Legal
Page: 4
George Clinton is suing his one-time business partner, Armen Boladian, over allegations that he fraudulently obtained the rights to the vast majority of the funk pioneer’s music catalog.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (March 11) in Florida federal court, attorneys for Clinton accused Boladian and his Bridgeport Music of “abusive, deceptive, and fraudulent practices” that were aimed at stealing from Clinton and “capitalizing on his success.”
“I’m fighting for my life’s work and to ensure future generations of artists are treated fairly,” Clinton said in a statement released by his lawyers. “When you’re young and just starting out in the music industry, it’s easy for others to take advantage of you.”
Trending on Billboard
The sweeping complaint accuses Boladian of carrying out a “decades long scheme to defraud Clinton,” including improperly using the star’s signature to grant himself rights to Clinton’s music and fabricating key legal agreements. The conduct has left Boladian and Bridgeport in control of 90 percent of Clinton’s catalog, the lawsuit says.
“For decades, George Clinton has shaped the sound of music and inspired generations of artists, yet he has been systematically deprived of the rights and royalties he rightfully deserves,” said Ben Crump, an attorney who is representing Clinton in the lawsuit.
In a statement to Billboard, Boladian’s attorney Richard Busch sharply denied the allegations: “This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits that Mr. Clinton has filed against Armen Boladian and his companies over the last 30 years raising the same exact issues. He has lost each and every time, including in the very courthouse in which he has filed this latest lawsuit. We will obviously therefore be moving to dismiss this lawsuit and will be seeking sanctions.”
Notably, in addition to seeking damages, the lawsuit is seeking an injunction to stop Boladian from shopping Clinton’s catalog to potential buyers — something the star’s lawyers suggest he’s actively doing: “Plaintiff has reason to believe that Boladian is soliciting the sale of assets including the rights and ownership interests in Plaintiff catalog.”
Bridgeport Music is well-known in the world of music law. The company has filed huge numbers of copyright infringement lawsuits against major artists who allegedly sampled songs by Clinton and others, including one case against Jay-Z and another case over an N.W.A. song that resulted in an influential decision on sampling.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Clinton’s attorneys cited that litigation campaign in his allegations against Boladian, calling his foe a “copyright troll” who uses lawsuits to exploit songs “he looted the rights to.”
“Interestingly, Clinton, the rightful owner of said catalog, has never been included as a plaintiff in these lawsuits nor has he received any portion of the millions secured by Boladian,” Clinton’s attorneys wrote.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Director Dan Reed is planning a third chapter in his ongoing Leaving Neverland series about allegations of sexual abuse against late pop icon Michael Jackson by dancer/choreographer Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
According to Variety, the second sequel will focus on the upcoming trial pitting Robson and Safechuck against Jackson’s companies over their allegations that the organizations neglected to protect them from the alleged abuse detailed in the bombshell 2019 two-part doc. In the original film, the men described in graphic detail how the late King of Pop allegedly molested them at his Neverland Ranch in California when they were both minors; Jackson’s estate has continuously and emphatically denied the allegations.
The reported third film will serve as the follow-up to the upcoming Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson, which will premiere on Channel 4 in the U.K. on March 18 and on YouTube in the United States. The 50-minute movie will primarily focus on Robson and Safechuck fighting to have their lawsuit against Jackson’s estate go forward; the case is slated to go to trial next year.
“It’s taken an awful long time just to get to a trial date that looks as though it could actually happen,” Reed told Variety about his plan to have cameras in the courtroom, despite his belief that the Jackson estate will “find a way to try and sideswipe this whole thing and make sure it never goes to court… But who knows. Maybe justice will prevail and there’ll be a trial. And if there is a trial, I want to be there.”
While we will have to wait to see what will happen when the men have their day in court, Reed is aware that it’s possible that the judge in the case might not let cameras in their courtroom. “It’s really the judge’s discretion,” he said. Reed was allowed to film inside the Santa Monica Courthouse for several hearings depicted in Leaving Neverland 2, which mainly focuses on the legal back-and-forth leading up to Robson and Safechuck being granted a trial.
“It’s a bridge film in between what was a pretty high-profile start and what I hope will be a very dramatic ending,” Reed said. “We could have kept it to include all this material and the trial. But I think the trial will be so dramatic, and you won’t have time for all the stuff in between.”
The original Leaving Neverland won an Emmy for outstanding documentary or nonfiction special, even as it drew fire from Jackson’s family and estate and, in 2019, resulted in a $100 million lawsuit by the estate against HBO over claims that the documentary violated a 27-year-old non-disparagement clause the network signed to air a 1992 concert film for Jackson’s Dangerous World Tour; the case was sent to private arbitration that year and is still pending.
Jackson’s estate has consistently denied a series of allegations of sexual abuse against the singer who died in 2009, often noting that Jackson was acquitted in a 2005 criminal trial and has never been convicted or held liable for any such claims. The estate has also claimed that accusers are looking for a payday from an artist who cannot defend himself because defamation laws do not cover dead people.
As for why he’s planning the third chapter, Reed said that he hopes to keep telling Robson and Safechuck’s story because he thinks it will help viewers “realize that these are real people, with a real story, with real families who are doing this… They’re not just a couple of people who popped up because they saw a pot of gold. These are people who have really dedicated a decade, at least, of their lives to getting justice.”
A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by R. Kelly’s former assistant against Netflix and Lifetime over how she was portrayed in the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly,” ruling that the networks are protected by the First Amendment.
The lawsuit from Diana Copeland, who says she worked for Kelly for more than a decade, claimed that the doc series “depicts her in a sinister and defamatory light” – including falsely suggesting that she had helped the now-convicted singer prey on young women.
But in a ruling Tuesday, Judge Stephanos Bibas said Copeland had failed to clear the “high bar” for filing libel cases over newsworthy subjects: “The First Amendment demands ‘adequate breathing space’ for the free flow of ideas, especially about public figures on matters of public controversy.”
Trending on Billboard
The judge dismissed the lawsuit, but gave Copeland a chance to refile an updated version of her lawsuit. In a statement to Billboard, her attorney said she would successfully do so: “In this new streaming world, platforms like Netflix and documentarians need to be held accountable for any damages caused to people by slander in their content.”
An attorney for Lifetime and Netflix did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released in early 2019 as a six-part documentary series, “Surviving R. Kelly” helped push the longstanding abuse allegations against Kelly back into the public eye. Later that same year, the singer was indicted by federal prosecutors on a slew of criminal charges, eventually resulting in convictions on racketeering, sex trafficking and child pornography and decades-long prison sentences.
Copeland sued last year, with her attorneys claiming that episodes of the Lifetime documentary, which was later added to Netflix’s catalog, “paint Ms. Copeland as Mr. Kelly’s co-conspirator and accomplice in victimizing children and young women.”
But in Tuesday’s decision dismissing those claims, Judge Bibas ruled that Copeland was a so-called public figure — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit.
Under landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings, someone like Copeland must show that Lifetime acted with “actual malice,” meaning the network either knew its claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That difficult-to-meet standard is designed to prevent government officials, business execs and other powerful people from abusing libel suits to stifle free speech.
Copeland had argued that she was no celebrity and simply wanted to “lead a private life” despite her work for Kelly. But Judge Bibas pointed out that she had appeared on Good Morning America to discuss the allegations and defend her conduct: “By going on national TV to discuss Kelly, Copeland voluntarily injected herself into the public discourse [and] invited public attention, comment, and criticism.”
As a public figure, the judge said Copeland’s case would only succeed if she could show “actual malice” – and he said had not done so in her court filings.
“The actual-malice standard shields publishers from liability for mistakes, while still preserving defamation remedies where the publisher knew that he was publishing falsehoods or deliberately ignored the truth,” the judge wrote. “Copeland fails to clear that high bar. The complaint offers only conclusions and speculation of ill will, not allegations of actual malice.”
For similar reasons, the judge also tossed out other allegations of the case, including that the documentary inflicted emotional distress and misappropriated her name and likeness. But the entire ruling came “without prejudice,” meaning Copeland can refile her case with changes in an effort to fix the problems Judge Bibas identified: “Perhaps Copeland can cure these defects.”
Miley Cyrus seems unlikely to immediately escape a copyright lawsuit filed over allegations that her Grammy-winning “Flowers” infringed the Bruno Mars song “When I Was Your Man.”
A Los Angeles federal judge “repeatedly indicated” at a live court hearing Monday that he would likely deny a motion to dismiss the case filed last year by attorneys for Cyrus, according to a report by Rolling Stone.
In that motion, the singer had argued that the plaintiff in the case – not Mars himself, but an financial entity called Tempo Music Investments that bought out the rights of one of his co-writers – lacked the necessary legal “standing” to pursue its claims.
Trending on Billboard
But at the hearing, Judge Dean D. Pregerson appeared skeptical, according to RS – at times seeming to endorse arguments from Tempo’s lawyers that granting the motion would gut longstanding music industry practices. He reportedly asked Cyrus’ lawyer why anyone would buy partial shares in songs “knowing they could never enforce it” without the consent of all the other songwriters.
The judge did not immediately decide the motion at Monday’s hearing and will instead issue a written ruling in the weeks or months ahead.
“Flowers,” which spent eight weeks atop the Hot 100, has been linked to “Your Man” since it was released in January 2023. Many fans immediately saw it as an “answer song,” with lyrics that clearly referenced Mars’ song. The reason, according to internet sleuths, was that “Your Man” was a favorite of Cyrus’ ex-husband Liam Hemsworth – and her allusions were a nod to their divorce.
When “Flowers” was first released, legal experts told Billboard that Cyrus was likely not violating copyrights simply by using similar lyrics to fire back at the earlier song – a time-honored music industry tradition utilized by songs ranging from Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” to countless rap diss records.
But Tempo sued in September, claiming “Flowers” had lifted numerous elements beyond the clap-back lyrics, including “melodic and harmonic material,” “pitch ending pattern,” and “bass-line structure.” Tempo, which had purchased a fractional share in the song from co-writer Philip Lawrence, argued it was “undeniable” that Cyrus’ hit “would not exist” if not for “Your Man.”
In her first response in November, attorneys for Miley said that the total lack of involvement from Mars and the song’s two other co-writers was not some procedural quirk in the case, but rather a “fatal flaw” that required the outright dismissal of the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff unambiguously [says] that it obtained its claimed rights in the ‘When I Was Your Man’ copyright from only one of that musical composition’s four co-authors,” wrote Peter Anderson, the star’s lead attorney. “That is a fatal and incurable defect in plaintiff’s claim.”
In a statement at the time, Tempo Music lead counsel Alex Weingarten told Billboard that the argument from Cyrus was “intellectually dishonest” and that the group clearly had standing to pursue the lawsuit: “They’re seeking to make bogus technical arguments because they don’t have an actual substantive defense to the case.”
If the motion is denied, lawyers for Cyrus will likely shift focus to those substantive arguments. In previous filings, they have argued that the two songs have “striking differences” and that any similarities are not covered by copyright law: “The songwriter defendants categorically deny copying, and the allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.”
The legal battle over whether Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” has reached the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade after Sheeran’s hit was released.
In a petition filed last week, a company that owns a stake in the rights to Gaye’s 1973 song urged the justices to overturn a November ruling by a lower appeals court, which said Sheeran had done nothing wrong and that the two tracks shared only “fundamental musical building blocks.”
The company, Structured Asset Sales (SAS), says that the ruling unfairly restricted its allegations to written sheet music rather than all elements included in Gaye’s iconic recorded version. That thorny issue, which has also cropped up in other major cases over “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven” in recent years, must finally be resolved by the high court, the company says.
Trending on Billboard
“The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,” SAS’s lawyers write in the petition, filed with the high court Thursday (March 6).
Such an appeal, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, faces long odds. The Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the roughly 7,000 cases it receives each year, hearing only the disputes it deems most important to the national legal landscape.
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 58 weeks on the chart. He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
Thursday’s petition came in a separate case filed by SAS, an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different stake in Townsend’s copyrights to the legendary song. That suit was rejected in November by the federal Second Circuit appeals court, which said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
“The four-chord progression at issue—ubiquitous in pop music—even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” the appeals court wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
Appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court last week, attorneys for SAS argued the lower court had botched the case by relying only on the “deposit copy” — a bare-bones written version of music sent to the U.S. Copyright Office for many old songs. Doing so was not only legally erroneous but also out of step with reality, the company’s lawyers wrote.
“Nobody who understands the music industry would ever suggest that songwriters consult the deposit copies on file with the Copyright Office as part of their creative (or clearance) process,” SAS wrote to the justices. “To the extent they are aware of the music that preceded them, it is from hearing it on the radio, in movies, television and—for the last quarter century—the Internet.”
That ruling was even more legally problematic, SAS’s lawyers write, because it came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that said courts should afford less deference to legal guidance from federal agencies. By siding with Sheeran — and an agency interpretation from the Copyright Office — SAS says the lower appeals court “openly defied this Court.”
Sheeran’s attorneys can file a response brief in the weeks ahead. The court will decide whether or not to hear the case at some point in the next several months.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was found guilty in his 2023 federal fraud case, and he’s looking for President Trump to grant him a pardon. The Fugees rapper is accused of participating in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies that have spanned the last two presidencies. TMZ caught up with Pras earlier this week while riding around in his Lamborghini, […]
LyricFind is suing Musixmatch over allegations that its rival struck an exclusive licensing deal with Warner Music Group (WMG) that’s “unprecedented in the music industry” and is aimed at securing an illegal monopoly for providing lyrics to streamers like Spotify.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (March 6) in San Francisco federal court, LyricFind accuses Musixmatch and private equity owner TPG Global of violating federal antitrust laws by signing the deal with Warner Chappell Music (WCM), the publishing division of WMG, claiming it was designed to crush competition.
“TPG’s and Musixmatch’s goal was simple: make sure that Spotify, and other [streamers], have no choice but to obtain [lyrics] from Musixmatch despite its higher fees — a plainly anticompetitive result,” the company’s attorneys write. “LyricFind brings this lawsuit to stop defendants’ unlawful conduct, which has eliminated competition and raised prices.”
Trending on Billboard
The three major music companies have typically licensed their vast catalogs of lyrics to companies like Musixmatch on a non-exclusive basis, LyricFind says, allowing rival companies to compete to offer the best lyric services to streamers. But Musixmatch’s new deal with Warner allegedly shuts out competitors from offering the music giant’s lyrics — an “unprecedented” approach.
“To compete effectively, LyricFind and Musixmatch must be able to provide Lyric Data Services for all major publishers’ song titles,” the company’s attorneys write. “Defendants’ scheme had the intended effect [and] the only remaining practical choice for [digital services providers] is to contract with Musixmatch, at whatever price Musixmatch demands.”
In a statement to Billboard, a spokesman for Musixmatch said: “It’s our policy not to discuss legal matters publicly. We believe these are meritless accusations and choose to concentrate on what matters most: our customers & partners.”
A spokesman for WMG, which was not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing, did not immediately return a request for comment.
In early 2024, LyricFind says it was “very far along in negotiations” to replace Musixmatch as the lyrics provider for Spotify, the world’s largest music streamer and “Musixmatch’s largest customer.” When TPG and Musixmatch learned of the talks, they allegedly became “desperate” and struck the licensing agreement with Warner in an effort to kill the deal.
The move worked, LyricFind’s attorneys say: After the Warner agreement was in place, Spotify said it “had no choice” but to break off the negotiations with the lyrics provider. Instead, the streamer re-upped its previous agreement with Musixmatch despite “having already negotiated a significantly better price and service with LyricFind.”
“LyricFind was robbed of an opportunity to partner with Spotify on a contract worth tens of millions of dollars to LyricFind, and that would have strengthened LyricFind’s competitive position in the rest of the market,” the company’s attorneys write in the lawsuit.
The Musixmatch-Warner deal is also scuttling other business for LyricFind, the lawsuit says, including prompting iHeartRadio to break off renewal talks “when it learned that LyricFind would no longer be able to service WCM’s catalog.” Instead, the radio giant signed with Musixmatch “at a price over five times higher.”
“Other DSPs that have already invested great sums to integrate LyricFind’s system will also be forced to switch to Musixmatch, and nobody else, at a significant cost, while paying Musixmatch’s monopoly fees,” the suit says. “LyricFind’s viability as a business is now in jeopardy, as it can no longer compete for DSPs’ business.”
In a statement announcing the case, LyricFind CEO Darryl Ballantyne said the company was “taking action now to protect every music streaming service’s right to partner with the lyric provider of their choice.”
“Musixmatch is now effectively the gatekeeper to any DSP that wants to have a complete lyric offering,” Ballantyne said. “There is simply no way around having to work with Musixmatch.”
Read the entire complaint here:
Duane “Keffe D” Davis is speaking out from behind bars as he faces a murder charge for the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur.
Davis, who pleaded not guilty, has remained at Clark County Detention Center in Las Vegas since his September 2023 arrest, and he has now given ABC News his first-ever interview since being arrested.
“I’m innocent,” he said in the sit-down, which aired Thursday (March 6) on Good Morning America. “I did everything they asked me to do. Get new friends. Stop selling drugs. I stopped all that. I’m supposed to be out there enjoying my twilight at one of my f—ing grandson’s football games and basketball games. Enjoying life with my kids.”
2Pac’s murder remained a cold case until Davis’ 2023 arrest nearly 27 years after the legendary Death Row rapper was gunned down in Las Vegas. Still, the former Crips gang member, who prosecutors believe was the “shot caller” to orchestrate the hit on Pac, is confident he’ll be found not guilty.
“I did not do it,” he insisted during the interview. “They don’t have nothing. And they know they don’t have nothing. They can’t even place me out here. They don’t have no gun, no car, no Keffe D, no nothing.”
Davis claims he was hundreds of miles away when the 2Pac shooting took place, and said he’ll have about “20 or 30 people” coming to court to corroborate his alibi.
He spoken about his alleged involvement in Pac’s murder in the past, as he’s given his account in numerous interviews as well as his 2019 Compton Street Legend memoir. However, back in 2008, Davis allegedly agreed to a proffer agreement with authorities connected to an L.A. task force, which would have granted him immunity from being prosecuted in the case.
Per ABC News, he once again admitted his alleged role in Pac’s murder a year later to detectives in Las Vegas, but they were not required to honor any previous agreements.
A Clark County District Court judge ruled in January that Davis had not shown proof of any immunity deals. He’s repeatedly been denied bail.
Shakur was shot on Sept. 7, 1996, in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas. Authorities believe Davis orchestrated the hit with others in the car following a brawl at the MGM Grand casino.
Davis was arrested in September 2023 and has been charged with first degree murder. He will head to trial in February 2026.
Watch Davis’ interview with ABC News above.
Jay-Z’s rape accuser says in court filings that she stands by her story, directly contradicting his recent lawsuit that claims she admitted to fabricating the allegations — prompting the star’s lawyers to offer testimony from private investigators and demand that the accuser sit for a deposition.
In Los Angeles court filings Monday (March 3), the unnamed Jane Doe stated that she had flatly refused to recant her story when approached last month by investigators for Jay-Z — an experience she said left her “intimidated and terrified.” She also denied that her attorney, Tony Buzbee, had pushed her to sue.
Those statements, which Doe made in a sworn affidavit, directly contradicted allegations leveled by Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) in a separate lawsuit filed earlier on Monday. In that case, he claimed Doe had “voluntarily admitted” directly to his team that her now-dropped lawsuit was premised on a false accusation.
“Although I ultimately chose not to pursue them, I stand by my claims in the New York action and believe that I had a meritorious claim against Jay-Z,” the woman wrote in Monday’s filing. “I ultimately decided to dismiss the [case] because I was frightened by the reaction of Jay-Z and his supporters, and the likelihood that I would have to be publicly named and subjected to public attacks.”
In the same sworn statement, the unnamed woman stressed that Buzbee had not sought her out, nor had he urged her to add Jay-Z to her allegations: “I told them that neither of those things ever happened, and I asked them to leave me alone.”
Monday’s statement from Doe quickly prompted a response from Jay-Z’s lawyers. In a flurry of new filings on Wednesday (March 5), they offered up sworn statements from the actual private investigators who allegedly talked to her, asking the judge for permission to add them to the case record.
In those statements, one of the investigators said, “Jane Doe stated to me that Mr. Carter did not sexually assault her.” At another point, the same investigator added: “Jane Doe stated ‘Buzbee brought Jay Z into it,’ and ‘he was the one that kind of pushed me towards going forward with him.’” Another investigator said Doe had told him that “lawyers at Mr. Buzbee’s law firm told her that, if she pursued Mr. Carter, she would get a payout.”
In the same filings, Jay-Z’s lawyers also made an alternative request: that the judge permit them to depose both the accuser and Buzbee under oath. “The new declaration only further reinforces the need for Jane Doe and Mr. Buzbee to sit for a deposition regarding their conversations, including her conversations with his colleagues who convinced Jane Doe to drop her lawsuit,” they wrote.
Depositions are not typically granted at the outset of such a case; instead, they are conducted during the later “discovery” phase as a case moves toward trial. But Jay-Z’s lawyers say Doe’s filing has opened the door to those issues and that the rapper is now “entitled to find out” what the woman knows.
In a detailed statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Buzbee strongly denied the various claims advanced by Jay-Z’s investigators in the new court filings. He said he believes they “flat out made all of this up” and that he “can’t wait to see what they have been paid and who is paying them.”
“Jane Doe’s case was signed up in October by another law firm to pursue allegations against Jay-Z and P. Diddy. Apparently it came in through Facebook to that firm’s page. After it was vetted it was sent to my firm weeks later,” Buzbee said. “The allegation that I sat with Jane Doe and suggested a suit against Jay-Z is not only a lie, it’s proveably and demonstrably false and is contrary to the documentation from referring counsel’s intake process and our own firm documents.”
The blockbuster case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. It represented a shocking expansion of the already-sprawling claims against Combs and came amid speculation that other stars might be implicated in Diddy’s alleged decades of abusive behavior.
Jay-Z forcefully denied the allegations, calling them a “blackmail attempt.” He accused Buzbee of trying to extort settlements from innocent celebrities by falsely tying them to Diddy and vowed to fight back and never pay his accuser.
Last month, Doe abruptly dropped the case — without explanation and without any kind of payment from Jay-Z. Two weeks later, Jay-Z sued both Doe and Buzbee for defamation, malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing, claiming they had carried out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by making the “false and malicious” rape allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote in Monday’s lawsuit. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
The recent filing from Doe rebutting those allegations, also filed Monday, was lodged in a separate lawsuit in California in which Jay-Z is suing Buzbee for extortion and defamation over the same rape allegations. At a hearing in that case last week, a Los Angeles judge said he would likely dismiss the star’s extortion claims but likely allow the defamation claims against the lawyer to proceed.
Reggaetón icon Daddy Yankee filed a massive lawsuit on Tuesday (March 4) against his ex-wife, Mireddys González Castellanos, and her sister, Ayeicha González Castellanos, for financial mismanagement, defamation, irregularities and negligence in the management of his music companies El Cartel Records and Los Cangris.
The 23-page lawsuit, filed in the Tribunal de Primera Instancia in Carolina, Puerto Rico, amounts to $250 million and accuses the sisters of breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract and more. According to the complaint, after Yankee regained control of the companies, his team discovered administrative and fiscal irregularities. One claim detailed in the lawsuit states that Yankee (Ramón Luis Ayala Rodríguez) found uncashed checks — some for royalty payments dating back to the early 2000s — that had expired because the defendants never deposited them.
“Due to this gross and stubborn negligence of the defendants’ administrative management, the plaintiffs lost thousands of dollars,” the lawsuit states.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit follows an injunction Yankee filed in December against his then-estranged wife, whom he officially divorced last month, claiming she had withdrawn $100 million from the companies’ bank accounts without authorization. According to that legal filing, the alleged theft of company funds occurred after Yankee had already revoked Mireddys and Ayeicha’s authority and “warned that they could not carry out any transactions on behalf of the companies.”
A few days later, both parties agreed that the Puerto Rican star would regain the presidency of El Cartel Records and Los Cangris, where his ex-wife allegedly served as CEO and her sister as secretary/treasurer.
Now, Yankee claims that after regaining control of the companies in December, his team discovered irregularities, including the “disappearance” of key documentation related to the companies’ finances and his successful La Última Vuelta World Tour. The lawsuit also alleges that between Dec. 26 and Dec. 30, just before the completion of the court-ordered administrative transition, the sisters “deleted or removed essential emails related to the operation of the companies and migrated the information to devices that have not been turned over or identified.”
Furthermore, Yankee alleges that the sisters’ “disorganized, unprofessional and irresponsible handling of matters related to Ayala Rodríguez’s career” and a “defamatory campaign promoted by the co-defendants and their agents and legal representatives with their endorsement” has caused him to lose income and damaged his “career, good name and personal prestige as one of the most important international Latin music figures.”
Billboard reached out to Mireddys González’s attorneys for comment but did not hear back at press time.