Legal
Page: 7
Megan Thee Stallion (Megan Pete) and her legal team have been granted permission to depose Tory Lanez (Daystar Peterson) behind bars following a ruling by a federal judge on Monday (Feb. 24). “Plaintiff may take the oral deposition of Daystar Peterson, either remotely via videoconference technology or as otherwise arranged upon agreement with the California […]
Gossip blogger Tasha K has agreed in bankruptcy court to pay Cardi B more than $1 million over the next five years and to not make any “derogatory, disparaging, or defamatory statements” about the superstar.
In court filings Friday (Feb. 21), attorneys for Tasha (Latasha Kebe) offered a plan to resolve her years-long federal bankruptcy case — proceedings made necessary by a $3.9 million judgment for defaming Cardi with outlandish claims of drug use, STDs and prostitution.
The new plan will cover only $1.2 million — less than a third of that fine. But under the terms of the agreement, Tasha will still owe the rest of the damages award even after she finishes the repayment plan: “The Almanzar Claim is non-dischargeable.”
Trending on Billboard
In the first year of the agreement, known as a “plan of reorganization,” Tasha will pay $44,907 per quarter to her unsecured creditors, the vast majority of which will go to Cardi. By year five, those quarterly payments will escalate to $81,057.
In an unusual feature, the bankruptcy plan also includes a non-disparagement clause, barring Tasha not only from defaming Cardi while the plan is in place but also from even mentioning her or any of her family members.
“The Debtor shall ensure that no content related to Ms. Almánzar and/or her family, whether explicitly or implicitly, will be published or disseminated on any of the Debtor’s social media accounts, websites, blogs, or other online communication channels,” her lawyers wrote.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
The filing is the latest wrangling in Cardi’s long-running efforts to collect on the huge 2022 judgment, which came after a federal jury found that Tasha had made false and defamatory statements about the superstar on YouTube and other platforms.
Cardi has repeatedly vowed to recover that money by any means necessary — saying “imma come for everything” and “b—- better have my money.” Tasha filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023, saying she still owed $3.4 million to Cardi and had less than $60,000 in assets. But the rapper has pursued her, later winning a ruling that Tasha couldn’t use the bankruptcy process to “discharge” the judgment.
In December, Cardi’s attorneys demanded that the bankruptcy case be dismissed entirely, accusing Tasha of orchestrating a “long-running fraudulent scheme to shield debtor’s assets and income from creditors.” They said she had fraudulently transferred and concealed money and had lied to both Cardi and the federal courts.
“It is clear and irrefutable that debtor has admittedly and repeatedly engaged in bad faith conduct to hinder, delay, and defraud Ms. Almánzar from collecting on the amended defamation judgement,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “This court should not allow debtor to further abuse the bankruptcy process.”
A day after Cardi filed her motion to dismiss, the court-appointed trustee — a neutral third party who helps shepherd a bankruptcy case toward a repayment plan — filed her own motion endorsing Cardi’s arguments and urging the judge to dismiss Tasha’s bankruptcy case.
The threat of such an outcome likely forced Tasha’s attorneys to negotiate Friday’s agreement, avoiding the risk that the bankruptcy would be dismissed entirely.
Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are officially divorced and legally single.
As of Friday (Feb. 21), the Los Angeles County Superior Court finalized the dissolution of their marriage, confirming their legal single status, according to Associated Press. The couple reached a divorce settlement on Jan. 6.
Court documents revealed that Lopez, 55, and Affleck, 52, settled through mediation in September, successfully avoiding the lengthy court battles that have plagued other high-profile celebrity divorces.
Lopez and Affleck first began dating in 2002 after meeting on the set of Gigli. They got engaged but called off their wedding in 2004. Nearly two decades later, they rekindled their romance in 2021 and tied the knot in a Georgia ceremony the following year.
Trending on Billboard
“I never thought that he and I would get back together,” Lopez told Billboard in February 2024, ahead of the release of her film This Is Me… Now: A Love Story, which chronicled their rekindled relationship. “I just couldn’t give up on the idea that there was something amazing out there for me, even when it got really bad — and it did at times. I always believed deep, deep down to not give up completely.”
The singer and actress filed for divorce from Affleck about two years after their Georgia wedding, listing their separation date as April 26, 2024. In her initial filing, she cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for their split.
According to settlement documents obtained by Billboard, the pair agreed on terms to divide their properties and assets. Both waived spousal support and agreed to equally split the legal fees of their negotiation, which was mediated by Laura Wasser. Lopez will also change her legal name back from Jennifer Affleck to Jennifer Lopez.
Lopez was previously married to Ojani Noa, Cris Judd, and Marc Anthony, with whom she shares two children. Affleck was previously married to Jennifer Garner, with whom he shares three children.
In October 2024, Lopez reflected on her feelings about being single again following her split from Affleck.
“I think to myself, ‘F—, that is exactly what I needed,’” she told Interview. “Thank you, God. I’m sorry it took me so long. I’m sorry that you had to do this to me so many times. I should have learned it two or three times ago. I get it … I’m not looking for anybody, because everything that I’ve done over the past 25, 30 years, being in these different challenging situations, what can I f—ing do when it’s just me flying on my own … What if I’m just free?”
R&B star Chloe Bailey (performing as Chlöe) has been accused of failing to properly credit and pay a songwriter who worked on her album Trouble in Paradise and of commercially releasing the songs he wrote without his consent, according to court documents filed in the Southern District of New York on Thursday (Feb. 20).
In the lawsuit, filed by attorney Tyrone Blackburn, songwriter Melvin “4rest” Moore alleges that the actions of Bailey, along with her label Parkwood Entertainment and Columbia Records, constitute “copyright infringement, fraudulent misrepresentation, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), civil conspiracy and deceptive business practices.”
According to the complaint, Bailey “fail[ed] to appropriately credit or compensate” Moore in connection with the songs he worked on for Trouble in Paradise — “Favorite,” “Might As Well” and “Same Lingerie” — which Moore says were written about his own “personal and…lived experiences.” It also claims that Moore “did not grant consent to the commercial exploitation of the [songs]” he wrote for Bailey and that he did not get an opportunity to “engage in good-faith negotiations” with Bailey’s team around contractual terms, citing an email from Moore’s attorney to Bailey’s counsel on Aug. 8, 2024.
Trending on Billboard
(Records from ASCAP and BMI’s Songview repertory, which contain official accounts about which writers and publishers worked on a given song, indicate that Moore is listed as a writer for “Same Lingerie” and “Might As Well” but not for “Favorite.”)
The lawsuit calls Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia “modern-day swindlers” and claims that Moore’s attorney “repeatedly made good-faith attempts to amicably resolve the matter of [Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia’s] unauthorized commercial exploitation of the works” over the course of “almost 200 days.”
After not being able to reach an agreement, Moore’s attorney says he issued a DMCA takedown notice, asking for the songs Moore worked on to be removed from the internet. The complaint adds that Moore’s team feels their takedown was “willfully and blatantly ignored.”
Moore is asking for monetary damages up to $150,000 for each intentional violation; a court order to stop further commercial use of the songs; a complete investigation of Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia’s revenue from unauthorized use of the songs; repayment of all profits gained from the songs; a requirement for defendants to publicly retract their claims and properly credit Moore; punitive damages of $5 million per song; and any additional relief the court finds appropriate.
Representatives for Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia Records did not respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment by press time.
One of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ attorneys has filed a motion to step down from representing the incarcerated hip-hop mogul. Per court documents filed in the Southern District of New York on Friday (Feb. 21), Anthony Ricco said that while he had “provided Sean Combs with the high level of legal representation expected by the court, […]
A$AP Relli, born Terrell Ephron, has broken his silence after losing his shooting trail against his former friend A$AP Rocky and he addressed the hit his image took from the whole ordeal. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news “Gossiping is a form of entertainment for people who […]
Rihanna was a mainstay in A$AP Rocky’s corner throughout his three-week felony shooting trial, which ended with a not guilty verdict for the Harlem native on Tuesday (Feb. 18), but her presence in the courtroom wasn’t always in the cards.
Rocky’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, revealed following the verdict that his client originally didn’t want Rihanna in attendance at the trial.
“He didn’t want her there. He was very protective of her,” Tacopina told a reporter. “I was sort of supporting his decision to keep her away. The trial’s not about Rihanna.”
Trending on Billboard
However, RiRi would not be denied. as she went behind Rocky’s back to contact Tacopina and let him know she would be pulling up to court to support her boo. “But she called me one day and she was like, ‘Joe, wild horses aren’t going to keep me away, so let him know I’m coming and deal with him,’” Tacopina continued.
Billboard has reached out to Tacopina, as well as Rihanna and A$AP Rocky’s reps.
Rihanna was a staple at the courthouse, and she even made appearances with their two children, Riot and RZA, alongside Rocky’s mother and sister, who consistently supported the rapper in court.
Tacopina also recently explained to Extra why the little boys were there. “That day was summations, and in theory, what we initially believed, the judge had told us he was gonna start the jury deliberations that day after summations, right after summations. If they came back with a quick verdict — like they did — and it didn’t go his way, that would be the last time he saw his children,” the attorney explained. “So she wanted them in court, in the courtroom … house. One of the, the littlest one, you know, stayed outside. But you know, RZA was inside because he’s a little older and he comported himself very well, and he looked like a sweet little gentleman. … But you know, that’s family. I mean, it’s his family.”
Rocky (born Rakim Mayers) was found not guilty on both counts in the 2021 shooting case involving his former friend and associate A$AP Relli (born Terrell Ephron).
Upon hearing the verdict, Rocky jumped over the railing into the gallery to embrace Rihanna. He then thanked the jury and Judge Mark Arnold. “Thank y’all for saving my life,” Rocky said. “Thank you, thank you. Thank you for making the right decision. Thank you, your honor.”
Rocky was arrested in April 2022 at Los Angeles International Airport after being accused of firing a handgun at Relli near a Hollywood hotel in November 2021. The 36-year-old faced a maximum of 24 years behind bars and pleaded not guilty to all charges in August 2022. Last month, he turned down a final plea deal that would have landed him 180 days in county jail.
Rihanna took to her Instagram Story on Tuesday to celebrate the court’s ruling while giving thanks to the most high. “THE GLORY BELONGS TO GOD AND GOD ALONE! THANKFUL, HUMBLED BY HIS MERCY,” she wrote.
Billboard Unfiltered returned with a new episode on Wednesday (Feb. 19), and instead of the traditional Friday taped release, the crew elected to go with a raw, live version of this week’s show.
Deputy director of R&B/hip-hop Carl Lamarre was back in the saddle after a few weeks off, and he was flanked by staff writer Kyle Denis and senior charts analyst Trevor Anderson.
A$AP Rocky was found not guilty on both counts in the 2021 felony shooting case involving his former friend A$AP Relli (born Terrell Ephron). When the verdict was read, Rocky exhaled and jumped over the railing into the gallery to embrace Rihanna, a moment that quickly went viral on social media.
“Only Rocky and God know the truth here. The way that man was breathing heavy, the way he crowd-surfed over to Ri, he was shaking his boots a little bit,” Denis said. “He got off. I love seeing a brother beat the system.”
Anderson harkened back to right before the trial began, when Rocky shrewdly declined a final plea deal offer, which would have seen him spend 180 days behind bars. “They gambling in that situation and came up big,” he said. “The system played out how it does … Glad they could put this behind them.”
$ome $exy $ongs 4 U arrived on Valentine’s Day, and Denis believes the Drake and PartyNextDoor album didn’t live up to the hype. “I think my biggest issue with the album is it’s really not sexy at all,” he suggested. “Drake using women, love, sex, relationships to get back in the good graces of men whose approval he really wants the most. There’s not much warmth in these songs. Nothing about this makes me want to link with my special somebody and have a night to this album.”
Denis continued: “As a fan, I’ve wanted a Drake-Party album for such a long time, but none of these songs live up to ‘Come and See Me’ or ‘Wednesday Night Interlude.’ … But I don’t think it’s a disaster either.”
Lamarre, a noted OVO fan, thought the album “OK.” “I do wish there was more Party involved,” he said. “Overall, it was OK. There’s probably a good seven or eight songs I will go back. Does this put Drake back in the driver’s seat, culturally speaking? No, it’s still Kendrick.”
Watch the full episode above.
An attorney for The 1975 says frontman Matt Healy and his bandmates cannot be held responsible for the cancellation of the July 2023 Good Vibes Festival in Kuala Lumpur, which was shut down by authorities after Healy kissed one of his male bandmates on stage, violating the country’s ban on same-sex relationships. As a result […]
Sony Music Entertainment is asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against the company by Patrick Moxey‘s Ultra International Music Publishing late last year, claiming the suit was an act of “retaliation” against the major label after it filed its own lawsuit against the publishing outfit two years prior.
Ultra International Music Publishing and Ultra Music Publishing Europe brought the lawsuit against Sony Music Entertainment and its subsidiaries — including Ultra Records, which Moxey sold his remaining 50% share of to Sony in 2021 — last November over allegations of copyright infringement, claiming Sony and its affiliates had been using Ultra Publishing’s compositions without a license. Filed in New York federal court, the complaint alleged that Ultra Publishing had conducted an audit finding that Sony had been underpaying royalties to the publisher and its songwriters “for years” — but that after bringing the results of the audit to Sony’s attention, the major label “failed” and “refuse[d]” to pay Ultra Publishing the royalties it was due.
Ultra Publishing claimed that after Sony’s alleged refusal, it ceased granting the music giant licenses to the company’s compositions, but that Sony nonetheless continued uploading tracks featuring Ultra Publishing-owned compositions to streaming services and selling them as digital downloads and physical releases, among other exploitations. The lawsuit concerned more than 50,000 compositions by artists including Ed Sheeran, Madonna, Rihanna and others.
Trending on Billboard
In its response, filed on Monday (Feb. 17) by attorney Tal Dickstein, Sony Music called the lawsuit “an ill-conceived effort by Plaintiffs — two music publishing companies owned by Patrick Moxey — to retaliate against” Sony Music for an earlier lawsuit it filed against Ultra Publishing for the continued use of the Ultra name. In that complaint, filed in November 2022, Sony attested that Moxey had signed away his rights to the Ultra trademark after selling the company his remaining stake in Ultra Records, which he founded in 1995.
Sony claims Ultra Publishing attempted to justify the “nefarious timing” of its own lawsuit — which allegedly dropped the day before the trial for the trademark lawsuit began — “by claiming this lawsuit stems from an audit of the music publishing royalties that Sony Music Entertainment paid to Plaintiffs.” However, Sony alleges that the audit in question, “which involved payments made by Sony Music Entertainment to Plaintiffs through 2016,” was in fact “settled in principle years ago for a small fraction of the amount claimed, and Plaintiffs never pursued those audit claims any further.”
Sony’s filing goes on to say that it and Ultra Publishing “continued working together after the audit was settled, with Sony Music Entertainment paying publishing royalties on the musical compositions that were the subject of the audit without objection from Plaintiffs, and working to license and pay the corresponding publishing royalties for well over a thousand other compositions owned in whole or in part by Plaintiffs.”
“Sony Music Entertainment’s licensing practices are both appropriate and entirely consistent with the licensing practices of every other leading record label that releases new sound recordings, including record labels that Moxey himself controlled in the past and currently owns,” the filing continues. “Moreover, Plaintiffs’ own songwriters and producers continue to write songs and collaborate with SME artists with the intention and expectation that the resulting sound recordings incorporating the underlying musical compositions will be commercially released — underscoring the obvious question of whether Plaintiffs’ attempted boycott of SME is in their songwriters’ best interest.”
An attorney for Ultra International Music Publishing did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.