Pina to his listeners. At various times, Robinson called the radio host a “thief,” “criminal,” and “scammer,” claiming he had “stolen millions” from investors and aided a “Ponzi scheme” — an infamous form of fraud in which the perpetrator creates the façade of a real business by paying earlier victims with funds from later victims.
Those social media allegations quickly turned into a wave of civil lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts.
In a May complaint, a company called Amy Flips claimed it had provided Pena with $500,000 to invest in properties and lost all but $30,000. A month later, attorneys for a New York man named Trevor Roman alleged he was owed $280,000 by Pina and his companies, saying their client was “one of many who fell prey to these fraudulent and deceptive tactics.” In July, a New Jersey man named Paul Peralta claimed that he had given Pina $600,000 in four payments as part of a “Ponzi scheme and investment scam” — and he specifically claimed the scheme had been promoted by “a radio show called The Breakfast Club.”
Martini, the music executive, also filed his case in July. Joined by another spurned investor named Anthony Barone, their lawyers claimed they had lost $1.5 million after Pina duped them into investing in a massive, 50-unit apartment project in Paterson that was never completed, as well as another $300,000 that they invested in the Flip 2 Dao platform.
But they also went a step further, naming DJ Envy as an actual defendant in the lawsuit. They claimed the DJ had not only plugged Pina on the air, but that he had personally attended a pitch meeting with Barone, and that he had joined Pina in leading a guided tour for big-wig investors around his New Jersey properties. Martini and Barone’s lawyers also specifically cited Pina’s June 2022 appearance on The Breakfast Club, in which he plugged Flip 2 Dao.
“But for Casey’s role in lending legitimacy to the real estate investments and portraying himself as a partner to the Pinas, plaintiffs would not have invested their money,” wrote Sean Mack, an attorney at the law firm Pashman Stein Walder Hayden and lead counsel for Martini and Barone.
All told, Pina is currently facing 20 lawsuits, almost half of which have been filed just since the beginning of August; Envy is named as a defendant in nine of those cases. It’s unclear exactly how much money Pina is alleged to owe his investors, but in an August filing, Martini’s lawyers claimed that more than 30 victims had come forward seeking over $40 million.
Pina’s lawyer, Steven Griegel of the firm Roselli Griegel Lozier & Lazzaro, did not return a request for comment from Billboard. But in at least one case against his client, he has argued that Pina’s investor did get their initial investment back — and that by demanding the huge profits they say they were promised, they are actually the ones violating New Jersey law.
“The plaintiff in this case is boldly seeking the court’s assistance to recover [triple] damages and attorneys’ fees for loansharking, even after it has been paid amounts in excess of New Jersey’s criminal usurious laws,” Griegel wrote in one case. “Obviously, the court should not be a part of validating this.”
Despite TonyTheCloser’s claims, there have been no allegations of criminal wrongdoing against either Pina or Envy.
What has DJ Envy said?
Since immediately after the allegations first cropped up in May, DJ Envy has denied that he did anything wrong, including during an interview with TonyTheCloser on an Instagram livestream. He says that he was not directly involved with any of Pina’s deals mentioned in the lawsuits, that he never solicited money from anyone during their seminars, and that he was not aware of any fraudulent activity.
But that hasn’t quieted the growing scandal. On Tuesday, New York’s local NBC affiliate ran an investigative piece under the headline “Real estate rip-off? Radio DJ promoted alleged NJ scheme leaving investors out of millions.” The story included interviews with numerous alleged victims, including a couple who say they invested with Pina “after seeing him on social media with DJ Envy.”
“He’s advertising this all over radio and television, so I thought this was legit,” the victim said in the NBC report. “We invested $200,000 and it looks like we won’t ever get it back.”
On Wednesday, Envy directly addressed the allegations on The Breakfast Club: “Cesar, if he took money, I wasn’t privy to it, nor did I even know. But I do understand how people feel if they did give him money, because I gave him a lot of money [and] I didn’t see a dollar of return. But for anybody to say that I was involved, that’s totally not true.”
In legal filings, Envy’s lawyers have made similar arguments. They say the DJ was also “lured” to invest $500,000 in separate project, meaning he “may be a victim of the Pina’s alleged fraudulent conduct” just like the plaintiffs. And they say that he was not involved in any Pina’s deals with spurned investors, nor made any direct “representations” to anyone regarding those transactions.
“Plaintiffs’ real targets are clearly the Pinas given Mr. Casey’s lack of involvement,” wrote D’Angelo, in a filing on Friday aimed at getting Envy dismissed from Martini’s case. “In an attempt to sensationalize this case, however, plaintiffs included Mr. Casey … as a defendant in this case. Plaintiffs’ conduct is wrongful and has caused, and continues to cause, significant damage to Mr. Casey’s reputation and businesses.”
But what about the fact that Envy repeatedly made public appearances with Pina and invited him onto The Breakfast Club? That’s been a common refrain from victims and other critics, who say the DJ used his sizable public platform to lend legitimacy to a scammer.
Legally speaking, Envy’s lawyers say that behavior simply does not rise to the level of active endorsement or direct involvement that would put their client on the hook for Pina’s alleged scheme. They say the DJ and his show were “used” by Pina, just like other media outlets and celebrities.
“Plaintiffs cannot plausibly or convincingly allege that Mr. Casey’s radio and social media interviews were the sole and principle reason for their investments, rather than the specific misrepresentations made by the Pinas directly to the plaintiffs,” D’Angelo wrote in that same court filing. “Mr. Casey has interviewed thousands of guests on The Breakfast Club, including celebrities and entrepreneurs, who have discussed various topics including their life experiences and businesses.”
DJ Envy has also quietly moved from defense to offense. In a federal lawsuit filed in August, he sued TonyTheCloser for defamation, interference with his business, and invasion of privacy. He claims that Robinson’s allegations against him are false — and that they’re part of money-making scheme to drive attention toward his own real estate business.
“Defendant, knowingly and intentionally, spewed false slanderous and defamatory misinformation about the plaintiff, which has, and continues to severely damage plaintiff,” wrote D’Angelo, who is also repping Envy in that case. “Defendant engaged in this wrongful conduct for the purposes of increasing traffic on his social media sites for his own personal gain in the form of paid advertisements.”
Robinson did not return a request for comment on the allegations.
What comes next?
Two of Pina’s companies, Whairhouse Real Estate Investments LLC and Taylor Court Apartments LLC (the company that administered the 50-unit apartment project in Paterson), have filed for federal bankruptcy since start of August. His wife Jennifer, who is named in many of the civil lawsuits, has repeatedly attempted to file for personal bankruptcy, but has been rejected for procedural defects. Pina himself does not yet appear to have sought bankruptcy protection.
Fearing that they’ll never have a chance to recover their money, some of Pina’s aggrieved investors have already jumped into those bankruptcy cases, demanding that the court appoint a trustee — an independent attorney chosen by the U.S. Department of Justice to oversee the case and make sure that any remaining money is fairly allocated to creditors. And those arguments worked: Last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Rosemary Gambardella ruled in both bankruptcy cases that a Chapter 11 trustee was needed to sort out the messy web of alleged debts and wrongdoing.
That ruling came after attorneys for Pina’s creditors argued that a single combined bankruptcy case, administered by one trustee, would be better than dozens of separate lawsuits at “unraveling of this wide-ranging fraud and the marshalling of assets to satisfy the scores of victims.”
“This will soon become the proverbial race to the courthouse to seize whatever assets remain of the Pinas and their entities,” wrote attorney Mack, the lawyer who represents Barone and Martini in their case against Pina and Envy. “A trustee is needed in this case, and in the cases of the related debtor parties, to organize and efficiently marshal and distribute the remaining assets to the Pinas’ many victims.”
A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday in a case filed by TikTok and five Montana content creators who want the court to block the state’s ban on the video sharing app before it takes effect Jan. 1.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula is not expected to rule immediately on the request for a preliminary injunction.
Montana became the first state 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.
Content creators say the ban violates free speech rights and could cause economic harm for their businesses.
TikTok said in court filings that the state passed its law based on “unsubstantiated allegations,” that Montana cannot regulate foreign commerce and that the state could have passed a law requiring TikTok limit the kinds of data it could collect, or require parental controls, rather than trying to enact a complete ban.
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.
TikTok, which is negotiating with the federal government over its future in the U.S., has denied those allegations. But that hasn’t made the issue go away.
In a first-of-its kind report on Chinese disinformation released last month, the U.S. State Department alleged that ByteDance seeks to block potential critics of Beijing, including those outside of China, from using its platforms.
The report said the U.S. government had information as of late 2020 that ByteDance “maintained a regularly updated internal list” identifying people who were blocked or restricted from its platforms — including TikTok — “for reasons such as advocating for Uyghur independence.”
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 bill was brought to the Montana Legislature 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.
The American Civil Liberties Union, its Montana chapter and 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.
In asking for the preliminary injunction, TikTok argued that the app has been in use since 2017 and letting Montanans continue to use it will not harm the state.
Montana did not identify any evidence of actual harm to any resident as a result of using TikTok and even delayed the ban’s effective date until Jan. 1, 2024, the company said.
The escalating legal battle between Coldplay and its former manager Dave Holmes significantly stepped up this month when the band filed a counterclaim lawsuit in the U.K. courts seeking £14 million ($17 million) in damages.
The court filing comes two months after Holmes announced he was suing the four members of Coldplay — Guy Berryman, Jonny Buckland, Will Champion and Chris Martin — for more than £10 million ($12 million) in damages and unpaid commission relating to the band’s yet-to-be-released 10th and 11th studio albums.
Having examined legal papers filed in the U.K. courts on behalf of both parties, here’s Billboard’s rundown of everything we know so far about the acrimonious dispute between Holmes and his former star clients.
Why Holmes and Coldplay fell out after more than 20 years of success together
Although the precise cause of the fallout between Holmes and Coldplay is not detailed in either lawsuit, legal papers filed by the group’s attorneys on Oct. 5 state that the band made the decision to dismiss the manager last summer following “a period of increasing concern” about his conduct. (Holmes’ position as the group’s manager officially came to an end Dec. 31, 2022).
In particular, the four band members allege that Holmes breached his contractual obligations by “failing” to adequately manage costs for the group’s 2022-2023 Music of the Spheres World Tour leading them to suffer “significant financial losses.”
“Unjustified” touring costs
Examples of financial mismanagement cited in the countersuit include spending 10.5 million euros ($11 million) on the construction of 16 bespoke stage pylons and commissioning the manufacture of a bespoke audio-visual “Jet Screen” at a total cost of $9.7 million that was only used for 10 shows in 2022. Another third-party supplier, listed in legal papers as TAIT, was paid $8.8 million to construct staging for the tour.
Coldplay’s attorneys say that those costs were “disproportionate and unjustified” and, as a result of Holmes’ “failing adequately to supervise and control” the tour budget, the band incurred at least £17.5 million ($21.5 million) in costs “which would otherwise have been avoided.”
That version of events is disputed by sources close to Holmes who deny that the former manager was responsible for tour costs overrunning. Instead, people familiar with the situation tell Billboard that many production decisions relating to the Music of the Spheres were made under the guidance of the band’s long-term creative director Phil Harvey, who has co-managed the band since last summer (following Holmes’ exit) alongside Mandi Frost and Arlene Moon.
Live Nation loans
Coldplay’s lawsuit claims that Holmes breached his fiduciary duties by using his association with the act to borrow a total of $30 million in low interest loans from Live Nation to fund a personal property development venture in Canada. The loans were not fully disclosed to the group and, as such, were secured without its informed consent, claim the four members.
Coldplay’s attorneys argue that these loans – set at a fixed annual interest rate of 2.72% – placed Holmes in a potential conflict of interest when it came to securing the best possible deal for his clients from Live Nation.
At the time when Holmes was negotiating a deal with Live Nation in 2021 and 2022 to exclusively promote Coldplay’s Music of the Spheres tour outside of the United Kingdom, the manager owed the touring giant approximately $27 million, the court filing alleges.
In response, the band is asking the courts to grant it access to Holmes’ financial accounts detailing any profits resulting from the low interest loans and the payment of any monies due to them.
The so-called “Albums 10/11 Agreement”
Holmes’ lawsuit against his former clients’ centers around a proposed contract extension (the so-called “Albums 10/11 Agreement”) that he claims Coldplay entered into in 2021 with his California-based management company, DHMC, relating to its yet-to-be-released tenth and eleventh studio albums.
Attorneys for Holmes claim he is owed outstanding commission from record company advances the manager negotiated on the band’s behalf with its label, Warner Music Group-owned Parlophone Records. Those advances totaled £35 million ($44 million) for Coldplay’s 10th album and £15 million ($19 million) each for the group’s subsequent two studio albums.
In return, Holmes received two payments in 2021 of £1.5 ($1.9 million), each equivalent to a 10% commission fee, state the court documents. However, his attorneys claim he is still due outstanding payment from the remainder of the record company advances paid to Coldplay.
Clearing samples, arranging recording sessions and recruiting Max Martin as producer
Holmes’ lawsuit additionally claims he is due payment for “extensive services” his company carried out for the 10th and 11th albums (and related tours) prior to his termination as manager.
These services include arranging writing and recording sessions in Jamaica and London, clearing an instrumental sample from musician Hal Walker, arranging a recording session on a film set in Boston, and liaising with producer Max Martin’s manager to arrange recording and production sessions.
Holmes says his team also worked on planning promotional campaigns, as well as scheduling, marketing, budgeting, sponsorship and ticket pricing for the United States, Asia and Australia legs of the Music of the Spheres World Tour.
Attorneys for Coldplay’s four founding members dispute their former manager’s claim and say that negotiations between the two parties broke down before “any such agreement might have been signed.”
In its defense and counterclaim filing, the band is seeking repayment of £3 million ($3.7 million) paid to DHMC in 2021 as advances for the band’s 10th album.
What Holmes and Coldplay are saying outside of court
On Coldplay’s part, very little. When Holmes’ lawsuit was filed in August a representative for the band confirmed with Billboard that Holmes’ management contract with the four-piece expired at the end of 2022 “at which point they decided not to start a new one. The matter is now in the hands of Coldplay’s lawyers and the claims are being vigorously disputed.” Representatives of the group declined to comment when contacted by Billboard this week about Coldplay counterclaim lawsuit.
Responding to Coldplay’s legal action, which is dated Oct. 5, a spokesperson for their former manager said, “Accusing Dave Holmes of non-existent ethical lapses and other made-up misconduct will not deflect from the real issue at hand: Coldplay had a contract with Dave, they are refusing to honor it and they need to pay Dave what they owe him.”
The matter will now proceed through the U.K. courts unless a settlement can be reached.
A judge has overturned a $32.5 million judgment against Google in the tech giant’s long-running case against Sonos over smart speaker patents.
In an Oct. 6 decision, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that the jury verdict from May that found Google had infringed one of Sonos’ smart speaker patents was invalid because the patents at issue in the case were “unenforceable.”
In a nutshell, Alsup claims that Sonos improperly linked its 2019 patent application, which was ultimately approved, with an earlier, rejected 2006 application for the same patents in an effort to show that its patents pre-dated Google’s products incorporating similar multi-room audio technology. The judge alleges the link is invalid because Sonos “deceptively” inserted new material into the 2019 application without alerting the patent examiner of the changes. He notes that when a continuation application for a patent — as was the case with the 2019 application, which was filed as a “continuation” of the one filed in 2006 — includes material not included in the original application, the two cannot rightly be connected.
“When new matter is added to a specification of a continuation application by way of amendment, the effective filing date should be the date of the amendment that added the new matter,” Alsup wrote. This effectively means that Sonos’ “priority date” for the patent would be Aug. 2019, when the amended application was approved — not 2006.
Alsup additionally accuses Sonos of “an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay” in filing suit against Google. He states that in 2014, five years prior to Sonos’ 2019 patent application, Google had shared with Sonos “a plan for a product that would practice what would become [Sonos’] claimed invention” as part of an exploration of a potential collaboration. When that partnership failed to come to fruition, Alsup adds, Google began rolling out its own products that utilized the invention in 2015.
“Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line),” he writes.
“This was not a case of an inventor leading the industry to something new,” Alsup continues. “This was a case of the industry leading with something new and, only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea first — wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor’s products from an ancient application.”
“Judge Alsup’s ruling invalidating the jury’s verdict is wrong on both the facts and law, and Sonos will appeal,” a Sonos spokesperson told Billboard in a statement. “The same is true of earlier rulings narrowing our case. While an unfortunate result, it does not change the fact that Google is a serial infringer of our patent portfolio, as the International Trade Commission has already ruled with respect to five other patents. In the end, we expect this to be a temporary setback in our efforts to hold Google financially accountable for misappropriating Sonos’s patented inventions.”
Google did not respond to a request for comment at publishing time.
Sonos first sued Google in January 2020, claiming the tech giant had infringed multiple patents for its smart speaker technology after gaining access to it through a 2013 partnership under which Sonos integrated Google Play Music into its products. Just two years after that partnership was reached, Sonos alleged that Google then “flooded the market” with cheaper competing products (under the now-defunct Chromecast Audio line) that willfully infringed its patented multi-room technology. Sonos additionally claimed that Google had since expanded its use of Sonos technology in more than a dozen other products, including the Google Home, Nest and Pixel lines.
The legal battle between the two tech companies has been protracted, with both sides going on the offensive at different points. In June 2020, Google filed suit against Sonos, alleging the smart speaker maker had actually infringed several of its own patents. Sonos subsequently filed two more lawsuits alleging that Google had infringed several additional patents it held.
Sonos filed one of those two cases with the U.S. International Trade Commission, which ruled in January 2022 that Google had infringed a total of five of Sonos’ audio technology patents and barred it from importing the infringing products from China. However, the commission also found that Google had successfully redesigned its products to avoid the Sonos patents and could continue selling those reworked versions in U.S. stores — an allowance Sonos had fought to prevent.
In August 2022, Google fired another volley with two additional lawsuits, claiming the smaller company used seven different patented Google technologies to instill the so-called “magic” in Sonos software.
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: Two new misconduct lawsuits, one against publishing exec Kenny MacPherson and another against R&B star Jason Derulo; a ruling for Cardi B that a gossip blogger can’t use bankruptcy to escape a huge defamation judgment; a new Supreme Court case that’s “vitally important to the music industry”; and more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Music #MeToo
The music industry was rocked last week by two new sexual misconduct lawsuits: one against a powerful publishing executive and another against a chart-topping R&B star.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, a woman named Sara Lewis leveled accusations of sexual assault and harassment against Kenny MacPherson, the CEO of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s publishing unit. Lewis claimed she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s when he served as the company’s president.
Through an attorney, MacPherson “vehemently” denied the allegations, stressing that the “unverified” claims stemmed from nearly two decades in the past. But Hipgnosis quickly placed him on leave of absence pending an internal investigation: “Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a company spokesperson said.
A day later, a woman named Emaza Gibson accused singer Jason Derulo of repeatedly sexually harassing her, then dropping her from a deal with his Atlantic Records imprint Future History after she rebuffed his advances. He strongly denied the claims, calling them “completely false and hurtful.”
Nearly six years on from the start of the #MeToo movement, the music industry is experiencing a new wave of such accusations. Two women filed lawsuits late last year against Atlantic Records over sexual assault allegations against late co-founder Ahmet Ertegun; country star Jimmie Allen was hit with two sexual assault lawsuits in May; and Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter has been sued by three different women who claim he sexually assaulted them as minors in the 2000s.
Go read the entire story on the Derulo accusations here and the entire story on the MacPherson allegations here, featuring full breakdowns of the cases and access to the actual court documents.
Other top stories this week…
BETTER HAVE MY MONEY – Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge ruled that the gossip blogger could not use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying most of the judgment.
TRANSATLANTIC CUSTODY SETTLEMENT – Lawyers for Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner, currently locked in a very public divorce, said the former couple was close to an “amicable resolution” to end Turner’s unusual federal lawsuit, which cited international treaties on child abduction to demand the return of the couple’s two young daughters to her native England.
ELECTRIC ZOO SUITS MOUNT – A month after this year’s chaotic iteration of the Electric Zoo festival in New York, a group of ticket buyers filed a class action over what they called an “absolute fiasco.” The lawsuit is at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against Brooklyn promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
FILE THE SUIT, PAY THE PRICE? – Sam Smith and Normani demanded to be reimbursed for money they spent defeating a failed copyright lawsuit that accused them of ripping off their 2019 hit, “Dancing With a Stranger,” from an earlier song. The final legal bill? A whopping $732,202.
MUSIC BIZ HEADS TO SCOTUS – The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by Warner Music Group, agreeing to tackle a case over copyright damages that labels and publishers have called “vitally important to the music industry.” The case is complicated, so go read our deep-dive explainer here.
LADY GAGA DOGNAPPING CASE – A Los Angeles judge once again ruled that Lady Gaga was not obligated to pay a $500,000 reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to the very same woman who was criminally charged over the incident. Echoing an earlier ruling, the judge said the woman had “unclean hands” that prevented her from profiting from her actions.
‘MY HUMPS’ v. ‘MY POOPS’ – Abruptly ending what could have been a major battle over copyright fair use, BMG Rights Management reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment over “My Poops” — a scatological parody song set to the tune of The Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
TUPAC MURDER CASE UPDATE – Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the man who prosecutors say masterminded the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas, made his first court appearance. Davis, who had been a long-known suspect in the case and publicly admitted his role in the killing in a tell-all memoir, was indicted late last month on one count of murder with a deadly weapon.
Another group of Electric Zoo ticket buyers have filed a class action over what they call the “absolute fiasco” at this year’s festival, marking at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
In a complaint filed Thursday in New York state court, lawyers for four attendees accused the Brooklyn-based company of false advertising, breach of contract and other wrongdoing over the event, which saw its Friday shows canceled at the last minute and Sunday plagued by problems.
“Normally this event is a transcendental audio-visual festival that creates everlasting thrilling memories for tens of thousands of EDM fans,” their lawyers wrote. “And while it did create everlasting memories in 2023, the memories created were not the ones which ticket holders were looking forward to.”
The “oversold, grossly understaffed” festival was “nothing short of an absolute fiasco,” attorneys for the concertgoers wrote, resulting in “long lines, massive overcrowding, and a literal stampede of people when it was discovered that the organizers oversold tickets.” The case was filed on behalf of Billy Ting, Duoc Vo, Garry Huang, Jeffrey Wang and Joshua Chin, but said it aims to represent as many as 75,000 ticketbuyers who had similar experiences.
Electric Zoo, held annually on New York City’s Randall’s Island, is one of the country’s top electronic dance festivals, but this year’s iteration – the second by Avant Gardner since the company acquired the festival in 2022 — was marred by issues.
First came an abrupt cancellation of Friday evening, meaning no performances by top names like The Chainsmokers and Kx5. That was followed by a delayed start and long lines on Saturday, and then a chaotic Sunday in which thousands of ticketholders were denied entry after the site reached capacity. Some fans jumped fences or ran through security checkpoints as a group.
Avant Gardner, which promised refunds for Friday and for anyone turned away on Sunday, blamed the problems on “global supply chain disruptions.” But sources later told Billboard that the Friday shutdown largely had stemmed from the promoter’s failure to pay vendors from last year’s festival, leading to a shortage of experienced concert professionals willing to work at this year’s event. Those shortages led to issues that caused city officials to withhold permitting approval until they were fixed. Citing internal sources, the New York Post also attributed the problems to staffing issues, as well as to a planning process that allegedly started months later than usual for a festival of its size and complexity.
Additionally, Sunday’s problems were caused by overselling the event by 7,000 people, according to an NYPD estimate reported by local news outlets. Shortly after the festival, Mayor Eric Adams suggested the city might launch an investigation into Avant Gardner over the debacle: “It’s unfortunate that the organizers wanted to turn our city into a zoo.”
Thursday’s lawsuit is at least the fourth such class action filed over the messy event. The first, filed on Sept. 13 in federal court, said Avant Gardner had caused “a nightmare endured by thousands of electronic music fans.” Another, filed just three days later in the same court, said the organizers had “lied to their guests at every opportunity.” In a third lawsuit, a Connecticut man said the festival’s “lack of planning and overselling of tickets” had caused dangerous overcrowding that caused him to “fear for his life.”
The specifics are varied, but all four lawsuits allege roughly similar forms of wrongdoing: That the Electric Zoo organizers misled ticket buyers, that they broke promises to concertgoers, and that they were negligent in failing to prevent the problems. Each case is seeking to represent hundreds or thousands of fans, and some or all of the cases could eventually be combined into a single, consolidated action.
A representative for Avant Gardner did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Electric Zoo class actions are only the latest legal issues for Avant Gardner, which operates an 80,000 square foot, multi-venue facility in Brooklyn’s East Williamsburg neighborhood. The company and owner Jürgen “Billy” Bildstein have clashed for years with the State Liquor Authority over allegations of drug use and other safety issues, including a 2020 agreement in which the company agreed to a $100,000 fine and to retain an independent safety monitor.
In August, that state-appointed monitor, T&M Security LLC, sued the company, claiming Avant Gardner had terminated the arrangement prematurely and then refused to pay its fees. A month earlier, another case claimed that security guards had assaulted patrons while searching them for drugs during a pride event.
Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge has ruled that the gossip blogger cannot avoid paying most of the judgment through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Tasha, who filed for bankruptcy in a May petition that said she had less than $60,000 in assets, will not be able to “discharge” $3.4 million owed to Cardi via the Chapter 11 process, Judge Scott M. Grossman ruled Thursday (Oct. 5) — meaning she’ll continue to be on the hook even after she exits bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy law allows insolvent people to escape certain debts, but it doesn’t shield them from paying money they owe because of “willful and malicious injury” they caused to others. After Tasha filed for bankruptcy, Cardi’s lawyers said that exception clearly applied to the huge judgment — a debt they said Tasha had incurred by “spreading false and defamatory statements” that were intended to cause harm.
After Cardi’s attorneys made those arguments, Tasha’s lawyers didn’t really fight back, essentially agreeing that $3.4 million of the $3.9 million judgment wasn’t going to be erased by the bankruptcy. And on Friday, Judge Grossman made it official: “The award of damages [and] interest thereon pursuant … are excepted from discharge.”
The ruling leaves only $500,000 of Cardi’s judgment in doubt. That money is technically owed solely by Tasha’s company Kebe Studios LLC. Whether or not Tasha herself is required to pay it will be the subject of future proceedings before the bankruptcy court.
Tasha’s bankruptcy attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Cardi (real name Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar) sued Tasha (Latasha Kebe) in 2019 over what the rapper’s lawyers called a “malicious campaign” on social media and YouTube aimed at hurting Cardi’s reputation. The star’s attorneys said they had repeatedly tried — and failed — to get her to pull her videos down.
One Tasha video cited in the lawsuit includes a statement that Cardi had done sex acts “with beer bottles on f—ing stripper stages.” Other videos said the superstar had contracted herpes; that she had been a prostitute; that she had cheated on her husband; and that she had done hard drugs.
Following a trial in January, jurors sided decisively with Cardi B, holding Tasha liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They ordered her and her company to pay more than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by Cardi. Tasha appealed the verdict last summer, but a federal appeals court easily rejected that request in March.
Cardi B has repeatedly vowed to recover the money. Shortly after she won the jury verdict, she tweeted “imma come for everything” along with the acronym BBHMM — “bitch better have my money.” And her lawyers spent months legally pursuing the money, including garnishing her YouTube monetization account.
But in May, Tasha said there was barely any money for Cardi to take. In her bankruptcy petition, she listed just $58,595 in total assets to her name, the vast majority of which came from a truck that’s tied as collateral to an unpaid auto loan. She listed only $11,750 in other properties, including two Louis Vuitton purses and just $95 in actual cash in her bank account. She counted the trademark to her “UnWineWithTashaK” YouTube channel as an asset, but says the value of the brand is “unknown.”
Lawyers for Cardi quickly filed a so-called adversary proceeding — a lawsuit-like process that takes place within a larger bankruptcy case — to ensure that Tasha couldn’t dodge the damages she owes. It was that case that led to Friday’s decision.
Jason Derulo has spoken out about the lawsuit filed Thursday (Oct. 5) by a woman who claims the superstar sexually harassed her after signing her to his record label.
“I wouldn’t normally comment but these claims are completely false and hurtful,” said Derulo in a video and written statement posted to Instagram Thursday night. “I stand against all forms of harassment and I remain supportive of anybody following their dreams. I’ve always strived to live my life in a positively impactful way, and that’s why I sit here before you deeply offended, by these defamatory claims. God bless.”
In the complaint, the woman, Emaza Gibson, said that she signed with Derulo’s record label, Future History, after Derulo allegedly reached out about working with her in August 2021. But she claimed the relationship quickly soured, with Derulo continually pressuring her to have sex with him despite her persistent refusals to do so. Among other accusations, Gibson said the singer told her that if she wanted success in the music industry, she “would be required to partake in ‘goat skin and fish scales,’ which is a Haitian reference referring to conducting sex rituals, sacrificing a goat, goat blood and doing cocaine.’”
After allegedly rebuffing all of Derulo’s advances, Gibson claimed that the star became increasingly dismissive of and aggressive toward her. She further accused Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris, and human resources executives at Future History’s label partner, Atlantic Records, of defending Derulo or ignoring her complaints. In September 2022, she said she was informed that her “employment” with Future History and Atlantic had been terminated.
Since her alleged experiences with Derulo, Gibson claimed she’s required medical intervention for “breakdowns, weight loss, insomnia, mood swings, hopelessness, loss of motivation…[and] feelings of betrayal and deception” and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Gibson is suing for sexual harassment, failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment, retaliation, intimidation and violence, breach of contract and more. Harris, Atlantic and RCA Records are also named as defendants. It’s unclear why RCA Records is listed, as the label has never done business with Derulo or Future History.
On Friday, Gibson’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, responded to Derulo’s statement by putting out his own. “If Derulo truly remained supportive of anyone following their dreams, he would acknowledge the pain and suffering he caused Emaza and aim to be a better person,” the statement reads. “He should be offended by these allegations, as should everyone, including his fans. Emaza is certainly offended by his dismissive attitude. The entire music industry is due for a #MeToo movement. This sort of conduct is pervasive but it takes brave people like Emaza to come out of the shadows and share their stories to finally bring an end to this shameful behavior.”
Singer Jason Derulo is being sued by a woman who claims the singer sexually harassed her and then dropped her from a deal with his record label after she rebuffed his advances, according to documents filed in Los Angeles County court Thursday (Oct. 5).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In the complaint — filed by attorney Ron Zambrano — the woman, Emaza Gibson, accuses Derulo of pressuring her to drink and have sex with him despite her persistent refusals to do so. In one bizarre claim, Gibson says the singer told her that if she wanted success in the music industry, she “would be required to partake in ‘goat skin and fish scales,’ which is a Haitian reference referring to conducting sex rituals, sacrificing a goat, goat blood and doing cocaine.’”
The complaint additionally lists as defendants Derulo’s record label, Future History; Atlantic Records, which has a joint venture with Future History; Derulo’s manager, Frank Harris; and Radio Corporation of America, dba RCA Records. It’s unclear why RCA Records is listed, as the label has never done business with Derulo or Future History.
According to the lawsuit, Derulo contacted Gibson in August 2021 stating he wanted to sign her to Future History, his new joint-venture label with Atlantic. After allegedly signing contracts with Derulo, Future History and Atlantic, Gibson states that work began on her debut album that same November, with Derulo acting “as her mentor, supervisor and agent for Atlantic and Future.”
Gibson goes on to claim that she regularly communicated with Derulo via text message to schedule recording sessions but that the singer instead “repeatedly” invited her to drinks and dinner — meetings she says she declined in an effort to keep the relationship professional. During a meeting in New York with Atlantic executives to discuss her career, Gibson claims she met another female artist who informed her that she was there because Derulo was also trying to have sex with her.
Gibson claims that after that alleged meeting, upon confronting Derulo about what the woman had said, he “immediately lost control and began aggressively hitting his arm rests screaming, ‘What does she have to do with you!? We weren’t going to tell you anything! We don’t have to tell you anything!’” Stating that she was rattled by the outburst, Gibson says she later insisted that her mother, who also served as her manager, be present at any future meetings of recording sessions with Derulo “out of concern for her own safety.” It was at that point, she claims, that Derulo stopped responding to her text messages.
The two allegedly didn’t meet again until June 2, 2022, when Gibson says she asked Derulo about the budget to pay for her recording sessions. She says Derulo snapped at her and ignored her questions but ultimately arranged for a recording session roughly a week later. Gibson says that due to traffic, she and her mother were approximately one hour late to the session, and that when they arrived, Derulo “immediately charged” and “lunged at her, causing her to step back and clutched [sic] her chest to brace herself for DERULO to physically assault her” before running to the bathroom in tears.
Gibson claims that when complaining to Harris about Derulo’s behavior, the manager defended Derulo and told her that the star “had the right to yell” at her. Derulo allegedly never responded to a follow-up text from Gibson about arranging another recording session, and on Sept. 6, 2022, she says she was informed that her “employment” with Atlantic and Future History had been terminated. She claims she then took her complaints about Derulo’s “sexually, emotionally and physically inappropriate behavior” to Atlantic executives and the label’s human resources department but that she was directed to take up her concerns with Future History. “No one has ever reached out to address” her concerns since, she claims.
Since her alleged experiences with Derulo, Gibson says she’s required medical intervention for “breakdowns, weight loss, insomnia, mood swings, hopelessness, loss of motivation…[and] feelings of betrayal and deception” and was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Gibson is suing for sexual harassment, failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment, retaliation, intimidation and violence, and breach of contract, among other causes of action. She’s requesting damages for unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages for emotional distress; special damages for medical expenses; and punitive damages.
Representatives for Derulo, Harris, Atlantic and RCA Records did not respond to Billboard‘s request for comment at time of publishing.
Kenny MacPherson, a long-time music publishing executive, has been placed on a leave of absence from his job at Hipgnosis Songs Fund, the company tells Billboard, following the filing of a lawsuit that claims he sexually assaulted a staffer in 2005 while he ran another company.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles court, Sara Lewis alleges that she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s, when he served as the company’s president.
Lewis claims the harassment eventually escalated into “a traumatic sexual assault” during a 2005 business trip, and that she was then “blacklisted” when she reported the abuse.
“The entertainment industry is rife with tales of the abuse of aspiring entrepreneurial women at the hands of older, powerful executives,” Lewis’ lawyers write. “Women have been historically punished for standing up for themselves, refuting sexual advances, or speaking out against their perpetrators. Sara is unwilling to perpetuate that stigma. This lawsuit is about reclaiming agency for survivors of sexual violence and bringing to justice those high powered perpetrators who have historically avoided culpability.”
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday (Oct. 5), Hipgnosis — which was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing — said it had placed MacPherson from his role as the CEO of the company’s publishing unit pending an investigation.
“Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a spokesperson for the company said. “While the company is not a defendant to these historic allegations which relate to a period 15 years before Hipgnosis was founded, Kenny MacPherson was placed on leave of absence from Hipgnosis Songs Group as soon as it became aware of the allegations. Our rigorous procedures for dealing with such matters have commenced.”
MacPherson did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
In addition to MacPherson, the lawsuit also named as a defendant BMG Rights Management, which acquired Chrysalis in 2010. Lewis claims that BMG, as the legal successor to her employer, is “directly liable” for the company’s failure to stop abuse by its president. In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, BMG stressed that it did not acquire Chrysalis until “years after the alleged events had taken place.”
“BMG stands solidly against all forms of discrimination, harassment, and abuse and we are shocked and dismayed by the allegations made by Sara Lewis,” the company said.
In her complaint — which contains graphic details of alleged harassment and assault — Lewis claims she was hired by Chrysalis in 2002 to “what she thought was her dream job,” eventually moving into a role as an A&R by 2003. But she says the dream “became a literal nightmare” as she was subjected to “relentless” harassment and “grooming” by MacPherson, who then served as the president of Chrysalis.
“Each of the repeated advances were unwanted and unwelcome,” her lawyers write. “But Sara had nowhere to turn. As president of Chrysalis, MacPherson knew all and controlled all. As a professional and aspiring executive, Sara put her head down, endured the harassment, and continued to pursue her dream career in the music industry.”
Lewis claims the harassment escalated into outright assault during a 2005 trip to Chicago to visit a newly-signed artist. After “plying her with alcohol” during a concert, she says he then “insisted that he and Sara have another drink in Sara’s hotel room” and eventually “professed his love” to her. When she says she “reiterated that she did not share these feelings,” he then “forced himself” on her.
“MacPherson attempted to penetrate Sara, but was unable to maintain an erection,” her lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s complaint. “MacPherson then forcibly performed oral sex on Sara as she laid motionless, repeatedly crying and saying ‘no,’ and pleading for MacPherson to stop. Eventually, apparently frustrated with Sara’s lack of participation and his own inability to perform, MacPherson relented and stopped his sexual assault.”
Lewis says she eventually “mustered the courage to report MacPherson’s abuse,” but her efforts were met only with silence and retaliation. Her direct supervisor did nothing, she says, and MacPherson began to shut her out of important portions of her job. When she tried to look for other jobs, she says she learned she had been “blacklisted” by MacPherson and Chrysalis. Eventually, she says she was “forced to leave the music industry entirely.”
“MacPherson and Chrysalis created an environment wherein Sara was without recourse,” her lawyers wrote. “She either acquiesced to MacPherson’s relentless and unwanted sexual advances, or faced a career-ending fate. Sara will no longer remain silent and now brings this action to seek redress for the years of sexual harassment and abuse she suffered at the hands of MacPherson, which was enabled and covered up by Chrysalis.”
In technical terms, Lewis is accusing BMG and/or MacPherson of 12 different counts of civil wrongdoing, including sexual battery, gender violence, and a slew of violations of California labor and employment laws covering sexual harassment and wrongful termination.
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Read the full legal documents here:
