Legal
Page: 25
Sean Kingston and his mother have been indicted in South Florida on federal charges of committing more than $1 million worth of fraud.
Kingston, 34, and his mother, 61-year-old Janice Turner, made their first appearances Friday (July 19) in federal court, according to court records. A Miami grand jury returned an indictment earlier this month accusing Kingston and his mother of participating in a scheme to defraud victims of high-end specialty vehicles, jewelry and other goods through the use of fraudulent documents.
Kingston was booked into the Broward County jail on similar state charges last month following a May 23 arrest at Fort Irwin, an Army training base in California’s Mojave Desert where he was performing. Turner was arrested the same day as her son, when a SWAT team raided his rented mansion in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
According to the federal indictment, Kingston and Turner falsely claimed that they had executed bank wire or other monetary payment transfers for high-end items when no such transfers had taken place. Investigators said Kingston and Turner then kept over $1 million worth of fraudulently purchased items despite not paying for them.
Trending on Billboard
The warrants for the state charges say that from October to March, they stole almost $500,000 in jewelry, more than $200,000 from Bank of America, $160,000 from a Cadillac Escalade dealer, more than $100,000 from First Republic Bank and $86,000 from the maker of customized beds.
The Jamaican American performer had a No. 1 hit with “Beautiful Girls” in 2007 and collaborated with Justin Bieber on the song “Eenie Meenie.”
Robert Rosenblatt, an attorney for Kingston and his mother, didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment from The Associated Press. He previously said they looked forward to addressing the charges and were “confident of a successful resolution.”
Kingston, whose legal name is Kisean Anderson, was already serving a two-year probation sentence for trafficking stolen property.
His mother pleaded guilty in 2006 to bank fraud for stealing over $160,000 and served nearly 1.5 years in prison, according to federal court records.
Attorneys for Priscilla Presley are suing four of her former business partners over allegations of elder abuse and fraud, accusing them of a “meticulously planned” scheme to drain Elvis Presley’s ex-wife of “every last penny she had.”
In a complaint filed Thursday (July 18) in Los Angeles court, lawyers for Presley, 79, accuse Brigitte Kruse, Kevin Fialko, Vahe Sislyan and Lynn Walker Wright of fraudulently convincing her to give them power over nearly every aspect of her life — and then abusing that control to steal her money.
“This action arises out of a meticulously planned and abhorrent scheme by the defendants in this action to prey on an older woman by gaining her trust, isolating her from the most important people in her life, and duping her into believing that they would take care of her (personally and financially), while their real goal was to drain her of every last penny she had,” writes high-profile attorney Martin Singer, who now represents Presley.
Trending on Billboard
Calling Kruse a “con-artist and pathological liar,” Singer says the defendants took more than $1 million from Presley and convinced her to sign a deal that would give them 80% of her future income.
“The fact that the plaintiff in this case is internationally recognized actress, author, and cultural icon … demonstrates both how effective the defendants’ plan was (and needed to be), and how anyone can be a victim of elder abuse and fraud,” Singer writes.
The new case comes eight months after Kruse’s company, Priscilla Presley Partners, filed its own lawsuit against Priscilla in Florida. That case claimed that Presley illegally turned her back on Kruse and Fialko after they had helped her “dig herself out of impending financial ruin,” including negotiating the deal that led to last year’s Priscilla biopic.
But in Thursday’s new lawsuit, Singer argues that the earlier case was merely a cover for Kruse and Fialko’s alleged misdeeds.
“When it became clear to the defendants that their scheme had been uncovered, they attempted to falsely portray themselves as the victims by filing a lawsuit against Presley in Florida in the name of several of the sham companies they established, alleging that Presley breached the fraudulently-induced operating agreements,” her legal team writes.
According to the complaint, Sislyan is Kruse’s husband and participated in the scheme; and Walker-Wright is an Orlando-area attorney who allegedly helped the others carry it out.
Singer and Priscilla’s other attorneys say that Kruse and the others “established a personal relationship” with her and then used it to “isolate her from her long-time business and financial advisors,” whom they argued were “deceitful or incompetent” and causing her to lose money. Once they had isolated her, the lawsuit says, Kruse and the others took steps to “fraudulently induce” Presley into signing over power of attorney, giving them control over her trusts and bank accounts, and signing deals with “sham” companies like Priscilla Presley Partners.
One of those deals, the lawsuit says, gave the defendants “an exclusive license to exploit and profit off of her name, image, and likeness, and to control and receive virtually all of her income from any of her professional ventures.”
“Dissatisfied with what existing resources they could siphon from her, the defendants’ plan involved usurping control over her ability to control her finances going forward and forcing her into a form of indentured servitude, where plaintiff was forced to work so that they could receive the lion’s share of any revenue that she was able to earn in the future,” Singer writes.
An attorney for Kruse and Priscilla Presley Partners did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations. Walker-Wright also did not return a request for comment.
Melissa Etheridge is facing a legal battle over her brief foray into the cannabis business, filed by two business partners in Northern California who claim that the singer “abandoned them” and left them in “financial ruin.”
The Grammy-winning songwriter, who rose to stardom in the 1990s with hits like “Come to My Window” and “I’m The Only One,” announced in 2019 that she would launch Etheridge Farms, which aimed to bring the benefits of cannabis to middle-aged women. “They’re looking to cannabis, and I want Etheridge Farms to be right there to answer what they’re looking for,” the singer said at the time.
But five years later, her former business partners now claim that Etheridge and her wife effectively torpedoed the company by refusing to support it. In a legal petition filed July 9 and obtained by Billboard, Josephine and D’Angelo Roberto say they’ve been “left with nothing.”
Trending on Billboard
“The Robertos trusted the Etheridges and invested their life’s work into the businesses,” writes attorney Christopher Frost of the law firm Frost LLP, representing the Robertos. “Unfortunately, their hard work did not end in a success story, but rather betrayal and abandonment.”
The filing is a demand for arbitration, which initiates a litigation-like case that will play out similar to a lawsuit. But such cases, often required under corporate operating agreements, are decided by an arbitrator behind closed doors rather than by a judge in an open courtroom.
Representatives for the Etheridges, including their attorney who received the arbitration demand, did not return repeated requests for comment on the dispute. Attorneys for the Robertos declined to comment.
A Budding Partnership
The Robertos (nicknamed Jozee and Cricket) say they met Etheridge and her wife Linda Wallem-Etheridge via mutual friends in Northern California in 2017, and that the foursome then hatched a plan to launch a series of cannabis businesses, including Etheridge Farms and Etheridge Botanicals. In a 2019 article in San Jose’s Mercury News, the singer said she had been inspired in part by using cannabis amid a battle with breast cancer in the 2000s.
“I came out of chemotherapy saying, I want to be an advocate for this, I believe in this as medicine so deeply,” she told the Mercury News. “I started looking around California going, OK, what do I need to do — I want to be part of this — I actually turned to my friends and said, I want to be the face of cannabis.” In that same article, Jozee was quoted as saying that the Etheridges “genuinely share the same values that Cricket and I share about health and wellbeing.”
According to legal filings, the group secured a rental lease in 2018 on a large facility in Soquel, Calif. to manufacture and distribute their products, and also locked down important regulatory licenses for that property.
The plan, according to the Robertos, was for the couple to contribute their extensive cannabis industry expertise and work on product development, while the Etheridges would use their celebrity status to promote the business, seek outside investors, and continue to support the business financially.
Left High and Dry?
But while the Robertos say they “devoted every ounce of their money, time and attention” to the businesses, they claim the Etheridges failed to do the same. They say she failed to promote the business, and then stopped supporting the business financially. According to legal filings, by 2020 that allegedly included failing to pay the rent at the Soquel facility as promised; when the landlord finally booted them, the Robertos say it cost the business crucial regulatory licenses that had been tied to that property.
“Despite their persistent efforts, following the Etheridges’ complete lack of engagement and financial support to the Etheridge entities, the LLC sales and performance eventually withered away,” attorneys for the couple write in the demand for arbitration.
The alleged breakdown in the business came amid great personal tragedy for Etheridge. In May 2020, the singer announced that Beckett Cypher, her son with former partner Julie Cypher, had died from causes related to opioid addiction. Months later, the singer launched the Etheridge Foundation to advocate for and support research into new treatments for opioid addiction.
Those tragic events are not directly mentioned in the new legal filings, but attorneys for the Robertos allude to them in making their case.
“The Etheridges suffered personal losses for which the Robertos have much empathy,” the couple’s lawyers write in their filing earlier this month. “However, notwithstanding these personal losses and given the challenges faced by the parties, the Etheridges ultimately decided to let all of the joint ventures ‘die on the vine,’ stopped covering expenses that they promised to pay, and left the Robertos in a much worse situation.”
In technical terms, the demand for arbitration accuses the Etheridges of breaching their fiduciary duty to the companies; breaching their contract with the Robertos; violating legal promises they made to the couple; and making fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations.
The pair are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, but say they’re entitled to at least $3 million: “The Robertos have not pursued this action and are not proceeding to arbitration for fame or fortune or as a vendetta,” their lawyers write. “Rather, they simply seek compensation for the suffering they have had to endure and the financial ruin they have experienced due to the Etheridges abandoning them.”
Michael Jackson’s estate has won a tentative court ruling that would allow it to proceed with a $600 million sale of the singer’s catalog to Sony Music, overcoming objections from his mother that aimed to block the deal.
Katherine Jackson had argued that the gargantuan deal violated the terms of Michael’s will, but a California appeals court tentatively ruled Wednesday (July 17) that she had “forfeited” that argument by failing to make it before a lower probate court.
Even if she had properly raised that argument, the appeals court said the estate’s executors had the power to make the deal. The court said Jackson’s will had vested the executors (John Branca and John McClain) with the authority to “sell, invest, or otherwise manage estate property” while they were in charge.
Trending on Billboard
“The court is tentatively inclined to affirm the probate court’s order granting the executors’ request to proceed with the proposed transaction,” the appeals court wrote in its ruling, obtained by Billboard. “We tentatively conclude that Katherine’s challenge fails on the merits because the probate court’s order does not violate the terms of Michael’s will.”
Such “tentative” rulings must be finalized before they are formally entered, but they strongly indicate the way the court is planning to rule. An attorney for Katherine did not return a request for comment on Thursday. A rep for the Jackson estate declined to comment. News of the tentative ruling was first reported by Rolling Stone.
As reported by Billboard earlier this year, the Jackson estate and Sony Music have reached a deal that will see the music giant buy half of the singer’s publishing and recorded masters catalog for more than $600 million.
But because the Jackson estate is still pending before a Los Angeles probate court more than 15 years after his 2009 death, his executors took the then-confidential deal to Judge Mitchell Beckloff for approval. When they did so, Katherine filed objections — among them that the sale “violated Michael’s wishes” and that the catalog would likely continue to gain value over time if retained.
In April 2023, Beckloff rejected those objections and ruled that the deal could move forward. Katherine then filed an appeal, resulting in Wednesday’s tentative decision.
The wrangling over the Sony deal has exposed rifts among Jackson’s heirs. In March, Jackson’s son Blanket asked the judge to stop his grandmother from using estate money to fund her efforts to block the Sony deal. Though both had initially opposed the sale, Blanket and Jackson’s other children accepted the probate judge’s decision allowing it to move forward.
Later that same week, the estate responded to claims from Katherine’s attorneys that she needed estate money to pay for her legal battle, arguing she had received more than $55 million since the singer’s death. The estate’s executors argued that “virtually no request of Mrs. Jackson for her care or maintenance has been declined,” including more than $33 million in cash.
As detailed in a Billboard feature profile this week, entertainment attorney John Branca represents many of pop music’s biggest legacy artists — most famously, the Michael Jackson estate, of which he is co-executor. But Branca is no lone wolf. His partners in the music department at Ziffren Brittenham — David Byrnes, David Lande, Mitch Tenzer and Kelly Vallon — make up, he says, “the most important contemporary music practice of any law firm in the world.” Certainly, along with Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks, and Taylor Swift attorney Donald S. Passman’s firm, Gang Tyre Ramer, it is one of the premier law firms for the music industry.
Lande primarily represents Selena Gomez, Pharrell Williams, SZA, Olivia Rodrigo, Rosalía and Justin Timberlake (when asked if Timberlake called him after his recent DUI arrest, Lande answers, “No, I called him”), and Byrnes’ principal clients include Travis Scott, Kelly Clarkson, Blake Shelton and the estates of Kurt Cobain, Mac Miller, Tom Petty and Eazy-E — hardly even an exhaustive list of their or the firm’s clients. But the partners all work collaboratively to serve the firm’s clientele, which also includes industry executives.
Trending on Billboard
For example, Byrnes and Lande represent Beyoncé as a team. Lande — who served as a tour manager and tour accountant for such artists as Elton John and Madonna during breaks from his undergraduate and law school years — says he was involved in every aspect of the 2023 Renaissance world tour, “from making the initial deal with Live Nation, reviewing all of the business plans, working with her and her team on what that business would look like as a tour, to ultimately its execution.” Byrnes, who worked on the MTV show I.R.S. Records Presents: The Cutting Edge and as an editor at the now-defunct music trade publication Cashbox, consulted with the firm’s film/TV department to negotiate deals for Beyoncé’s 2019 and 2020 films, Homecoming and Black Is King, respectively. Tenzer and Vallon work on many clients.
Given the depth and breadth of their music industry experience, legal and otherwise — Tenzer was director of business affairs at Sony Music, and Vallon’s résumé includes roles at CAA, AEG, several labels and The Colbert Report, for example — “We have really good market knowledge of what’s cutting edge and what’s achievable, and we all end up being business advisers to our clients — helping them think through deal structure and the kinds of deals they ought to do,” Lande says.
With more artists preferring independence over label deals and labels holding off on signing acts until they build a significant fan base, the deals before the firm’s music department have evolved significantly. “There’s a plethora of independent distributors and labels out there offering development-type deals, and we’re dealing with those every day,” Byrnes says.
And Lande explains that artists are now more interested in building long-term value through equity. “Years ago, it was just, ‘Pay me this amount of money and I will endorse your product or service,’ ” he says. Those deals still happen, but “more and more, our clients are entering joint ventures, funding things themselves and building businesses that capitalize on their celebrity in an organic way. They take more risk by doing that, and it takes a longer time to build value,” he continues. “But the ultimate payoff is significant.”
This story will appear in the July 20, 2024, issue of Billboard.
Soulja Boy is suing social media personalities Tasha K and William The Baddest for defamation after they allegedly made false statements about the rapper having a sexual encounter with a man.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles court, Soulja Boy (DeAndre Cortez Way) cited a May interview on Tasha K’s celebrity gossip podcast in which William allegedly recounted explicit details of a supposed tryst he’d had with the “Crank That” rapper.
Soulja Boy’s lawyers say these statements were false and have brought “embarrassment and disgrace that can cause fans to abandon and withdraw from supporting him.”
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff has suffered actual reputational and professional harm as a result of defendants maliciously targeting plaintiff and seeking to sabotage his careers, redefining his character as a man who is not straight, a fraud and dishonest person in the entertainment industry, as a public figure, which is not true,” the rapper’s lawyers write.
It’s not the first time Tasha K (Latasha Kebe) has been accused of defaming someone on “UnWine With TashaK.” Back in 2022, Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against her over salacious statements about drug use, STDs and prostitution. Tasha has since tried to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying most of that judgment, but a judge rejected that effort last year.
In the new case, Soulja Boy’s attorneys are challenging statements made during a “tell-all interview” on May 16, in which William (William Thomas) recounted an “alleged intimate moment” with the rapper.
According to quotes from the lawsuit, William said: “So I walked over there, I get on my knee, he’s sitting on the edge of his bed. I started giving him oral, it’s a big thang and it grew, you know to the left.” The video itself no longer appears to be available on Tasha’s YouTube channel and could not be reviewed by Billboard.
After the interview went public, Soulja Boy says William has been “harassing and tormenting” him on social media, including an X post featuring a “defaming and embarrassing sexual photoshopped picture” that purports to depict himself with the rapper. William’s post allegedly urged his followers to click through to a page on OnlyFans – a site frequently used to share sexually-explicit imagery.
“Although the publications may be deleted, plaintiff will forever be damaged by the publications never being removed from the web,” the rapper’s lawyers write.
Days after the interview was first published, attorneys for Soulja Boy say they sent a cease and desist letter to Tasha and William demanding that they delete the “false, malicious and are completely outrageous” statements. The letter warned that they had “already engaged in tortious acts that entitle Mr. Way to monetary damages” and that if they did not stop, “your liability for such monetary damages will increase.”
Neither William nor an attorney for Tasha K immediately returned requests for comment on Thursday.
Ye (formerly Kanye West) is facing another lawsuit accusing him of illegal sampling, this time over allegations that he incorporated an instrumental track into two songs from Donda even after he was explicitly denied permission.
The case, filed Wednesday (July 17) in Los Angeles federal court, claims that Ye borrowed elements from a song called “MSD PT2” for his own “Hurricane” and “Moon” — both of which reached the top 20 on the Hot 100 when they were released in 2021.
Filed by a company that owns the rights to the earlier song, the case claims that when Ye was refused a license to use it, he simply “decided to steal it.”
Trending on Billboard
“This lawsuit is about more than defendants’ failure to pay a fee,” writes Oren Warshavsky and other attorneys from the law firm BakerHostetler, representing the plaintiffs. “It is about the rights of artists, musicians, and songwriters to determine how their works are published and used. Intellectual property owners have a right to decide how their property is exploited and need to be able to prevent shameless infringers from simply stealing.”
In an act of particularly “blatant brazenness,” the lawsuit claims that Ye even credited the song’s four creators — Khalil Abdul-Rahman Hazzard, Sam Barsh, Dan Seeff and Josh Mease — as songwriters despite their refusal to work with him.
Wednesday’s case was filed not by the artists themselves, but by a company called Artist Revenue Advocates (ARA), which owns the copyrights to “MSD PT2.” Lawyers for the company say the four artists turned to ARA after they “unsuccessfully attempted to collect their share of the proceeds from these songs” for nearly three years.
A spokesperson for Ye could not immediately be located for comment on the new case.
The new allegations come less than a month after Ye settled a separate lawsuit filed by the estate of Donna Summer over a very similar accusation. In that earlier case, Summer’s estate claimed the rapper had used her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” in his own “Good (Don’t Die)” despite a similarly explicit refusal.
“Summer’s estate … wanted no association with West’s controversial history and specifically rejected West’s proposed use,” the estate’s attorneys wrote at the time. “In the face of this rejection, defendants arrogantly and unilaterally decided they would simply steal ‘I Feel Love’ and use it without permission.”
Even before the two recent cases, Ye has been sued repeatedly for uncleared samples and interpolations in his music.
In 2022, Ye was hit with a lawsuit claiming his song “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions; accused in another case over allegations that he used an uncleared snippet of Marshall Jefferson’s 1986 house track “Move Your Body” in the song “Flowers”; and sued in a different case by a Texas pastor for allegedly sampling from his recorded sermon in “Come to Life.”
Before that, West and Pusha T were sued in 2019 for sampling George Jackson‘s “I Can’t Do Without You” on the track “Come Back Baby.” That same year, he was sued for allegedly using an audio snippet of a young girl praying in his 2016 song “Ultralight Beam.” Further back, West was hit with similar cases over allegedly unlicensed samples used in “New Slaves,” “Bound 2” and “My Joy.”
Young Thug’s sprawling Atlanta gang trial is once again in need of a new judge.
Just two days after Judge Ural Glanville was ordered removed from the Young Slime Life RICO case, his replacement on the trial bench – Judge Shakura L. Ingram – said Wednesday that she would also recuse herself.
In doing so, Ingram cited her connection with Akeiba Stanley, a Fulton County courthouse deputy who was arrested last year for allegedly attempting to smuggle in contraband to another YSL defendant with whom prosecutors claim Stanley was having an “inappropriate relationship.”
Wednesday’s recusal order said that Stanley had previously a deputy assigned to Ingram’s courtroom.
“Because this court’s former assigned deputy could be called as a witness in any future proceedings in this case, the court may be called upon to assess this deputy’s credibility, or rule on matters related to her criminal prosecution,” Ingram wrote. “This may undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the proceedings.”
Trending on Billboard
The judge stressed that she was not actually biased toward Stanley, but that she must avoid any “appearance of impropriety” in the proceedings: “The clerk of this court is directed to reassign this criminal action to another judge.”
It was not immediately clear who would replace Ingram, or how her recusal would impact the YSL case, which has already been pending for more than two years. The trial, which started in January 2023 but has faced numerous delays and disruptions, was already expected to run well into 2025. All the while, Young Thug has sat in jail, repeatedly denied bond over concerns that he might intimidate witnesses.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but rather a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Citing Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, prosecutors claim the group operated a criminal enterprise that committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Glanville, the chief judge of Fulton County Superior Court, had been presiding over the massive case from the start. But a month ago, it was revealed that the judge had taken part in a secret “ex parte” meeting with prosecutors and a key witness. Attorneys for Thug and other defendants alleged that Glanville had aided prosecutors in coercing the witness to testify and that the meeting had violated their constitutional rights to a fair trial.
On Monday, Judge Rachel Krause ruled that Glanville should be removed from the case over those complaints. Though Krause defended her fellow jurist’s conduct and said she had “no doubt” that Glanville could still fairly handle the case, Krause ordered him to step aside for the sake of “preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system.”
The ruling is likely to further delay the YSL trial, which already saw an unprecedented 10-month jury selection process. Prosecutors have been presenting witness testimony for months, but have listed hundreds of potential witnesses that they might call.
When a permanent new judge is put into place, he or she will likely face demands for a mistrial by defense attorneys over Glanville’s conduct, as well as renewed requests for Thug and the other defendants to be released on bond until a verdict is reached.
Snoop Dogg is facing a copyright lawsuit that claims the legendary rapper has refused to pay a veteran studio musician after using two of his backing tracks – a case that cites an earlier battle between Tracy Chapman and Nicki Minaj.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Los Angeles federal court, was lodged by Trevor Lawrence Jr., a well-known producer and drummer who has been credited on songs by Bruno Mars, Alicia Keys, Ed Sheeran, Mariah Carey and other top artists.
Lawrence claims that he created two backing tracks “on spec” and allowed Snoop (Calvin Broadus) to “experiment with the tracks in-studio,” but made clear that he would need to be paid an upfront fee and an ongoing royalties if the final songs were released commercially.
Trending on Billboard
Snoop allegedly did just that, using Lawrence’s material on his songs “Pop Pop” and “Get This Dick” from his 2022 album BODR. But Lawrence’s attorneys say no actual licensing deal was ever struck, and no money has ever been sent to their client.
“To date, defendants have refused to properly license the Lawrence tracks or compensate Lawrence for their use in the Broadus tracks,” Lawrence’s attorneys write in the lawsuit, which also named Death Row Records as a defendant.
The lawsuit offers a glimpse at industry practices surrounding the use of backing tracks – pre-recorded instrumental elements that artists can add to a final product. Lawrence says he often creates such tracks “of his own initiative” and then shops them around to prominent artists. But he says he does so with the understanding that “a proper license will and must be negotiated” before a song is commercially released.
Notably, the new case points to a high-profile legal battle in which singer Tracy Chapman accused rapper Nicki Minaj of illegally sampling one of her songs. In that case, a federal judge ruled in 2020 that artists like Minaj are free to “experiment” with materials in the studio to help foster “innovation within the music industry,” but violate copyrights if a song is released. Minaj eventually paid $450,000 to settle the case.
In the current case, Lawrence says that in 2020 he offered Snoop access to two backing tracks for use in the studio. Two years later, when a Snoop rep said the star wanted to use the tracks, Lawrence says he made his licensing requirements clear: a $10,000 flat fee producer advance and a 50% interest in the underlying musical composition. “The [Snoop] representative confirmed that these anticipated terms were acceptable,” the lawsuit says.
But when “Pop Pop” and “Get This Dick” were released a month later, Lawrence says he had never received a formal licensing offer – and has never been paid or credited in the two years since the songs were released. He also claims the songs were not only released on the album, but as NFTs (non-fungible tokens) that generated “tens of millions of dollars.”
“At no point in time did defendants … communicate to Lawrence any intention to exploit the Lawrence tracks in connection with a bundled offering such as [the NFT sale], nor did Lawrence authorize any such exploitation of his work, which was never within his prior contemplation,” his lawyers write.
A rep for Snoop Dogg did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Young Thug’s criminal trial is in chaos after the judge is forced to recuse himself; Nirvana ends a long-running lawsuit over its famed smiley face logo; the Beastie Boys launch a copyright battle against Chili’s over “Sabotage”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Trial Judge Removed From Case
The controversial, oft-delayed, never-normal criminal trial of Young Thug got another stunning twist this week, when the Atlanta judge overseeing it was ordered removed from the case. Judge Ural Glanville’s recusal came a month after revelations of a secret “ex parte” meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key prosecution witness. Attorneys for Thug and other defendants had argued that Glanville aided prosecutors in coercing the witness to testify and that the meeting had violated their constitutional rights to a fair trial. In her decision Monday (July 15), Judge Rachel Krause ruled that the secret meeting had not been “inherently improper” and that Glanville “can and would continue presiding fairly over this matter” if left on the case. But she criticized him for his handling of the fallout from the meeting revelations, and ordered him to step aside for the sake of “preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system.” That’s all well and good, but the public’s confidence has already repeatedly been tested by the case against Young Thug. The sprawling racketeering case, which claims the rapper and dozens of others ran a violent Atlanta street gang called YSL, has meandered through the court system for more than two years — first through an unprecedented 10-month jury selection and then repeated delays and disruptions, including the stabbing of another defendant. Prosecutors have only presented part of their vast list of potential witnesses, and nobody expects the case to conclude early next year. All the while, Young Thug has sat in jail, repeatedly denied bond by Glanville. What happens now is anybody’s guess. With a new judge already set to take over (Judge Shakura L. Ingram was listed on the court docket by late Monday) defense attorneys will likely re-file their requests that Thug and the other defendants be released on bond. They will also likely renew their demands for a mistrial over Glanville’s handling of the case — a motion that, if granted, would force prosecutors to start the entire massive case over from scratch.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: Nirvana Settles Logo Battle
An epic, three-way legal battle over Nirvana‘s iconic smiley face logo is over. For years, lawyers for the rock legends had been locked in sprawling litigation over the image, which emerged as an unofficial emblem for the band in its heyday and has only grown more valuable in recent years amid a boom in ‘90s/’00s nostalgia. First, Nirvana sued fashion designer Marc Jacobs in 2018 for using it without permission on grunge-themed apparel. Then, a designer at Geffen Records named Robert Fisher came out of the woodwork to argue that he — and not Kurt Cobain — had created the image and owned the rights to it. “For 30 years now, Nirvana has reaped enormous profits from Mr. Fisher’s works,” his lawyers wrote when he jumped into the case in 2020. “Nirvana was able to do so without any compensation to Mr. Fisher by falsely claiming authorship and ownership.” Nirvana’s attorneys staunchly maintained that Cobain designed the logo — or at the very least, that Fisher didn’t own any rights to it. But those questions are moot now: Attorneys for all three sides filed a motion last week saying they had reached a settlement to end the case. Go read our full story on the settlement, which recounts the back story of a case that probed into the creative origins of one of rock’s best-known pieces of iconography.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
CAN’T STAND IT – The Beastie Boys sued the owner of Chili’s over allegations that the restaurant chain used the rap trio’s 1994 song “Sabotage” in a social media advertisement without permission — an especially serious allegation from a trio that famously doesn’t allow its music to appear in ads. The offending content? An apparent spoof of the iconic “Sabotage” video featuring a restaurant heist and 1970s-era disguises. LABELS SUE VERIZON – The major music companies filed a massive copyright case claiming the telecom giant effectively encouraged its internet subscribers to steal music on a “staggering” scale. Seeking billions in damages, the case is the latest in a long series of lawsuits aimed at forcing ISPs to crack down on “repeat infringers.” And it came with a zinger: “While Verizon is famous for its ‘Can you hear me now?’ advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners.” AI FIRMS LAWYER UP – AI music companies Suno and Udio hired Latham & Watkins to defend them against lawsuits filed by the three major labels that accuse the companies of using vast swathes of copyright music to “train” their models. Latham is a big deal in the BigLaw world, but especially in the burgeoning sub-niche of AI-training copyright defense litigation. The firm already reps Anthropic in such a case filed by music publishers, and OpenAI in a similar suit filed by The New York Times. DEFAMATORY DENIAL? Film composer Danny Elfman was hit with a libel lawsuit over statements he made to the media last year defending himself from claims that he sexually abused Nomi Abadi, a former friend and fellow composer. In denying the allegations, Abadi says Elfman falsely tarred her as a “liar, homewrecker, and an extortionist.” EX-RHCP IN HOT WATER – Josh Klinghoffer, a former guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, was sued for wrongful death over allegations that he struck and killed a pedestrian near Los Angeles earlier this year due to “distracted driving.” Lawyers for the victim’s family say they have video evidence showing Klinghoffer “using a device mere seconds before he crashed” into Israel Sanchez. CLASS ACTION IN THE REARVIEW – A group of Spotify customers dropped their class action against the streaming giant over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, resolving a case that claimed Spotify left users holding “a useless product.” Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Spotify has more clearly indicated since the case was first filed that it will provide refunds to people who purchased the Car Thing. ABUSE CLAIMS AGAINST IRV GOTTI –The co-founder of Murder Inc. Records was hit with a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault and rape, filed by an unnamed woman who says he repeatedly “coerced” her into sex by leveraging his “power and influence in the music world.”