Legal
Page: 21
Sean “Diddy” Combs will stand trial on May 5 in his racketeering and sex trafficking case, a federal judge ruled at a court hearing on Thursday (Oct. 10).
The order from Judge Arun Subramanian — who replaced Judge Andrew L. Carter as the presiding judge last week and will handle the eventual trial — was issued from the bench and reported by the Associated Press and other outlets.
The trial date is in line with what the rapper’s legal team wanted. In court documents Wednesday (Oct. 9), they said they were continuing to assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial and would be seeking to get the case before a jury in April or May.
Though a trial date is now set, the schedule could still be pushed back, particularly if prosecutors file new charges or add defendants to the case. It could also be delayed if Combs eventually waives his speedy trial right to give his team more time to prepare — a decision that might hinge on whether he’s granted bail in a pending appeal.
When he does stand trial, Combs will face charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what prosecutors say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The decades-long scheme allegedly involved not only elaborate sexual parties called “freak offs” and other sex abuse, but also forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in their indictment last month. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
Thursday’s hearing came less than 24 hours after Combs’ lawyers accused the government of leaking evidence to the media, including the infamous surveillance video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie in 2016.
At Thursday’s hearing, according to AP, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Johnson pushed back on those “baseless” claims, saying it was simply an effort by Combs’ lawyers to prevent jurors from seeing the “damning” Cassie video: “Not a single one of those alleged leaks are from members of the prosecution team,” Johnson said.
The next court date for Combs’ case is currently set for December.
Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a lawsuit claiming Chili’s used more than 60 copyrighted songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and others on social media without permission, just months after the Beastie Boys accused the restaurant chain of the same thing.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (Oct. 10) in Manhattan federal court, the music giant accused Chili’s owner Brinker International Inc. of willfully using unlicensed music in dozens of promotional videos across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
“In order to draw the attention of consumers in the fast-moving world of social media, defendants chose to rely on the use of popular music as an integral part of their Chili’s messaging,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But despite this success, defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs for the music that serves as the soundtrack for Chili’s social media ads.”
Trending on Billboard
In addition to Grande and Bieber, UMG says the videos featured music from dozens of other stars, including Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, ABBA, Luke Bryan, Travis Scott, Bruno Mars, Lil Nas X, Earth Wind & Fire, The Weeknd and more.
The new case comes less than three months after Chili’s was accused of largely the same thing by the Beastie Boys. In that case, which remains pending, the iconic rap trio accuses the restaurant of using their 1994 smash “Sabotage” online, including in a video that mimicked the song’s 1970s-themed music video.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on television.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in promotional TikTok videos, with Universal and Sony eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. And in July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing.
In Tuesday’s case against Chili’s, UMG argued that a sophisticated company with more than 1,600 restaurant locations would have known that it needed sync licenses to use well-known music in ads — or at least that it should have known.
“Defendants include successful companies promoting multiple restaurant franchises with their own legal departments and protecting their own intellectual property interests,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Despite defendants’ prior history of licensing music from plaintiffs for use in commercials, defendants did not seek to determine which of the videos at issue in this complaint used plaintiffs’ musical works.”
Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
A California appeals court has sided with The Offspring in a long-running court case filed by former drummer Ron Welty, rejecting his claims that he was owed millions more from the punk band’s $35 million catalog sale.
Welty’s lawsuit alleged that lead singer Bryan “Dexter” Holland had tried to “erase” his contributions to the Offspring, including by shorting him on the proceeds of the band’s 2015 catalog sale to Round Hill Music. But a Los Angeles judge rejected those accusations last year.
In a ruling Wednesday, California’s Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, saying there had been “no reversible error” in the lower judge’s decision. Welty raised numerous challenges to how the lower judge had handled the case, but the appeals court was not convinced by any of them: “The judgment and order are affirmed.
Trending on Billboard
Welty joined The Offspring in 1987 and served as the band’s drummer during its heyday, including on its 1998 album Americana that reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200, before leaving the band in 2003 on undisclosed terms.
In his sweeping 2020 lawsuit, Welty accused Holland and the other members of numerous forms of wrongdoing: “This lawsuit seeks, among other things, redress for The Offspring’s failure to pay Mr. Welty his rightful share of the band’s proceeds and a prohibition against their ongoing efforts to harm Mr. Welty, his legacy with the band, and his ongoing career.”
Among other allegations, Welty claimed he had been entitled to a bigger cut of the Round Hill deal, in which the company paid $20 million for the rights to the band’s recorded masters — split among the band’s key performers — and another $15 million for the publishing rights, paid directly to Holland.
Welty claimed he deserved some of that publishing money, and argued in his lawsuit that he was owed at least $2.8 million more from the Round Hill transaction. But at a bench trial in 2022, Judge William F. Fahey largely rejected those accusations, calling some them “completely illogical.” During the proceedings, other members of The Offspring had testified that the structure of the deal was fair since Holland had written all of the band’s music.
In a written decision last year, Fahey ruled that the deal had been “structured in accordance with industry standards” and that Welty had failed to prove that he was entitled to a cut of Holland’s $15 million: “It is hard even to envision a reason why these two other band members would agree to such a structure unless they believed that Holland was the creator and owner of the music compositions.”
In March, the judge issued a final judgment in favor of the band, finalizing the earlier rulings and rejecting the rest of Welty’s claims. It was that ruling that was affirmed by Wednesday’s decision at the appeals court.
Following the ruling, Welty’s attorney, Jordanna G. Thigpen, said her client had “great respect” for the appellate court but was “contemplating the next step of appellate review.” Howard King, an attorney for The Offspring, declined to comment.
As Bad Boy Records founder Sean “Diddy” Combs sits in a Brooklyn prison awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges and prepares to fend off multiple civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault, those in the music industry are asking how much of his wealth could be at stake.
Sources tell Billboard that the hip-hop mogul has sold many of the assets that earned him hundreds of millions of dollars. And Forbes estimated that Combs’ net worth — once fueled by ventures in music, fashion, liquor and cable TV — has fallen from approximately $740 million in 2019 to $400 million as of this past June.
Federal prosecutors and attorneys for the alleged victims likely will go after the money Combs earned from his businesses and other assets, and his own legal defense potentially could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars as well. That said, prosecutors will need to prove that the businesses were in some way connected to the alleged crimes, to which Combs has pled not guilty. Lawyers representing individuals suing Combs in civil court do not need to meet that barrier of proof. It is unclear when a jury trial will take place for the federal charges, and the many civil lawsuits he faces are at various stages of adjudication.
Trending on Billboard
Combs’ attorneys, representatives and federal prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment.
Here is a breakdown of Combs’ current financial picture viewed through his music, real estate and cable TV assets:
Bad Boy Records
While Combs began diversifying his investments long ago, his core music industry holdings have dissipated. He once owned his masters and publishing rights through Bad Boy Records. Currently, he may still own his publishing rights and albums recorded from 2010 onward, but he likely no longer owns the albums he recorded before 2009, which were the most successful of his career.
B.I.G. and Diddy
That’s because of a joint venture Combs entered with Warner Music Group for the entire Bad Boy catalog in 2005. The deal ended in 2009 with WMG retaining full ownership of the vast majority, if not all, of the catalog released by Bad Boy prior to that year. Those include the catalogs of The Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, Mase and another dozen or so platinum albums by Bad Boy artists.
In June, Billboard estimated that Diddy’s own catalog brings in $2.4 million annually in recorded masters revenue, as well as $600,000 in publishing revenue, of which his share is $222,000. We estimated his catalog would carry a valuation of $42 million.
Since determining that Combs no longer owns his best-selling albums, Billboard revised that estimate — based on a calculation that almost 60% of his catalog’s annual activity is owned by WMG — to $1.05 million. His music publishing earnings remain unchanged, which adds up to $1.25 million in take home pay.
Catalog
One asset Combs is unlikely to sell soon is his catalog because his the nature of the alleged abuses outlined in the various legal cases he is facing and the fact that recordings were not put out under a single, identifiable brand — he has released music as Puff Daddy, Puff Daddy & the Family, P. Diddy, Diddy and Diddy-Dirty Money — make it harder to market, institutional investors tell Billboard.
While private equity investors have no appetite for music issued under the Diddy names, financial sources say that music from other artists he has worked with still have value, and those artists could sell their income streams. However, some Bad Boy Records artists have asked the various majors if their albums might drop the Bad Boy logo, sources tell Billboard.
In 2023, Combs disclosed that he has been returning ownership of publishing to the artists who recorded on Bad Boy Records. In a Q&A with Billboard, he reported that Mase, Evans, The LOX, 112 and the estate of The Notorious B.I.G. are among the creatives who have already signed agreements to regain those rights.
REVOLT
Co-founded by Combs as a music cable channel in 2013, REVOLT was initially broadcast by Comcast and Time Warner Cable to a combined roughly 34 million subscribers. Over the past decade, it has built a reputation as a prominent black-owned media company and has been profitable since 2018. Last summer it was part of a group of investors bidding for a majority stake in Paramount Global’s BET Media Group. As a private company, it has never disclosed its financials. Combs stepped down from his role as chairman of REVOLT last November, and reports circulated in March that he sold his stake to an anonymous bidder. Sources tell Billboard Combs’ stake likely netted him a sum in the low to mid-eight figures.
Real Estate
It is documented in court documents filed in connection with the federal charges against Combs that Combs owns homes in Los Angeles and Miami. The latter, which is located on Miami’s exclusive Star Island has multiple pools, an on-site spa and a guesthouse was listed as part of his collateral for his $50 million bail bond. (Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky denied his release, and Combs’ attorneys filed an appeal this week.) Combs’ home in Beverly Hills is currently for sae for $61.5 million.
Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs are demanding an investigation into whether federal authorities leaked evidence of the racketeering and sex trafficking case to the media, including the infamous surveillance video of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie in 2016.
In a scathing court filing late on Wednesday (Oct. 9), Combs’ attorney Marc Agnifilo claims there has been “a series of unlawful government leaks, which have led to damaging, highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity that can only taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Combs of his right to a fair trial.”
Agnifilo calls the leak of the Cassie video the “most egregious example” of the problem, but says it was just “one of a long and documented history of leaks and false statements made with one purpose: to savage Mr. Combs’ reputation prior to trial.”
Trending on Billboard
“While the government’s misconduct in this case is particularly egregious, it is unfortunately part of a trend in this district — the government has learned that it can strategically leak information with impunity,” Agnifilo wrote.
The filing asks the judge overseeing the case to order a hearing into the allegations and to allow Combs’ lawyers to seek out evidence of such leaks from prosecutors and law enforcement. It also asks the judge to issue a gag order barring any further leaks, and to prevent prosecutors from citing any leaked evidence during the eventual trial.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors over accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
Prosecutors allege that Combs ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The charges detailed “freak offs” in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with male sex workers, as well as alleged acts of violence and intimidation to keep victims silent.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in the indictment. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
That indictment was preceded by repeated media reports that a federal criminal probe of Combs was underway, as well as well-publicized law enforcement raids on his Miami and Los Angeles homes. In the filing on Wednesday, Agnifilo said that media coverage had been fed by “a steady stream of false and prejudicial statements” and leaks from federal agents at the Department of Homeland Security.
The filing also alleges that government employees had “repeatedly leaked grand jury information and materials to the press to raise public hostility against Mr. Combs.” Agnifilo pointed specifically to the Cassie video, which showed Combs striking his then-girlfriend in the hallway of a hotel and made headlines when CNN released it in May
“The videotape was leaked to CNN for one reason alone: to mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself against these allegations,” Agnifilo wrote. “Rather than using the videotape as trial evidence, alongside other evidence that gives it context and meaning, the agents misused it in the most prejudicial and damaging way possible. The government knew what it had: a frankly deplorable video recording of Sean Combs in a towel hitting, kicking and dragging a woman in full view of a camera in the hallway of the hotel.”
Dr. Dre is facing a $10 million lawsuit accusing him of a “malicious campaign of harassment” against a psychiatrist who says he served as a marriage counselor and mediator for the rapper and his ex-wife before and during their divorce.
In a case filed Wednesday (Oct. 9) in Los Angeles court, Dr. Charles J. Sophy claimed Dre (Andre Young) had subjected him to an “ongoing barrage of threats” after he had “worked diligently” to help him resolve his disputes with then-wife Nicole Young.
“Rather than treating the mediation process as an opportunity for healing, [Dre] decided to take his frustrations about the mediation out on Dr. Sophy — frustrations that manifested themselves in the form of a nearly year-long sustained campaign of late-night texts, threats of intimidation and violence, and homophobic rhetoric,” writes the doctor’s lawyer, Christopher Frost of the firm Frost LLP.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit seeks a restraining order against further harassment, as well as monetary damages that the accuser’s attorneys say should total at least $10 million. A representative for Dr. Dre did not immediately return a request for comment.
Nicole Young filed for divorce from Dr. Dre in 2020 after 24 years of marriage, citing allegations of abusive behavior that Dre vehemently denied. After another 18 months of legal wrangling, the couple finalized their divorce in December 2021 with a $100 million settlement.
According to Sophy’s lawsuit, the pair engaged him in 2018 for a “joint psychotherapist-patient relationship” in which he provided therapy and marriage counseling. After the divorce case began, he says he continued to work with the couple, along with their attorneys, to mediate the terms of the dissolution.
In February 2023, Sophy claims that after months of no contact, Dre began harassing him via text message. According to an alleged screenshot included in the complaint, in the first such message, Dre told Sophy that he had been told something “disturbing” by an unnamed person, followed by a threat: “You’re going to have to pay for that.”
Over the two months following that first text, Sophy says Dre repeatedly sent him threatening texts, accusing the doctor of “ethical breaches” and threatening to report him to medical regulators. In one, he allegedly told Sophy, “you f—ed with the wrong one”; in another, Dre allegedly said he was “not playing, trust me.”
“I’m not going anywhere,” Dre allegedly wrote in an April 2023 text, “until you explain to me why you tried to talk [an unnamed person] into saying negative things about me to the media.” Sophy says there is “no truth behind these baseless and far-fetched accusations” and that he tried to ignore the threats, but that he eventually began to fear for his safety.
“Young, a prominent and powerful figure in the music industry with a well-documented history of violence and abuse, carried out a series of unlawful acts deliberately intended to threaten, intimidate, terrorize, and ultimately ruin Dr. Sophy personally and professionally,” the lawsuit reads.
The threats extended beyond text messages, according to the lawsuit. In one alleged incident, Sophy claims that fake FBI agents, hired by Dre, arrived at his gated community and told a security guard that they needed to “talk” with the doctor at his home.
“This incident, which occurred immediately after the initial texts were sent in February, was not a coincidence,” Sophy’s lawyers write. “It was a calculated, unlawful attempt … to threaten his physical safety and send the unmistakable message that Young can reach Dr. Sophy even in the sanctity of his home.”
The incident caused Sophy to “fear for his life” and “resort to extreme security measures,” including hiring private security and wearing a bulletproof vest. His lawyers say the “egregiousness” of Dre’s conduct eventually “compelled Dr. Sophy to seek redress and protection” in the courts.
“Dr. Sophy does not relish suing a former patient,” the doctor’s lawyers write. “Nobody should have to live in constant fear. But Dr. Sophy does — ironically, for no other reason than he tried to help Young to resolve his own family’s conflict.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Dre of harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as violation of a California law prohibiting the use of force or threat of violence to interfere with someone’s civil rights. The lawsuit also claims that some of the threats were based on Sophy’s sexual orientation, meaning they violated a California hate crime statute.
Barry White’s estate is suing over allegations that a prominent sample at the heart of Future and Metro Boomin’s chart-topping “Like That” infringes the copyright to a 1973 song by the legendary singer — but they aren’t accusing the stars of any wrongdoing.
In a complaint filed last week in Manhattan federal court, White’s estate claimed that a 1986 hip-hop song called “Everlasting Bass” by the duo Rodney-O (Rodney Oliver) & Joe Cooley stole key elements from White’s 1973 song “I’m Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby.”
Attorneys for the White estate say they waited nearly four decades to sue over the song because it was “released prior to the internet and was not widely distributed,” leaving the estate “unaware of the song when it was first released.”
Trending on Billboard
White’s heirs are certainly aware of “Everlasting” now, and it’s not hard to guess why: The song was heavily sampled in “Like That,” which debuted at No. 1 on the Hot 100 earlier this year — so prominently that Future and Metro Boomin credited Rodney-O & Joe Cooley as co-writers.
By using an infringing sample, the lawsuit claims that “Like That” also infringes White’s copyrights: “‘Like That’ copies substantial elements of ‘I’m Gonna Love You Just A Little More, Babe’ … including but not limited to the iconic, immediately recognizable bass line,” the estate wrote in its Thursday (Oct. 3) complaint.But crucially, the White estate isn’t accusing Future, Metro Boomin or co-creator Kendrick Lamar of any legal wrongdoing. The lawsuit pins the blame solely on Rodney-O & Joe Cooley, saying they agreed to defend the stars against such accusations when they cleared the sample.
The duo did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Released in March as the third single off Future and Metro’s collaborative album We Don’t Trust You, “Like That” reigned at No. 1 for three weeks and spent another 28 weeks on the chart. At the time of its debut, most of the focus was on the lyrics — since the track was one of the early salvos in the diss war between Kendrick and Drake.
But the underlying music featured a sample from “Everlasting Bass,” a classic early hip-hop track that’s also been sampled by Three 6 Mafia, Lil Wayne and E-40. In an April interview with Vibe, Rodney-O said he loved what Future and Metro did with his song.
“It is crazy because the song was big when it came out and for it to be even bigger now all these years later, it’s crazy,” he said. “I heard the song, I knew it was good, but when it comes out and the world hears it how you hear it and react to it the way you reacted to it, that’s confirmation.”
As for White’s song, “Gonna Love You” is one of the legendary singer’s top commercial hits, peaking at No. 3 on the Hot 100 in June 1973 and ultimately spending 18 weeks on the chart.
Attorneys for Garth Brooks publicly disclosed the name of a woman who sued the country star for sexual assault last week in new court filings, drawing a sharp rebuke from the woman’s lawyers.
The reveal came via an updated version of a lawsuit Brooks himself filed last month, seeking to block an unnamed “Jane Roe” from publicizing her accusations. After she made good on those threats last week, Brooks refiled the case on Tuesday with her real name listed.
“Defendant’s allegations are not true,” the country star wrote in the amended lawsuit, leveling the same claims about “attempted extortion” and defamation.
Trending on Billboard
The move quickly sparked outrage from the accuser’s attorney, who later on Tuesday vowed to immediately move to reseal her name and seek legal penalties against Brooks. They also asked the media not to disclose the name
“Garth Brooks just revealed his true self,” Douglas H. Wigdor wrote. “Out of spite and to punish, he publicly named a rape victim. With no legal justification, Brooks outed her because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him. On behalf of our client, we will be moving for maximum sanctions against him immediately.”
Using the name Jane Roe, the accuser filed her case against Brooks last week in Los Angeles, accusing him of sexually assaulting her while she worked for him as a hairstylist and makeup artist. The case, which included an alleged incident of rape, claimed the singer took advantage of her financial troubles to subject her to “a side of Brooks that he conceals from the public.”
“This side of Brooks believes he is entitled to sexual gratification when he wants it, and using a female employee to get it is fair game,” Roe’s attorneys wrote in their complaint.
Brooks vehemently denied the allegations, saying in a statement that he had been threatened that the woman’s “lies” would be released to the public unless he wrote “a check for many millions of dollars.
“It has been like having a loaded gun waved in my face,” Brooks wrote. “Hush money, no matter how much or how little, is still hush money. In my mind, that means I am admitting to behavior I am incapable of—ugly acts no human should ever do to another.”
Brooks also confirmed he had been behind a mysterious lawsuit filed last month, obtained by Billboard, in which an anonymous “celebrity” plaintiff sued in Mississippi federal court over an unnamed accuser’s sexual abuse allegations. Calling the accusations false and an “ongoing attempted extortion,” the earlier case asked a judge to stop her from further publicizing them.
It was in the Mississippi case that Brooks revealed the accuser’s name on Tuesday. Billboard has chosen not to report the woman’s name.
A rep for Brooks declined to comment for this story.
Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs filed their opening salvo in an appeal of a judge’s ruling denying him bail, arguing the “sensationalism” of the case led a judge to rule based on “purely speculative” concerns about witness intimation.
In an opening brief filed late Tuesday, the rapper’s lawyers urge the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit to grant him bail – their third attempt to secure his release from a Brooklyn jail while he awaits trial on racketeering and sex trafficking charges.
Combs’ attorneys argue that a lower judge had relied on “exaggerated rhetoric” and “speculation” when it ruled that Combs posed a flight risk and might threaten witnesses.
Trending on Billboard
“The sensationalism surrounding his arrest has distorted the bail analysis,” writes Alexandra A.E. Shapiro and Jason A. Driscoll. “Mr. Combs is presumed innocent … and presented a bail package that would plainly stop him from posing a danger to anyone or contacting any witnesses.”
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors over accusations of sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson and bribery. If convicted on all the charges, he potentially faces a sentence of life in prison.
Prosecutors allege that Combs ran a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” The charges detailed “freak offs” in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex with male sex workers, as well as alleged acts of violence and intimidation to keep victims silent.
“For decades, Sean Combs … abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation and conceal his conduct,” prosecutors wrote in the indictment. “To do so, Combs relied on the employees, resources and the influence of his multi-faceted business empire that he led and controlled.”
A day after the indictment was unsealed, Judge Andrew L. Carter denied the rapper bail. Combs’ legal team offered to pay a $50 million bond and submit to strict monitoring to allow him to reside under house arrest at his Miami mansion.
But Carter (who has since been replaced by another judge) ruled instead that until trial Combs must remain at the Metropolitan Detention Center — a federal correctional facility long criticized for dysfunction and dangerous conditions. He was swayed by arguments from prosecutors that, if released, Combs would likely use his considerable wealth and power to obstruct the government’s case by pressuring witnesses.
In Tuesday’s brief, Combs’ attorneys argue that there was little hard evidence to support that conclusion. They say the government’s warnings had been based on “untested allegations” of contact with witnesses involved in the civil lawsuits against him, as well as his public denial of some of those claims.
“If denying accusations by civil plaintiffs could justify pre-trial detention, the liberty protections of the Bail Reform Act and the Constitution—not to mention the First Amendment—would be meaningless,” his lawyers write.
Read the entire brief here:
Weeks after Nelly’s former St. Lunatics groupmates sued him for allegedly cutting them out of royalties for his chart-topping breakout album Country Grammar, three of the ex-bandmates now say they never wanted to be part of the lawsuit and must be removed immediately.
In a letter sent last month, Nelly’s attorney warned the lawyer who filed the case last month that Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb) had recently retained his services and had “informed me that they did not authorize you to include them as plaintiffs.”
“They are hereby demanding you remove their names forthwith,” N. Scott Rosenblum wrote in the Sept. 24 letter, which was obtained by Billboard. “Failure to do so will cause them to explore any and all legal remedies available to them.”
Trending on Billboard
The move is a major twist just weeks after Harper, Kyjuan and Webb joined fellow St. Lunatics member Ali (Ali Jones) in filing the lawsuit against Nelly (Cornell Haynes). But it also makes sense after Nelly’s performance on Sunday (Oct. 6) at the American Music Awards, where all three men joined him on stage and appeared to be on good terms.
The withdrawal of Harper, Kyjuan and Webb means that the case is now essentially a dispute between Nelly and Ali alone. Ali’s attorney who filed the case, Gail M. Walton, did not immediately return a request for comment.
A group of high school friends from St. Louis, the St. Lunatics rose to prominence in the late 1990s with “Gimme What U Got”, and their debut album Free City — released a year after Country Grammar — was a hit of its own, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard 200.
In their Sept. 18 complaint, the bandmates claimed that Nelly had repeatedly “manipulated” them into falsely thinking they’d be paid for their work on the 2000 album, which spent five weeks atop the Billboard 200. But they said he never made good on the promises.
“Every time plaintiffs confronted defendant Haynes [he] would assure them as ‘friends’ he would never prevent them from receiving the financial success they were entitled to,” the lawsuit reads. “Unfortunately, plaintiffs, reasonably believing that their friend and former band member would never steal credit for writing the original compositions, did not initially pursue any legal remedies.”
During and after the Country Grammar recording session, the lawsuit claimed, Nelly “privately and publicly acknowledged that plaintiffs were the lyric writers” and “promised to ensure that plaintiffs received writing and publishing credit.” But decades later, in 2020, the lawsuit claimed that the St. Lunatics “discovered that defendant Haynes had been lying to them the entire time.”
“Despite repeatedly promising plaintiffs that they would receive full recognition and credit… it eventually became clear that defendant Haynes had no intention of providing the plaintiffs with any such credit or recognition,” the lawsuit read.