Legal
Page: 54
Kelly Clarkson has won a legal ruling that her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him for procuring business deals while he served as her manager.
In a Nov. 21 decision, California’s labor commissioner ruled that Blackstock procured a number of deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
By doing so, Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower ruled that Blackstock violated California’s Talent Agencies Act (TAA), which bans anyone other than a licensed talent agent from procuring work for artists.
All told, Blackstock must pay back commissions earned on four deals: $1,983,155.70 for securing Clarkson’s role on The Voice; $208,125 for a deal to promote Norweigan Cruise Lines; $450,000 for an agreement to promote Wayfair; and $93.30 to host the Billboard Music Awards in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Importantly, the commissioner rejected Clarkson’s claim that Blackstock was also required to pay back commissions he earned from helping to secure The Kelly Clarkson Show — which could have seen him owe much more. His involvement in that deal, including “strategizing” with her agents, was clearly “at the request of CAA” and thus not a violation of the law, the commissioner ruled.
“When a manager strategizes with the agent during a negotiation and does not approach the potential employer without the agent’s permission, they are doing exactly what the TAA demands of them,” Garcia-Brower wrote.
After a marriage of seven years, Clarkson filed for divorce from Blackstock in June 2020. The case was finalized two years later, with the singer agreeing to pay her ex-husband monthly child support of $45,601 for their two children, plus a one-time payment of just over $1.3 million.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on this month’s decision.
The Nashville judge overseeing the bitter lawsuit between Hall & Oates sided with Daryl Hall on Thursday (Nov. 3) and ruled that John Oates temporarily cannot sell his share of the band’s joint venture to Primary Wave until a private arbitrator hears the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Hours after attorneys for the two singers squared off in court, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend an existing restraining order that’s been blocking Oates from selling his share of their joint venture to industry heavyweight Primary Wave.
Without such an order in place, Perkins ruled that Hall might face the “irreparable harm” of the sale being finalized before he is able to prove his claim that the deal violates the terms of their partnership deal.
“If the transfer goes forward before the arbitrator has an opportunity to consider and rule upon plaintiffs’ application for interim injunctive relief in the arbitration, then it could, as a practical matter, render much of the relief Plaintiffs are seeking in the arbitration ineffectual,” Perkins wrote.
The new restraining order bars Oates from completing his sale to Primary Wave until February or until an arbitrator can decide whether to impose a similar restraining order — whichever comes first.
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday.
Hall & Oates pumped out six chart-topping singles and four chart-topping albums during the 1970s and 1980s and continued to successfully tour as recently as last year. But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, accusing him of violating their partnership agreement by attempting to sell his half to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that’s purchased catalogs and other IP linked to many iconic musicians in recent years.
Fearing the deal would close before the arbitration case was heard, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale. Perkins quickly did so, blocking the Primary Wave sale from closing until Thursday when he could hear from both sides.
At a live hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court earlier on Thursday, a who’s-who of music attorneys battled over whether to extend the restraining order. Representing Hall was Christine Lepera of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who argued that it would be “most efficient” to put the sale on ice until the arbitrator could weigh in. Derek Crownover from the firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, representing Oates, fired back that no additional injunction was needed — that Hall was “not entitled to any relief at all.”
Though the case started out under seal and shrouded in mystery, the legal battle between Hall & Oates has turned increasingly public — and increasingly nasty — over the last week.
On Wednesday, Hall said he had been “blindsided” by the Primary Wave deal and called it the “ultimate partnership betrayal” by his former partner. “Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates said in his own declaration that he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall would make such “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements” about him. “I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
Following Thursday’s decision, the case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Attorneys for Hall & Oates members Daryl Hall and John Oates clashed in a Nashville courtroom Thursday during the first showdown in an increasingly bitter lawsuit between the longtime musical partners.
At a live hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court, a who’s-who of music litigators battled over whether Hall was entitled to an order extending an existing restraining order that’s been blocking Oates from selling his share of their joint venture to industry heavyweight Primary Wave.
Representing Hall was Christine Lepera of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who argued that it would be “most efficient” to issue a court order putting the sale on ice until a private arbitrator can hear the case and decide whether Oates was legally allowed to sell his stake to Primary Wave.
Firing back for Oates was Derek Crownover from the firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, who said that no additional injunction was needed — that Hall was “not entitled to any relief at all” — and the dispute should simply be allowed to play out in arbitration. Crownover said that at most, the judge should extend the restraining order by only a few weeks.
At the end of the hearing, the judge overseeing the dispute, Chancellor Russell Perkins, said he would issue a ruling later on Thursday on whether he would extend the restraining order.
Hall & Oates pumped out six chart-topping singles and four chart-topping albums during the 1970s and 1980s, and continued to successfully tour as recently as last year. But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, accusing him of violating their partnership agreement by attempting to sell his half to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that’s purchased catalogs and other IP linked to many iconic musicians in recent years.
Fearing the deal would close before the arbitration case was heard, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale. The case was filed under seal, shrouding it in mystery and leading to days of speculation about why the beloved singers were suing each other. The judge overseeing the case quickly issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the Primary Wave sale from closing until Thursday’s hearing could be held.
The live hearing came just hours after Hall and Oates directly attacked each other for the first time in court filings.
In a sworn statement on Wednesday, Hall said he had been “blindsided” by the Primary Wave deal and called it the “ultimate partnership betrayal” by his former partner. “Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates said in his own declaration he was “tremendously disappointed” about that Hall would make such “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements” about him. “I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates became clearer Wednesday (Nov. 29) when Daryl Hall filed court papers accusing musical partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly moving to sell his half of their joint venture to Primary Wave – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A week after news of the dispute between the yacht rock legends first surfaced, Hall filed an unsealed declaration (obtained by Billboard) that was filled with new revelations – not just about his partner’s “ambush,” but also about the duo’s ongoing “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about his personal feelings toward his former partner.
“Respectfully, he must be stopped from this latest wrongdoing and his malicious conduct reined in once and for all,” Hall wrote of Oates.
Hours later, Oates filed his own statement in response, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
“I have no idea who or what is motivating Daryl to take these steps and make such salacious statements, but I am deeply hurt,” Oates wrote.
After teaming up as a pair of Philadelphia singers in 1972, Hall & Oates hit the top of the Billboard Hot 100 a whopping six times, first with “Rich Girl” in 1977 and then with “Kiss On My List,” “Private Eyes,” “I Can’t Go For That (No Can Do)” “Maneater” and “Out of Touch.” The duo have continued to successfully tour for years, including as recently as last year.
But in early November, Hall filed a private arbitration case against Oates, challenging his partner’s alleged plan to sell his half of their joint venture (Whole Oats Enterprises) to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that has acquired many iconic music catalogs in recent years. Fearing that the deal would close before the case was decided, Hall then filed the current lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking a court order to block the sale.
The lawsuit was filed under seal, shrouding it in mystery and leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo were suing each other. The complaint was then unsealed last week, revealing the basic details about the proposed sale to Primary Wave and Hall’s objections. But Wednesday’s filings painted the clearest picture yet of the bitter dispute between the former partners.
In his declaration, Hall called Oates’ agreement to sell to Primary Wave a “completely clandestine and bad faith move in blatant violation” of their agreement, which he said clearly requires full consent from both partners.
“John Oates and the Co-Trustees engaged in the ultimate partnership betrayal,” Hall wrote. “They surreptitiously sought to sell half of the WOE assets without obtaining my written approval.”
Hall said he first learned of the proposed sale to Primary Wave in late October – news that he said left him “blindsided.” He said it came as the two sides were engaged in mediation on other issues and as he was about to embark on a tour, causing him “tremendous upheaval, harm, and difficulty in my life.”
“I believe that John Oates timed the unauthorized transaction to create the most harm to me,” Hall wrote.
Hall seemed particularly upset about the idea of selling to Primary Wave in particular. He said he had “no intention of becoming partners with Primary Wave” and that Oates could not “thrust a new partner upon me in this outrageous fashion.”
“The potential of being forced into a partnership with Primary Wave without my consent is incredibly upsetting,” Hall wrote. “There is no amount of money that could compensate me for being forced to partner with an entity that I did not agree to partner with, and whose business model does not comport with my views regarding the WOE assets. The harm is unimaginable.”
The biggest problem for Hall, the filing indicated, was the idea of granting Primary Wave control over his name and likeness rights – something he called “highly personal assets.”
“Primary Wave is a company that brands itself as having a strong focus on exploiting not only copyrights but the trademarks and name and likeness rights of the artists from whom they purchase catalogue rights,” Hall wrote. “If Primary Wave becomes my partner they … will likely have a goal to use theWOE assets, and my name and likeness, for branding and exploitations.”
A representative for Primary Wave did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday evening.
Hall also revealed that the dispute came amid a broader “divorce” with Oates. His former partner had recently become “adversarial and aggressive” and intended to “burden and harass me.” Eventually, they began discussing a dissolution of their touring company and other joint ventures. But he says that Oates never once discussed selling his share in Whole Oats Enterprises, the joint venture at issue in the case.
“John Oates was very combative and protective with respect to WOE, and consistently conveyed his desire to keep his ownership and that partnership intact and operative—there was never a hint that he would try to ambush me with a sale,” Hall wrote.
The new filing also cleared up exactly what assets are controlled by Whole Oats Enterprises. They include the band’s trademarks, their personal name and likeness rights, their record royalty income, and “certain HO social media and related website assets.” Another entity, Hot Cha Music, LLP, controls the band’s valuable musical composition copyrights – meaning they are not at issue in the case.
In his own filing Wednesday, Oates offered far fewer details than Hall had; he repeatedly said that he was subject to confidentiality agreements that restricted what he could say. But he refuted his partner’s core accusation about a secret deal that violated their partnership contract.
“I can only say that Daryl’s accusations that I breached our agreement, went ‘behind’ his back, ‘acted in bad faith,’ and the like, are not true,” Oates wrote.
A court hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday morning in Nashville.
Rapper Polo G is suing a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
In a complaint filed Monday (Nov. 27) in New York federal court, attorneys for the rapper (real name Taurus Bartlett) accused Netherlands-based J. Noah B.V. of violating his intellectual property rights, claiming the company “lied to the public” by continuing to promote shows “they knew would not occur.”
“Bartlett’s counsel demanded that defendants immediately remove all uses of Bartlett’s client’s name and image from the website, from Instagram, and from all other social media channels,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote. “Inexcusably, defendants failed to do so, and ignored this demand entirely.”
“Even more egregiously, J Noah’s Instagram account continued to contain advertisements for alleged performances by Bartlett … that defendants are fully aware would not be occurring,” the rapper’s lawyers added.
Those splashy allegations are layered on top of a more run-of-the-mill underlying contract dispute over an agreement for 10 concerts, which Polo G’s lawyers say J. Noah has “wrongly” accused the rapper of breaching.
In the complaint, Polo G seeks a ruling that he had “no obligation to perform” at the shows because he sustained an “injury that prevents him from performing” — a valid reason under the contract, his lawyers say. On the contrary, he claims that it’s actually J. Noah that breached the deal by failing to pay his full $495,000 in fees as required under the contract.
But the lawsuit also goes much further than that — turning a contract dispute into intellectual property litigation by claiming that J. Noah then continued to wrongfully use Polo G’s “name, likeness and trademark” even after the deal had been terminated.
“Through these knowingly false advertisements of fictitious concert performances using the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s image, Defendants have engaged in knowingly false advertising—thereby committing a fraud on the public and causing irreparable harm to the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s reputation,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote.
A spokesperson for J. Noah did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
A judge overseeing the estate of Aretha Franklin awarded real estate to the late star’s sons, citing a handwritten will from 2014 that was found between couch cushions.
The decision Monday came four months after a Detroit-area jury said the document was a valid will under Michigan law, despite scribbles and many hard-to-read passages. Franklin had signed it and put a smiley face in the letter “A.”
The papers will override a handwritten will from 2010 that was found at Franklin’s suburban Detroit home around the same time in 2019, the judge said.
One of her sons, Kecalf Franklin, will get that property, which was valued at $1.1 million in 2018, but is now worth more. A lawyer described it as the “crown jewel” before trial last July.
Another son, Ted White II, who had favored the 2010 will, was given a house in Detroit, though it was sold by the estate for $300,000 before the dueling wills had emerged.
“Teddy is requesting the sale proceeds,” Charles McKelvie, an attorney for Kecalf Franklin, said Tuesday.
Judge Jennifer Callaghan awarded a third son, Edward Franklin, another property under the 2014 will.
Aretha Franklin had four homes when she died of pancreatic cancer in 2018. The discovery of the two handwritten wills months after her death led to a dispute between the sons over what their mother wanted to do with her real estate and other assets.
One of the properties, worth more than $1 million, will likely be sold and the proceeds shared by four sons. The judge said the 2014 will didn’t clearly state who should get it.
“This was a significant step forward. We’ve narrowed the remaining issues,” McKelvie said of the estate saga.
There’s still a dispute over how to handle Aretha Franklin’s music assets, though the will appears to indicate that the sons would share any income. A status conference with the judge is set for January.
Franklin was a global star for decades, known especially for hits in the late 1960s like “Think,” “I Say a Little Prayer” and “Respect.”
Young Thug’s attorney told jurors Tuesday (Nov. 28) that his client was “born into a society filled with despair” and merely rapped about violent crime because “these are the stories he knew” — and that prosecutors had cherry-picked lyrics that matched the crimes they hoped to pin against him.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A day after Atlanta prosecutors kicked off the artist’s racketeering trial by accusing Thug (Jeffery Williams) of running a criminal street gang that operated like a “pack” of wolves, his attorney, Brian Steel, responded by telling the jury that the rapper “doesn’t even know most of the people in this indictment” and had no reason to run a criminal organization.
“He’s not sitting there telling people to kill people,” Steel said. “He doesn’t need their money. Jeffery is worth tens of millions of dollars.”
In addition to refuting each of the alleged “overt acts” that form the basis for the RICO case against Thug, Steel defended his client’s First Amendment right to rap about the dangerous conditions he faced growing up in Atlanta’s Cleveland Avenue neighborhood.
“Yes, he speaks about ‘killing 12’ and people being shot and drugs and drive-by shootings,” Steel said, referring to a phrase that allegedly refers to murdering police. “This is the environment he grew up in. These are the people he knew, these are the stories he knew. These are the words he rhymed.”
“This is art,” Steel added. “This is freedom of speech.”
Thug (Jeffery Williams) was indicted last year on accusations that his “YSL” was not really a record label/music collective called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that committed murders, carjackings, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Along with other charges, Thug stands accused of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. If convicted on all eight of his counts, Thug faces decades in prison.
Go read an explainer of the YSL case here, including a full breakdown of the charges and a deep-dive into the background of the accusations.
Throughout his opening statements Tuesday, Steel told a story of a young, impoverished kid whose disdain for police and the justice system stemmed from real-life instances of neglect and mistreatment. Steel said Thug had watched presumably innocent people face serious consequences after “snitches” told lies to them, and had witnessed his mother be handcuffed after his brother had been shot. During that incident, Steel said Thug had watched police place a sheet over his brother’s face despite the fact that he was still breathing.
Describing his client as a malnourished child with rotted teeth, Steel said Thug had turned to rap as a way out of poverty. He “idolized” rappers Lil Wayne and 2Pac, the attorney told jurors, and even took his stage name from the latter’s 1995 song with Smooth titled “P.Y.T (Playa Young Thugs).” Steel said the stage name wasn’t intended to be menacing but is, instead, an acronym for ‘truly humbled under God.’
Steel spent a majority of his more than two hours of opening statements going through each of the individual charges and “overt acts” — the small actions that make up a RICO charge.
One of those alleged acts is that Young Thug rented a 2014 Silver Infiniti Q50 sedan that was allegedly used during the murder of a rival gang leader, Donovan Thomas, in 2015. But Steel denied that Thug had any involvement in the killing, saying he had regularly rented cars for friends and had been “sad” to learn of Thomas’ death.
Steel frequently criticized the use of rap lyrics as evidence — a controversial prosecutorial tactic that has drawn criticism in recent years. During Monday’s opening statements, for instance, prosecutors told jurors that a particular Thug lyric — “hundred rounds in a Tahoe” from the song “Slime Shit” — referred to Donovan’s killing in a Chevy Tahoe. But Steel disputed that argument, saying Thug rapped about various cars often and there was “no evidence of when that lyric was even created.”
At other points Tuesday, Steel repeatedly questioned the trustworthiness of Kenneth Copeland, a former YSL member who made headlines earlier this year when a video leaked showing him talking with police investigators. The attorney described Copeland as a “leech” and “snitch” who had lied to investigators to avoid facing his own criminal charges.
Copeland is listed as a prosecution witness in the case, and Steel’s statements — which suggested that Copeland could have actually committed some of the crimes in the indictment — indicate he believes Copeland could be a key witness for the other side.
Several of the alleged acts refuted by Steel involved riffs or interactions with other rappers, including the allegation that YSL affiliates had once fired gunshots at rapper Lil Wayne’s tour bus in service of Young Thug.
During his statements, Steel acknowledged that Thug had recorded a video about Wayne’s Atlanta appearance that showed him surrounded by people with guns. But he said Thug had been told to create the video by his management for entertainment reasons because such a beef “creates interest in fans.”
Steel also noted Thug’s publicized disputes with YFN Lucci. The attorney described Lucci as a less successful rapper who used Thug’s name for clout, including claiming to have sex with Thug’s fiancé. Steel asked the jury if the leader of a criminal street gang would’ve let that go unscathed for so long.
Thug’s attorney also alluded to Lil Uzi Vert, accusing prosecutors of misrepresenting text messages to make it appear that Thug was threatening the fellow rapper’s life when he wrote “YSL Rule the world kid. 24m on a nigga head…” Steel said the text was not a bounty but rather an innocuous reference to Vert’s highly-publicized decision to have a $24 million diamond implanted in his forehead.
The YSL trial will continue Wednesday with more opening statements from attorneys for the other five defendants (Marquavius Huey, Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick, Quamarvious Nichols, Rodalius Ryan and Shannon Stillwell). Once openers conclude, the district attorney’s office will begin presenting its case and calling witnesses – a process that could last months.
Atlanta prosecutors accused chart-topping rapper Young Thug of running a criminal street gang that operated like a “pack” of wolves during opening statements of the artist’s high-profile racketeering trial on Monday (Nov. 27).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Kicking off a complex trial that is expected to last as long as a year, Fulton County Chief Deputy District Attorney Adriane Love read a passage from Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book about wolf packs — and said that Thug’s gang had similarly “operated as a pack.”
“For ten years and counting, the group calling itself ‘Young Slime Life’ dominated the Cleveland Avenue community,” Love told the jury. “They created a crater … that sucked in the youth and innocence and even the lives of some its youngest members.”
Love repeatedly referred to Thug as “King Slime” and portrayed him as the clear leader of the gang: “The evidence will show that the members of YSL knew who their leader was, and they knew the repercussions of not obeying him.”
In an indictment unveiled last year, Fulton County prosecutors alleged that Thug (Jeffery Williams) and his “YSL” were not really a popular music collective called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that committed murders, carjackings, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Along with other charges, Thug is accused of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. If convicted on all eight of his counts, Thug faces decades in prison.
Go read an explainer of the YSL case here, including a full breakdown of the legal charges and a deep-dive into the background of the accusations.
After months of slow-moving jury selection, Monday morning was set to finally mark the start of the trial for Thug and five remaining alleged members of his gang. But the start of the hearing was delayed for an hour over a missing juror; then, just minutes into Love’s statements, the case was bogged down in objections, forcing Judge Ural Glanville to clear the jury from the courtroom.
Defense attorneys first claimed that Love was “burden shifting” in her explanation of the case to jurors – meaning she was wrongly making it appear that the defendants would need to prove that they were innocent. Thug’s lawyer, Brian Steel, then moved for a mistrial after he claimed that Love had shown jurors evidence that had already been explicitly banned from the case. Glanville later denied that request but admonished the state for how it had prepared its opening statements.
Eventually, after a lunch break and extended disputes among counsel for both sides, jurors returned to the courtroom for opening statements to continue throughout the afternoon.
This is a developing story and will be updated later today with more information from Monday’s hearing.
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: A preview of the massive YSL RICO trial in Atlanta in which rapper Young Thug is accused of being the boss of a violent street gang; a flood of sexual abuse cases against music industry bigwigs just before a Thanksgiving deadline; and a lawsuit pitting Hall against Oates over efforts to sell to Primary Wave.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Heads to Trial In Atlanta
At the end of 2021, Young Thug was one of hip-hop’s biggest rising stars: a critically-adored rapper with three chart-topping hits, three-chart topping albums, a Grammy for song of the year and his own record label (YSL, short for Young Stoner Life) under Warner Music’s 300 Entertainment.
Two years later, Thug (real name Jeffery Williams) is set to face a grueling trial starting today over allegations he ran a violent Atlanta street gang that committed murders, carjackings and many other crimes over the course of a decade — charges that, if proven, could send him to prison for decades.
Reporter Jewel Wicker will be in the Fulton County courthouse today reporting on opening statements for Billboard, so stay tuned for a full breakdown of the start of the trial.
But before then: To get you up to speed on one of the music industry’s most closely-watched criminal trials in years, I dove deep and broke down every aspect of the case, including the complex RICO charges at the heart of the case; the controversial use of lyrics as evidence; the strange connections to former President Trump; and what exactly to watch for at this week’s trial.
Go read the full story here.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: A Final Flood of Abuse Cases
With New York’s Adult Survivors Act expiring on Thanksgiving, last week saw a flurry of high-profile abuse cases filed just before the deadline – including many against top names in the music industry.
The ASA created a limited window for alleged abuse victims to take legal action over years-old accusations that would typically be barred under the statute of limitations. Over the past year, it was cited in cases against former Recording Academy president/CEO Neil Portnow, label exec Antonio “L.A.” Reid, the estate of late Atlantic Records co-founder Ahmet Ertegun and, earlier this month, an explosive (and quickly settled) rape lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs.
But as the deadline approached, a wave of cases hit the courts. Many targeted defendants outside the industry, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and actor Russell Brand. But many of the biggest names came from the music business. They included:
–Guns N’ Roses frontman Axl Rose, who was accused of sexually assaulting a Penthouse model named Sheila Kennedy in a New York City hotel room in early 1989.
–Interscope Records co-founder Jimmy Iovine, who was sued by an unnamed woman for sexual abuse, forcible touching, sexual harassment and retaliation over an incident that allegedly occurred in New York in 2007.
–Actor/singer Jamie Foxx, who was accused of sexual assault and battery by a young woman who claims the singer and actor groped her at a New York restaurant in 2015 after she asked if he would take a photo with her.
–Sean “Diddy” Combs, who was sued again by two more women over allegations of sexual assault, beatings and forced drugging allegedly committed in the early 1990s.
SAY IT AIN’T SO: Hall v. Oates
News broke last week that Daryl Hall was suing John Oates for breach of contract, arguing that his longtime music partner’s plan to sell off his share of their joint venture to Primary Wave would violate the terms of a business agreement the duo had forged.
The lawsuit, which was initially shrouded in mystery because it was filed under seal, is aimed at preventing the sale from closing while the two sides battle in ongoing private arbitration proceedings over the terms of agreement.
At the end of 2021, Young Thug was one of hip-hop’s biggest rising stars: a critically-adored rapper with three chart-topping hits, three-chart topping albums, a Grammy award for song of the year and his own record label (YSL, short for Young Stoner Life) under Warner Music’s 300 Entertainment.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Two years later, Thug (real name Jeffery Williams) is set to face a grueling trial starting Monday (Nov. 27) over allegations he ran a violent Atlanta street gang that committed murders, carjackings and many other crimes over the course of a decade — charges that, if proven, could send him to prison for decades.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whose office is prosecuting the case, has said that YSL wrought “havoc” on the Atlanta area for nearly a decade: “It does not matter what your notoriety is, what your fame is,” Willis said hours after the superstar rapper was first arrested. Thug’s lawyer, Brian Steel, says he is innocent: “Mr. Williams committed no crime whatsoever.”
The YSL case pits prosecutors in America’s rap capital against one of the country’s biggest hip-hop artists, making it one of the music industry’s most closely-watched criminal cases in years. To get you up to speed before the trial, Billboard is explaining the YSL case: How did we get here? What exactly is this case about? And what comes next? Here’s everything you need to know.
What’s Young Thug accused of doing?
In May 2022, Willis unveiled a 56-count indictment against Thug and 27 other alleged members of YSL — an entity that she says is not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life,” but actually a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that’s affiliated with the national Bloods gang.
The case claims that since 2012, YSL members have committed a wide range of criminal wrongdoing centered on the Cleveland Avenue area of Atlanta, including murder, assault, robbery, theft, illegal gun possession, illegal drug possession and sales, and more. And prosecutors say that Thug was the clear leader of the organization — they’ve called him “King Slime — who “made YSL a well-known name” by “referring to it in his songs.”
In addition to Thug, the charges also targeted his star protégé Sergio “Gunna” Kitchens, as well as Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick, Arnold “Lil Duke” Martinez, Thug’s brother Quantavious “Unfoonk” Grier and many others.
The case is built on Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law based on the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other forms of organized crime. Such racketeering laws make it easier for prosecutors to sweep up members of an alleged criminal enterprise based on many individual actions.
Some of the most serious accusations in the indictment center on the 2015 killing of Donovan “Big Nut” Thomas Jr., who prosecutors say ran a rival gang in Atlanta. Five YSL members are directly charged with the murder, while Thug himself is accused of renting the car that was used to commit the killing.
Prosecutors also say other members looked to Thug for leadership on serious crimes. In one allegation, the indictment claims that two other YSL members discussed “how to obtain permission” from the rapper before attempting to murder rival rapper YFN Lucci (Rayshawn Bennett) while he was in jail.
After an updated, 65-count indictment was filed August 2022, the star himself is now facing eight counts, including one count of participating in the RICO conspiracy; one count of participating in a criminal street gang; three counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act; one count of possession of a firearm while committing a felony; and one count of possession of a machine gun.
Go read the full indictment here.
What happened to Gunna?
In the 18 months since the YSL indictment was first handed down, many of the original 28 defendants have either accepted plea deals or been separated from the case for procedural reasons, leaving only six defendants to face trial this week. Just weeks ago, for instance, Derontae “Bee” Bebee pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison.
The biggest plea came from Gunna, a critically-acclaimed YSL artist who has frequently been described as Young Thug’s protégé. Last December, he took a so-called Alford plea — a legal maneuver that allows a defendant to enter a formal admission of guilt while still maintaining their innocence. The deal made sense: Gunna had been charged in only one count of the indictment and faced far less serious accusations, mostly centered on his participation in music and social media that promoted YSL.
At the time, Gunna stressed that he had not agreed to work with prosecutors to convict Young Thug or any of the other defendants, and had “absolutely NO intention of being involved in the trial process in any way.” But at the court hearing where he entered the plea deal, Gunna publicly acknowledged that YSL was both “a music label and a gang,” and that he had “personal knowledge that members or associates of YSL have committed crimes and in furtherance of the gang.”
That has led to some backlash for the rapper, but true to his word, Gunna is not expected to testify at the upcoming trial. Citing an anonymous source, Rolling Stone reported in December that an understanding had been reached that “the state is not going to call him as a witness.” And if he were called, he would still be entitled to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering questions.
Why are rap lyrics being cited in court?
The YSL case is one of the most prominent examples of prosecutors using lyrics as evidence against the artists who wrote them — a controversial practice that has drawn backlash from civil liberties activists, defense attorneys and, increasingly, the music industry.
Critics say the use of lyrics as evidence unfairly treats rap as a literal confession rather than a work of creative expression, potentially violating the First Amendment. Even worse, they say rap can have a prejudicial effect on jurors, tapping into existing biases toward young Black men and helping prosecutors win convictions where more concrete evidence is lacking.
California recently enacted first-of-its-kind legislation restricting the practice, and Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill that would do the same in federal cases — an effort supported by major music industry groups. But in the absence of such laws, courts around the country have mostly upheld the right of prosecutors to cite rap lyrics, particularly in gang-related cases.
For her part, the Fulton County District Attorney has offered no apologies: “If you decide to admit your crimes over a beat, I’m gonna use it,” Willis said last year. “I have some legal advice: don’t confess to crimes on rap lyrics if you do not want them used, or at least get out of my county.”
At a climactic pre-trial hearing earlier this month, Thug’s lawyer blasted prosecutors for attempting to use creative expression to convict his client. “They are targeting the right to free speech, and that’s wrong,” he said. “They are saying that just because he his singing about it, he is now part of a crime.”
Prosecutors argued back that lyrics were “proclamations of violence” by alleged gang members, making them “highly relevant” to proving that YSL was an illegal criminal enterprise. “The issue here is not rap,” one Fulton County attorney argued. “This is not randomly the state attempting to bring in Run DMC from the ’80s. This is specific. These are party admissions. They just happen come in the form of lyrics.”
In the end, Judge Ural Glanville sided with prosecutors and allowed the lyrics to be used in the case, repeatedly telling Thug’s lawyer that “the First Amendment is not on trial” in the case. “They’re not prosecuting your clients because of the songs they wrote,” Glanville said. “They’re using the songs to prove other things your clients may have been involved in. I don’t think it’s an attack on free speech.”
Go read the full list of lyrics that could be cited in the case here.
What took so long to get to trial?
The case against YSL is almost unfathomably complex — so much so that it has repeatedly strained the local legal system nearly to its breaking point.
With 28 men originally indicted, finding lawyers for all of them — a constitutional requirement — proved difficult. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, prosecutors secured millions in extra funding to bring huge gang cases, but Georgia’s public defense system did not receive equal funding to keep up. That forced the state to contract with numerous private defense attorneys to help cover the YSL case, but even that arrangement nearly fell apart this past spring over inadequate pay.
Jury selection was even harder. With the trial expected to last as long as a year, it proved nearly impossible to find a dozen people who could drop their financial commitments and halt their lives for that long. The selection process started in January with hopes that the trial could kick off in the spring, but it eventually took more than 10 months — by most accounts, the longest ever jury selection in Georgia state history.
Throughout all of that, Young Thug and the other defendants have been sitting in jail. Though Thug’s attorneys argued that he should be placed under house arrest, Judge Glanville repeatedly refused to grant him bond, swayed by arguments from prosecutors that doing so would increase the risk of witness intimidation.
How is Donald Trump involved?
If the words “Fani Willis” and “RICO” sound familiar, they should: She’s using the very same statute to bring an even-higher-profile case against Trump and others over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
Back in August, a Fulton County grand jury in August indicted Trump and 18 others over accusations that they participated in a criminal scheme to try to keep the Republican in the White House after he lost the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden. Several co-defendants in that case have recently pled guilty to lesser charges, including former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
Willis recently proposed an August 2024 trial for the case — a timeline that could mean that both the YSL trial and the Trump trial would be happening simultaneously. Like the YSL case, the DA’s office expects the election trial to last many months.
Trump’s lead attorney, Steve Sadow, represented Gunna in the YSL case and negotiated his plea deal to end his involvement.
What do prosecutors need to prove?
As with all criminal cases, the burden is on prosecutors to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Thug and others did what they’re accused of — meaning jurors must be virtually certain that they’re guilty before they vote to convict.
To prove the core RICO charges, the DA’s office will need to show a “pattern of racketeering activity” by the YSL members — meaning they conspired to run an illegal enterprise, or a “racket.”
Prosecutors will try to do so by detailing more than 150 “acts” that were allegedly carried out “in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Some of those will be what are called “predicates” — meaning actions that would crimes on their own, like the like Donovan murder. But others will merely be “overt acts,” meaning any concrete step that YSL members took to help the illegal enterprise, even if it isn’t a crime on its own. That’s where social media posts and song lyrics come into the case.
Importantly, prosecutors don’t need to show that every defendant knew about every element of YSL’s operations. They only need to prove that each YSL member knew about the conspiracy and agreed to be part of it, and took at least two actions to further it.
RICO is best known for the federal law that was created in the 1970s to target mob bosses who didn’t directly commit crimes themselves. But many states have passed their own versions, and Georgia’s, passed in 1981, is notably broader than the federal version. It has a longer list of crimes that can serve as “predicates,” and it covers shorter-term criminal conspiracies than the federal law.
Willis is very familiar with Georgia’s RICO statute. In addition to using it against YSL and former President Trump, she also recently brought a RICO case against a gang that allegedly robbed the Atlanta homes of celebrities like Mariah Carey.
And back in 2014, when she was an assistant DA, Willis served as lead prosecutor in a RICO case against a group of Atlanta educators over their role in widespread cheating on standardized tests. Following an eight month trial — the longest in Georgia history — Willis secured convictions against 11 of 12 of the teachers.
“The reason that I am a fan of RICO is, I think jurors are very, very intelligent,” Willis told reporters last year. “RICO is a tool that allows a prosecutor’s office and law enforcement to tell the whole story.”
How is the trial going to play out?
Starting first thing on Monday, the six remaining defendants — Thug, Marquavius Huey, Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick, Quamarvious Nichols, Rodalius Ryan and Shannon Stillwell — will go to trial.
The jury, composed of seven Black women, two white women, two Black men and one white man, will hear opening arguments from both sides, and then the DA’s office will begin calling witnesses. According to a report by Atlanta’s 11Alive, prosecutors said in court earlier this month that their list of potential witnesses includes a stunning 737 names, featuring 258 lay witnesses — regular people who can testify to what they saw — and 479 expert witnesses, who will explain complex issues to jurors.
Eventually, the defendants will get a chance to call their own witnesses. In a recent legal filing, Thug listed among his potential witnesses rappers T.I. (real name Clifford Harris) and Killer Mike (Michael Render), as well as music business executive Lyor Cohen, who co-founded 300 Entertainment. Thug’s attorneys will also call their own expert witnesses to counter the testimony from the government.
If convicted on the RICO charge, the defendants face prison sentences lasting anywhere from five to 20 years. But Thug and others also face separate charges over other specific crimes that, if proven, could add additional prison time to any eventual sentence.