Legal
Page: 50
The blockchain group that sued Martin Shkreli to stop him from releasing Wu-Tang Clan’s Once Upon a Time in Shaolin is itself now selling the famed one-of-a-kind album to the public. But the deal comes with one small catch: buyers can’t actually listen to most of it.
Days after suing the infamous Pharma Bro, PleasrDAO announced Thursday (June 13) that Shaolin was “finally being offered to the public” for just $1 — something of a shocking offer considering the album’s infamous contractual restrictions that say it cannot be widely released until the year 2103.
But the fine print was slightly less exciting: Buyers will only receive an “encrypted” version of Shaolin that they cannot actually listen to. The deal will instead unlock exclusive access to a five-minute audio “sampler” composed of pieces of five tracks; the rest of the album will remain sealed.
Trending on Billboard
In a phone interview with Billboard on Thursday, members of PleasrDAO confirmed those limitations: “What people are being offered is the ability to own the encrypted album that they cannot listen to,” said Pleasr’s Leighton Cusack. “That will immediately unlock a never-heard-before sampler from the album created by the co-producer of the album.”
Rather than the limitations, Pleasr stressed the other unique element of its sale: Every time someone buys the album, the group says it will reduce the waiting period for the full album’s release by 88 seconds. “It creates this ability for people to decide how much they value music and if they want to have this music released faster or not,” Cusack said.
The sale of any amount of Shaolin, an album famous (and expensive) for its exclusivity, raises big questions. Even if Pleasr’s sale only allows buyers to hear five minutes of the album’s material, wouldn’t the widespread digital release flout Wu-Tang’s famed restrictions? How is it possible?
One possibility is that Pleasr, which bought the album from federal prosecutors after Shkreli forfeited it as part of his 2017 securities fraud convictions, was never subject to those same crazy restrictions in the first place. Another explanation could be that the people who imposed those rules — Wu-Tang rapper RZA and producer Cilvaringz — consented to the project. In social media posts, Pleasr said it had been “working with the original artists and producer” on the sale, suggesting Wu-Tang gave a green light to the project.
Reps for the Wu-Tang Clan did not return requests for comment on their involvement in the project. A press release from Pleasr on Thursday included a quote from RZA and Cilvaringz, but it was excerpted from a statement the duo had released a decade ago.
When asked directly if Shaolin’s stipulations were still in effect, or if the sale complied with those requirements, Pleasr representative Camilla McFarland declined to go deep into the details: “We can’t necessarily discuss the specifics of those agreements and where that all stands, but we can assure you that all of our activities and releases are fully compliant with the consent and blessing of artists and right holders involved,” she said.
Wu-Tang’s legendary album was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. Though the group intended the bizarre trappings as a protest against the commodification of music, Shaolin later became the ultimate commodity. In 2015, Shkreli — already infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications — bought it at auction for $2 million.
After Shkreli was convicted of securities fraud in 2017, he forfeited the album to federal prosecutors to help pay his multi-million dollar restitution sentence. Pleasr then bought the album from the government in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights to the album for another $750,000.
When it was initially sold, Shaolin came with much-discussed stipulations — namely, that the one-of-a-kind album could not be released to the general public until 2103. Though the deal did permit for-profit listening events at museums and other small venues, it strictly forbade duplicating or otherwise exploiting Shaolin “for any commercial or other non-commercial purposes by any means today known or that come to be known during said time period.”
While Shkreli was certainly bound by those terms, it’s less clear if Pleasr was subjected to them when it purchased the album from prosecutors. The original 2015 deal contained a specific provision that, in the event the album was re-sold, the same kooky restrictions must be passed along to the new buyer. But it’s unclear if that requirement survived the album being forfeited as part of a criminal case.
Until Thursday’s digital sale, Pleasr’s use of the album had seemingly stayed within the bounds of the Wu-Tang’s restrictions, with only a series of small in-person events. Last month, the group announced an exhibit at an Australian museum, where fans would be able to “experience” certain songs. And this past weekend, it held a private listening event at the Angel Orensanz Foundation in New York City.
But the new sale would appear to clearly exceed those original rules. Copying the original CD into a digital format and then selling copies across the internet would hardly seem to fit the contract’s original approved venues: “Buyer’s home, museums, art galleries, restaurants, bars, exhibition spaces, or other similar spaces not customarily used as venues for large musical concerts.”
One obvious way for Pleasr to avoid the restrictions would be for the selling party that reached the deal with Shkreli to simply waive their rights to enforce the contract. In a copy of the original agreement attached to the recent lawsuit, the deal was signed by RZA (Robert Diggs) as the founder/chief executive of Wu-Tang Productions, Inc., and by Cilvaringz (Tarik Azzougarh).
When asked if such consent had been granted, Pleasr’s McFarland said: “At the end of the day, I’ll let [RZA] comment on any of that. But of course, we’ve been working with them in order to be able to bring this to life.”
Young Thug’s attorney Brian Steel will not have to report to jail this weekend on criminal contempt charges after the Georgia Supreme Court granted his emergency motion for bond.
The ruling, issued Wednesday (June 12), came two days after the Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial held Steel in criminal contempt in a bizarre courtroom episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness.
The decision means that Steel’s jail sentence — 20 days, to be served over ten consecutive weekends starting this Friday — will be put on pause until the Supreme Court rules on his appeal of the contempt order, which his attorneys have argued was an abuse of the judge’s authority.
An attorney for Steel did not immediately return a request for comment.
On Monday (June 10), months into the massive racketeering trial, Steel alerted Judge Ural Glanville that he had learned of a secret “ex parte” meeting that morning between the judge, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, had potentially involved coercion of a witness and was clear grounds for a mistrial.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead repeatedly demanded that he divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers, suggesting the leak was illegal: “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.”
Steel refused to do so, saying that it had been the meeting itself that was the problem. “You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” he told the judge. Steel said he had been told that during the meeting, prosecutors and the judge had pressed Copeland to testify by saying he could be held in jail for an extended period of time if he did not do so.
“If that’s true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation,” Steel told Glanville.
In an extraordinary exchange, the two continued to argue until Glanville eventually ordered Steel removed from the courtroom by a court officer. In an order issued later on Monday — with Steel now represented by another well-known Georgia criminal defense attorney —Glanville ultimately sentenced Steel to spend 20 days in jail, to be served over 10 consecutive weekends.
In a dramatic twist, Steel requested that he be allowed to serve that sentence alongside Young Thug, who has been sitting in jail for more than two years as the trial drags on.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Jury selection kicked off in January 2023, but the trial itself did not begin until November and has since been marked by numerous delays. With dozens of witnesses still set to testify in the prosecution case, the trial is expected to run into 2025.
Following Glanville’s contempt ruling against Steel, his attorneys immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the judge’s actions on Monday had been both procedurally and substantively improper. Among other things, they cited the fact that Glanville himself had issued a ruling on an issue that involved his own potentially unethical actions.
“The court involved itself in these proceedings by conducting the ex parte hearing that violated Mr. Steel’s client’s rights,” Steel’s attorney wrote in their appeal. “This created a conflict of interest for the court because its own ethical conduct was at the heart of Mr. Steel’s request.”
“The court then compounded its abuse of power by presiding over the very contempt hearing where its own rules violations prompted the controversy,” Steel’s attorneys continued. “The court should have recused and allowed the contempt proceedings to be handled by a separate court.”
That appeal, filed with a state appeals court on Tuesday (June 11), was passed along to the Supreme Court, which under Georgia case law is tasked with handling such appeals directly. And on Wednesday, the high court accepted the case and ordered Steel’s sentence put on hold until it issues a final ruling on Judge Glanville’s actions.
Following Monday’s dust-up, the YSL trial has continued with more testimony, with Steel present in the courtroom representing Thug. But on Wednesday, attorneys for another defendant (Deamonte Kendrick) argued that Glanville should recuse himself from the case over the alleged secret meeting with prosecutors and the witness. They argued that the meeting had been intended to “harass and intimidate the sworn witness into testifying.”
When presented with that motion in court, Glanville quickly denied it and continued on with the trial.
Drake’s production company is facing a lawsuit from the apparel brand Members Only for allegedly selling tour merch that infringed the company’s trademarks.
The case, filed Tuesday (June 12) in New York federal court, claims that Drake’s company (Away From Home Touring Inc.) has been selling t-shirts, including on his recently-wrapped It’s All a Blur Tour, that are emblazoned with the words “Members Only.”
To be clear, the lawsuit doesn’t claim Drake is selling counterfeit Members Only jackets — the iconic 1980s fad the company made famous. Drake’s shirts feature that phrase (written in large script across the front) simply because it’s the name of a track on his 2023 album For All the Dogs.
But in its complaint filed in federal court, the current owner of the Members Only brand (JR Apparel World LLC) says it doesn’t matter why Drake’s company opted to put their name on a shirt — only that he did so.
Trending on Billboard
“The fact that ‘Members Only’ is a song on Drake’s album ‘For All the Dogs’ does not obviate the likelihood of confusion or give [him] a license to use our client’s ‘Members Only’ marks in such a confusing manner, particularly on or in connection with apparel items,” the company’s lawyers write.
Calling “Members Only” a “famous household name,” the lawsuit claims that Drake’s shirts are going to confuse fans into thinking the real Members Only brand is somehow involved: “Away From Home’s use of ‘Members Only’ … is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers as to the origin of Away From Home’s infringing T-shirts.”
Under U.S. trademark law, the context of how a brand name is used is crucial. Two companies can use the exact same name for different products and peacefully co-exist — think Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, or Dove soap and Dove chocolate. But when used on the same types of products, a similar name can become trademark infringement.
In Drake’s case, his use of the “Members Only” name as a song title almost certainly would not have infringed JR Apparel World rights — both because they’re different products and because the First Amendment gives added protection to use trademarks in creative works like songs. But by using that same name on apparel, the lawsuit says, the legal calculus has changed.
“Away From Home sold … goods bearing the mark ‘Members Only’ that are identical, overlapping, and/or highly similar to the goods that JR Apparel sells bearing its MEMBERS ONLY Marks,” the company’s attorneys write.
A rep for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.
Just hours after convicted “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli was sued over claims that he illegally copied and distributed Wu-Tang Clan’s one-of-a-kind album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, a federal judge has ordered him to appear in court and to immediately stop “causing further damage.”
In a ruling late Tuesday, Judge Pamela Chen issued a temporary restraining order against the disgraced pharma executive, siding with arguments from PleasrDAO — a digital art collective that bought the album in 2021 after Shkreli was forced to forfeit it as part of his criminal case.
“Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable injury—namely, erosion of the Album’s uniqueness as an original work of art,” the judge wrote. She also ordered Shkreli to appear in court later this month and said she might force him to turn over digital records and account for any ill-gotten profits.
Trending on Billboard
And Judge Chen explicitly threatened Shkreli with criminal penalties if he flouts her order: “Defendant is warned that any act by him in violation of any of the terms of this order, after actual notice of this order to defendant, may be considered and prosecuted as contempt of this court.”
The quick restraining order came less than a day after PleasrDAO sued Shkreli over the leak of the album, accusing him of violating both their purchase agreement and the federal forfeiture order that required him to hand it over. They also accused him of violating federal trade secrets law, which protect valuable proprietary information from misappropriation.
“The album was supposed to constitute the sole existing copy of the record, music, data and files, and packaging,” the group’s attorneys wrote earlier on Tuesday. “It now appears, however, that Shkreli improperly retained copies of the data and files at the time of the forfeiture and has released and/or intends to release them to the public.”
In an X post on Tuesday, Shkreli said: “these super nerds are suing me 🤣🤣🤣🤣 the least crypto ethos, whitest, least culturally relevant dorks good luck!” In later posts, he called the lawsuit “frivolous” and also re-shared an X post in which another user suggested the lawsuit would fail: “Even if they win, doesn’t Shkreli just anonymously leak the album online out of spite?”
Shkreli did not immediately return a request for additional comment.
Wu-Tang’s legendary Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. Though the group intended the bizarre trappings as a protest against the commodification of music, Shaolin later became the ultimate commodity. In 2015, Shkreli – already infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications — bought it at auction in 2015 for $2 million.
The deal came with an unusual stipulation: that the album could not be duplicated or otherwise released to the general public in any form until 2103, or 88 years after the initial purchase. According to court documents, the deal did permit for the album to be played for private listening events in “spaces not customarily used as venues for large musical concerts.”
In 2017, Shkreli was found guilty on two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. After he was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to repay $7.4 million, the federal judge overseeing the case ordered him to hand over Shaolin to help pay the restitution.
PleasrDAO says it bought the album from federal prosecutors in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights to the album for $750,000. Last month, the group said it would hold private listening events at an Australian museum, where fans would be able to “experience” certain songs from the album.
But in Tuesday’s lawsuit, PleasrDAO said that Shkreli had unlawfully retained copies of Wu-Tang’s music, and had recently begun threatening to release them to the public.
In April posts on X, he allegedly said “LOL i have the mp3s you moron” and “i can just upload the mp3s if you want?” In May, he allegedly posted an image of a PleasrDAO webpage in which the group said the album would not be available until 2103 and said “look out for a torrent im sick of this shit” – a reference to a method of internet filesharing. On Sunday (June 9), the group says he “played music from the album publicly” over the internet to nearly 5000 listeners.
In their filings, the group argued that the release of the album would cause “incalculable monetary loss,” since the value of the album was based on the “uniqueness” of the single copy: The Album’s potential resale value and the profits that PleasrDAO may earn from playing or exhibiting the music will diminish as the data and files become more widely available.”
In her restraining order later on Tuesday, Judge Chen seemed swayed by those arguments. Saying that PleasrDAO would likely “succeed on the merits” of its case against Shkreli, she ruled that he was immediately barred from “using, disseminating, streaming, or selling any interests in the Album” or “in any way causing further damage to Plaintiff respecting the Album.”Judge Chen also ordered Shkreli to appear in court on June 25 to explain why she should not issue a more robust injunction. Such an order, the judge said, would require Shkreli to account for any copies he retained, who he distributed them to, and what profits he gained from doing so, and would allow for the seizure of any remaining copies of the album that he might still be holding.
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 trial in Atlanta descends into chaos as the judge orders the rapper’s lawyer thrown into jail; Bad Bunny’s battle with Major League Baseball players’ union gets messier; Madison Square Garden bans a Phish fan over the “first bong hit” at the Las Vegas Sphere; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Trial Goes Off The Rails
Young Thug’s gang trial in Atlanta was already in uncharted territory – it’s now the longest trial in Georgia state history, with dozens of witnesses still scheduled to testify and no clear end in sight until 2025. But on Monday (June 10), it crossed over into the realm of the truly bizarre. It started when Young Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, said he had learned of an allegedly improper secret meeting between Judge Ural Glanville, state prosecutors, and a key witness. It ended with Steel being escorted into custody by a court officer. In between, the attorney and the judge engaged in an extraordinary back-and-forth — broadcast across the internet in real-time — over illegal leaks, witness coercion, and potential jail time. “I’m going to give you five minutes. If you don’t tell me who it is, I’m going to put you in contempt,” Glanville said at one point. “I don’t need five minutes,” Steel fired back. When the dust settled, Glanville had sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail, to be served over 10 consecutive weekends. Capping off the surreal proceedings? Steel demanded to serve that time in jail right alongside Young Thug, who has been locked up for two years as the case drags on. Go read our full story here, and stay tuned at Billboard for more developments — Steel has already filed an appeal, and something tells us this isn’t the last we’ll hear about that secret meeting…
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
BAD MONEY? Major League Baseball’s players’ union fired back hard at a lawsuit claiming it had discriminated against Bad Bunny’s sports agency Rimas Sports — explaining (in great detail) how the company had, in fact, been penalized due to “egregious and systemic” violations of union rules against offering gifts to prospective clients. According to the union, those illegal “inducements” included a $200,000 interest-free loan to one ballplayer, and VIP tickets to Bad Bunny concerts to others. PHISH FUED – A Phish fan who bragged about taking the “first bong hit to ever be ripped” in the Las Vegas Sphere — and posted a viral video of him doing so — received a letter from Madison Square Garden Entertainment’s lawyers permanently banning him from the venue and all other MSG facilities. Though MSG initially stuck by the decision, the company later backtracked after the story made headlines: “There was a breakdown in our process due to a change in personnel which resulted in the letter being sent inadvertently,” said a Sphere Entertainment spokeswoman in a statement. “This customer is not banned from our properties.” KBJ x QUEEN BEY – When the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices released their annual financial disclosures, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reported a cooler-than-usual line item: that Beyoncé had personally gifted her four concert tickets. ‘ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT’ – Travis Scott asked a federal judge to end a copyright lawsuit accusing him of using unlicensed samples on Utopia and Astroworld from “Bitches Reply,” an oft-sampled 1992 track that’s previously been used by Lil Wayne, Cardi B, Kid Cudi and others. In their filing, Scott’s lawyers argued the only material the rapper allegedly copied were the words “alright, alright, alright” — and that such “stock phrases” do not have “even the minimal creativity required for copyright protection.” MADONNA CASE *NOT* SETTLED – A bizarre exchange took place in one of the several lawsuits filed against Madonna over claims that she broke the law by delaying the starts of her concerts. Days after news of a settlement was filed in court by the plaintiff’s attorneys, lawyers for Madonna and Live Nation emphatically denied that any such deal had been reached and told a judge they “will not be harassed into settlement.” The case remains very much pending. MOTOWN SINGER SUES HOSPITAL – Alexander Morris, the current lead singer of the legendary Motown group The Four Tops, is suing a Detroit-area hospital over allegations that staffers “assumed he was mentally ill” and put him in a straitjacket after he informed them that he was a famous musician. Morris claims he was sent for a psychiatric evaluation and deprived of necessary treatment for his heart infraction — until, that is, his wife showed up and staffers watched a video of him performing at the Grammys. COUNTERFEIT COUNTERATTACK – With the problem of bootleg music merch continuing to grow, Billboard’s Steve Knopper chatted with two companies that are fighting back using technological weapons like artificial intelligence, image-matching software and automated takedown notices.
The lead singer of Motown group The Four Tops is suing a Detroit-area hospital over allegations that staffers “assumed he was mentally ill” and put him in a straight jacket when he informed them that he was a famous musician.
In a complaint filed Monday in Michigan federal court, singer Alexander Morris claims that when he visited the emergency room at Ascension Macomb-Oakland Hospital in April 2023 with difficulty breathing and chest pain, he was both racially profiled and unfairly treated as if he was “delusional.”
Even though he was showing “clear symptoms of cardiac distress” and had a history of such problems, Morris says that staffers removed him from oxygen support and ordered a psychological evaluation after he “revealed his identity as a celebrity figure.” When he offered to prove his identity, Morris says a white security guard ordered him to “sit his Black ass down” and physically restrained him.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff had a valid identification on his person and could easily have been identified as a singer in the Four Tops group,” attorneys for Morris’ write. “Defendant hospital … blatantly refused to provide plaintiff with medical treatment due to his race and/or perceived mental disability.”
Eventually, Morris says, his wife arrived and learned “that the doctors thought he was delusional.” When he was able to show a nurse a “video of him performing at the Grammys,” he says the hospital finally agreed to cancel the psych evaluation. He was ultimately diagnosed with heart infraction – and offered what he says was an insulting mea culpa.
“Plaintiff was offered a $25.00 gift card to Meijers as an apology for the dehumanization and discrimination he faced at the hands of the hospital,” the singer’s attorneys write. “He refused to accept the gift card.”
Founded in the early 1950s, The Four Tops roared to widespread success in the 1960s and fueled the rise of the growing Motown record company. The original lineup, consisting of Levi Stubbs, Abdul “Duke” Fakir, Renaldo “Obie” Benson and Lawrence Payton, stuck together for more than 40 years and are enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Fakir is the sole original member still in the group.
Morris, who joined the group in 2019, had already publicized his alleged ordeal in the past. Last spring, he threatened to sue over the alleged incident, claiming that it would have taken “two minutes” to verify his identity: “My health should’ve been first.”
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, a spokesperson for hospital owner Ascension said the company was “unable to provide details on cases under investigation.”
“The health, safety and well-being of our patients, associates and community members remains our top priority,” the spokesperson said. “We remain committed to honoring human dignity and acting with integrity and compassion for all persons and the community. We do not condone racial discrimination of any kind.”
Almost exactly one year after Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin of K-pop boy band EXO first pursued legal action against their longtime label and management agency, SM Entertainment, over contractual issues, a company established by the trio has now declared “full-on war” on the K-pop giant, according to Korean media reports.
Representatives for INB100, the newly established company Baekhyun founded in 2023 — which signed Chen and Xiumin for their respective solo careers, though all three remain contracted under SM for EXO’s group activities — held what has been described as an “emergency press conference” in central Seoul on Monday (June 10). Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin were not in attendance.
Trending on Billboard
During the press conference, as reported by Korea JoongAng Daily, three reps for the trio — who also perform together in a splinter unit called EXO-CBX — said that Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin have been in a monthlong dispute over fees and contracts with SM. Cha Ga-won, president and majority shareholder of INB100’s holding company, One Hundred, and one of the representatives to speak at the press conference, claimed a former SM CEO verbally promised in a recorded agreement to charge INB100 only a 5.5% fee for distributing its music releases through Kakao (the current majority shareholder of SM Entertainment), as opposed to the 15% to 20% percent typically charged to companies outside Kakao’s umbrella. But Cha says SM is now demanding a 10% royalty fee for the members’ use of the agency’s intellectual property (such as the members’ stage names, as well as EXO and EXO-CBX) in exchange for the discounted distribution fee.
“We declare a full-on war against SM Entertainment, which has made a promise that it could not keep and committed what could be perceived as fraud,” said Cha during the press conference, during which INB100 representatives also demanded that SM disclose the breakdown of EXO’s earnings — reigniting the same contract issues that were reportedly resolved last June. The representatives additionally claimed that INB100 sent a formal letter of complaint to SM Entertainment over two months ago concerning the fees and the earnings disclosure but had not received a response.
On Monday evening, SM Entertainment refuted the allegations in a press release. According to SM, an outside company imposed the 10% intellectual property fee following court mediation over past issues with previous EXO members who had exited the label while still under contract. (Between 2014-2105, three other EXO members left the group and broke their contracts with SM to focus on the China market.) SM also claims EXO-CBX’s contract is still valid, and that the trio benefits from the EXO brand but are not fulfilling their contractual obligations with SM despite the agency acting in good faith with a lower distribution rate.
SM’s statement also alleges that Chen, Baekhyun and Xiumin were “poached” by Cha and MC Mong — a one-time rapper-producer in Korea who fell out of public favor following allegations that he had dodged the country’s mandatory military draft, and who went on to launch agencies of his own, including BPM Entertainment, which now houses ex-SM artist Taemin of SHINee.
SM added that it did not previously respond to INB100’s letter of complaint to avoid distracting from new EPs released by EXO members Chen, D.O., and Suho over the past month. The company concluded its statement by saying that it will respond with legal action as opposed to trying to sway public opinion through press conferences.
The Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial held the rapper’s attorney in criminal contempt of court Monday (June 10) in a bizarre episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness.
After attorney Brian Steel argued that the so-called ex parte meeting involved the improper coercion of a sworn witness, Judge Ural Glanville repeatedly demanded that Steel divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers. “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.”
Steel refused to do so, saying that it had been the meeting itself that was the problem. “You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” he told the judge. During the meeting, Steel said he had been told, prosecutors and the judge had pressed the witness, Kenneth Copeland, to testify by saying he could be held in jail for an extended period of time if he did not.
“If that’s true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation,” Steel told Glanville, arguing that defense counsel should have been notified of a meeting involving a sworn witness and that it was grounds for a mistrial.
After Steel continued to refuse to share where he received the information, Glanville held him in contempt and eventually ordered him taken into custody. As he was escorted out of the courtroom, into custody, Steel told the judge that Thug did not wish to proceed without his attorney present: “You’re taking away his right to counsel.”
The move to banish Steel led to confusion in the courtroom. Thug’s other attorney, Keith Adams, said he could not continue without his co-counsel, and even prosecutors asked that Steel be present for the remainder of the day if the trial was going to proceed with testimony. Judge Glanville eventually agreed, allowing Steel to re-enter, but said he had not softened his stance.
“You will go into custody at 5 o’clock today … if you don’t tell me who that is,” the judge said. “This is criminal contempt. I have asked you a question related to this particular proceeding and if you don’t tell me you’ll suffer the consequences.”
It’s unclear if the contempt will impact Steel’s ability to continue to represent Thug as the case moves forward. Steel did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Jury selection kicked off in January 2023, but the trial itself did not begin until November and has since been marked by numerous delays. With dozens of witnesses still set to testify in the prosecution case, the trial is expected to run into 2025.
Attorneys for Madonna and Live Nation say they’re facing a “harassment campaign” from the lawyers suing over delayed starts to the singer’s concerts, aimed at “extorting a lucrative settlement” rather than actually litigating the case.
The charged language came amid a class action accusing Madonna and Live Nation of breaking laws by making fans wait hours at December concerts in Brooklyn on her Celebration Tour — one of three such cases filed over the past six months that all make similar allegations.
Over the weekend, the dueling teams of lawyers engaged in a bizarre back and forth. On Friday (June 7), attorneys for the accusers told the judge that the two sides had “reached a settlement” that would end the case. But first thing on Monday morning (June 10), Madonna’s legal team emphatically denied that any such deal had been reached: “The parties have not settled this matter.”
Trending on Billboard
“To be clear, defendants are not necessarily opposed to settlement if certain terms can be reached,” wrote Jeff Warshafsky, a partner at the law firm Proskauer who reps Madonna and Live Nation. “But defendants will not be harassed into settlement and cannot abide false statements made to the court.”
In the filing, Madonna’s lawyer said the two sides had “discussed the possibility of settlement” but that they had “made no settlement offer” and “we do not know what plaintiffs believe they are accomplishing or trying to accomplish with the false notice.”
“The false notice is part and parcel of the harassment campaign that plaintiffs’ counsel has been waging against defendants over the last several months in hopes of extorting a lucrative settlement by forcing defendants to incur unnecessary legal fees,” Warshafsky wrote. “Whatever plaintiffs’ motive … defendants believe plaintiffs’ complaint is completely without merit and intend to fully defend themselves.”
An attorney for Madonna’s accusers did not immediately return a request for comment.
Madonna and Live Nation were first sued in January over the Brooklyn shows — a case that made headlines because it claimed the fans “had to get up early to go to work” the next day. She was later hit with a similar case in Washington, D.C. that claimed fans had waited in an “uncomfortably hot” arena and that she had lip-synched portions of the show. A third case, filed last month, echoed those claims but also alleged that Madonna’s show had been unexpectedly “pornographic.”
All three cases have been filed as class actions, seeking to represent potentially thousands of other fans who also faced the alleged delays. By starting the concerts later than expected, the cases claim Madonna and Live Nation breached their contracts with fans and violated state consumer protection laws.
Madonna’s attorneys have strongly rejected those accusations. In a request to dismiss the New York case earlier this year, her lawyers argued that simply needing to wake up early was not the kind of “cognizable injury” that can form the basis for a lawsuit. And they say that anyone buying a concert ticket is well aware that a show likely won’t start at the exact time printed on the ticket.
“No reasonable concertgoer — and certainly no Madonna fan — would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage at the ticketed event time,” her legal team wrote in April.
A version of that motion to dismiss the case remains pending. With no settlement reached, a response from Madonna’s accusers is due on July 1.
A California judge presiding over a sex trafficking case that was brought against Madison Square Garden Entertainment (MSGE) CEO/executive chairman James Dolan, the Azoff Companies and Harvey Weinstein in January is weighing several motions to throw out the lawsuit, with a decision expected to be announced as soon as early next week.
Attorney Douglas Windor, a high-profile litigator who represented Casandra Ventura (a.k.a. singer Cassie) in her since-settled sex trafficking lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, filed an explosive lawsuit in January on behalf of Tennessee massage therapist Kellye Croft, who alleged that Dolan and an employee of Azoff Music Management conspired to traffic her to California to have sex with Dolan — who in turn allegedly trafficked her to Weinstein.
Representing Azoff Companies is powerful New York litigator Daniel Petrocelli, partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, who has represented Donald Trump and Travis Scott. Dolan is represented by Danya Perry, a former assistant U.S. attorney and ex-chief of litigation at MacAndrews & Forbes.
Trending on Billboard
Petrocelli and Perry have each filed separate motions to dismiss the case, which is being handled by Judge Percy Anderson, while Perry has issued a blanket denial of Croft’s claims against Dolan.
Croft alleges that she was hired to work with the late Glenn Frey in October 2013 while the vocalist and Eagles frontman was touring with the band and opening act JD and the Straight Shot, which is led by Dolan. Croft alleges that Dolan befriended her during the tour, gained her trust and then sexually assaulted her before coercing her into a sexual relationship while on the road.
Two months after returning home to Nashville in the wake of the tour, Croft alleges she was contacted by an executive at Azoff Music Management and hired to work as Frey’s masseuse for the Eagles’ six-night run of concerts at Kia Forum in Los Angeles. When Croft arrived in Los Angeles, she learned that he was staying at a different hotel than the band — leading her to suspect that she was really hired by Azoff Management as a favor to Dolan.
“Ms. Croft did not perform a single massage on any member of the Eagles while working at The Forum,” Wingdor writes, alleging that “in reality, Ms. Croft was flown out to Los Angeles for the purposes of engaging in unwanted sexual acts with Dolan.”
Croft also claims that she was set up by Dolan, allegedly with the help of two Azoff employees, for an encounter with Weinstein, the disgraced film producer and convicted rapist, during her stay at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Croft says she was confronted by Weinstein in an elevator and allegedly offered a job on the set of an upcoming film — only to later be sexually propositioned by the film producer, who then followed her to her room and sexually assaulted her, according to the complaint.
Dolan’s relationship with Weinstein dates back to 2003 when Dolan and Weinstein were part of an investment group — which also included financier and convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein — that was hoping to purchase New York magazine. Dolan also briefly served on the board of The Weinstein Company starting in 2016.
Croft allegedly decided to file the lawsuit after Dolan sent her the lyrics to “I Should’ve Known,” a song he wrote lamenting his failure to stop Weinstein from victimizing women.
In April, Perry filed a motion to dismiss Croft’s lawsuit, arguing that even if the woman’s claims were true, she still can’t sue Dolan under the Trafficking Victims Protect Act because “the bill targets and criminalizes sex trafficking, not sexual relations (which is all that is alleged in (Croft’s complaint),” according to the motion. Wigdor responded in a separate filing that Perry’s reading of the law was “wrong.”
As to the Weinstein allegation, Perry is arguing that Dolan and other former Weinstein Company board members were already released from any claims “to alleged sexual misconduct by Weinstein” during 2018 bankruptcy proceedings. Wigdor countered that Croft “did not consent to waive her claims” and wasn’t aware of the bankruptcy.
Petrocelli’s motion to dismiss argues that Croft’s complaint “contains no facts suggesting the Azoff Entities participated in, benefitted from, or even knew about any sex trafficking scheme” when hiring her. Petrocelli also wants Croft and her attorney sanctioned for filing the lawsuit and is asking that Croft be required to pay Azoff’s legal costs.
The motions have been taken under advisement by the judge, who late last week canceled a Monday (June 3) hearing for oral arguments on the motions, noting the “Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.“ His ruling is expected any day.