umg
Universal Music Group chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge delivered an update on the company’s response to the Los Angeles wildfires on Tuesday, writing in a staff memo obtained by Billboard that while many evacuated employees have returned home, others remain displaced, while some have “lost their homes completely.”
Grainge said the Santa Monica-based company is actively supporting affected employees by providing resources to meet both immediate and long-term needs. Over 100 employees have volunteered to help colleagues through various means, such as offering shelter, babysitting and donating clothes, he said.
Beyond internal support, UMG has been involved in community relief efforts, including volunteering, providing meals and donating clothing and hotel rooms for displaced families. Additionally, Grainge said UMG has made financial contributions to several organizations supporting relief efforts, including the American Red Cross, California Community Foundation, The California Fire Foundation, Direct Relief, Entertainment Industry Foundation, L.A. Regional Food Bank, MusiCares, Music Health Alliance, Mutual AID Network L.A., Pasadena Humane Society and World Central Kitchen, among others.
Trending on Billboard
“What has impressed me the most throughout this tragic event is the fact that collectively we haven’t just made financial contributions, but so many of our colleagues have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work,” he said. “We know that even after every fire is extinguished the road to recovery will be very long. We will be there every step of the way.”
UMG announced earlier this month that it is canceling all of the company’s Grammy-related events, including its artist showcase and after-Grammy party, and will instead “redirect the resources that would have been used for those events to assist those affected by the wildfires.”
Read Grainge’s full memo below:
Dear Colleagues,
I’m writing to update you on our efforts related to the Los Angeles fires. In short, while many of our evacuated employees have fortunately been able to return to their homes, others who are in the most seriously affected areas remain displaced and will be so for some time to come. Some have lost their homes entirely.
We are working closely with those affected employees, providing them a range of resources and support to meet their immediate individual or family needs. Following meetings with the team of UMG leaders that I mentioned in my prior note, we are also determining the best ways to help these employees going forward. And in addition to the company’s support, more than 100 employees have volunteered to help their colleagues—from opening their homes to babysitting, dog walking, donating clothes, and more.
In terms of recovery of the broader community, from Day One we’ve been on the ground helping wherever we can. Whether it’s volunteering at relief organizations, providing meals to first responders and affected community members, donating clothing or providing hotel rooms to displaced families.
And in addition to all this, we’ve made financial contributions to a range of organizations, including the American Red Cross, California Community Foundation, The California Fire Foundation, Direct Relief, Entertainment Industry Foundation, L.A. Regional Food Bank, MusiCares, Music Health Alliance, Mutual AID Network L.A., Pasadena Humane Society, World Central Kitchen, and more.
What has impressed me the most throughout this tragic event is the fact that collectively we haven’t just made financial contributions, but so many of our colleagues have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work.
We know that even after every fire is extinguished the road to recovery will be very long. We will be there every step of the way.
You can read more about these efforts in our latest edition of our All Together Now bi-weekly newsletter.
I’m so enormously proud of the fact that so many of you have shown up to help our community and your colleagues. I’m grateful but not surprised. As a company, this is who we are.
Lucian
Limp Bizkit has suffered a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group, with a federal judge ruling that the band cannot legally void its contracts of “nearly 30 years” over accusations of underpaid royalties.
The blockbuster case, filed last year in Los Angeles federal court, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” over the years. Among other claims, the lawsuit argued that the band is therefore entitled to a ruling of “rescission” that terminates its deals with UMG.
But in a decision Friday (Jan. 17), Judge Percy Anderson ruled that the band had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to record and distribute Limp Bizkit’s albums – meaning the band doesn’t deserve the drastic remedy of terminating the decades-old deals.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 – nearly 30 years – because the agreements should be rescinded as fraudulently induced,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties’ agreements.”
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
If finalized, the decision is something of a double blow for Durst’s lawsuit. It would not only reject his efforts to rescind the contracts, but would sink one of his other core allegations: that UMG has infringed Limp Bizkit’s copyrights. Such a claim — which could carry a huge damages award — can only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights, the judge wrote.
That could also mean the case is headed to another court entirely. If Limp Bizkit’s lawsuit no longer contains federal copyright claims, a federal court would no longer have jurisdiction over the case, meaning the lawsuit’s remaining accusations against UMG would need to be refiled in a state court.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, attorneys for Durst and Limp Bizkit downplayed the impact of the ruling, noting that the court had “upheld a majority of our claims” and given them a second shot at the rejected claims.
“The facts speak for themselves,” said Frank Seddigh, the band’s lead attorney. “Universal will be held accountable for its actions and will not get away with its conduct at the expense of artists.”
A spokesman for UMG declined to comment.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.”
That claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Durst, the answer was an “appalling and unsettling” scheme to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.” He claimed UMG had essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing the label to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount paid in upfront advances.
UMG hit back a month later, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court. The music giant’s attorneys argued that Limp Bizkit’s own legal filings contradicted the accusation that the band had not been paid: “Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Cole Burston / Getty
Just when it seemed like Drake was about to move on from the massive loss he took at the hands of Kendrick Lamar by dropping his legal petition against Universal Music Group and Spotify over their promotion of “Not Like Us,” the Certified Lover Boy artist shocked the Hip-Hop world by turning around and suing UMG for “defamation” over the record. Christ on crutches.
Continuing to make himself look funny in the light, “Deposition” Drizzy sued his own record label stating that the new classic diss record slandered his reputation for alleging that he was a pedophile amongst a few other head-nodding allegations. Not taking the lawsuit lying down, Billboard is reporting that Universal Music Group has responded to Drake’s lawsuit by calling it “illogical” and accusing the Canadian crooner of “weaponizing the legal system.”
While it’s safe to say that many Hip-Hoppers agree that Drake is reaching with his latest lawsuit, it’s also become obvious that Drake is looking for any way to save some face, as Kendrick’s scathing diss track has cost Drake not only his “street credibility” but also his popularity amongst Hip-Hop fans who aren’t so interested in hearing any new material from Drake anytime soon. That being said, filing such a lawsuit not only makes him look that much worse out on these streets, but continues to give life and notoriety to Kung Fu Kenny’s now-classic club diss record.
Per Billboard:
In a strongly-worded statement issued Wednesday afternoon (Jan. 15), UMG flatly denied the allegations in Drake’s lawsuit — filed earlier in the day in New York federal court — and sharply criticized its superstar artist for bringing it.
“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical,” the company wrote. “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”
In his new lawsuit, Drake claims that UMG knew that “Not Like Us” contained false allegations against his character but that his record label decided to put it out anyway and “chose to place corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
UMG clapped back by saying that Drake himself has engaged in numerous rap battles where he too participated in the slandering of his fellow Hip-Hop peers.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists,” UMG wrote. “He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
“We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual,” UMG said in the statement. “At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”
Most rappers would just take the loss and move on with their life (See Ja Rule). Not Drake though. That man will obviously go to great lengths to salvage whatever “honor” he feels he has left even if it means making him look like a Canadian Karen to millions of Hip-Hoppers in the process.
God help us all.
What do y’all think about Universal Music Group’s response to Drake’s latest lawsuit? Are they in the right? Does Drake have a case given Hip-Hop’s history of rap battles? Let us know in the comments section below.
Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the music giant defamed him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” claiming the label boosted a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a pedophile and put his life in danger.
Hours after his attorneys withdrew an earlier petition, they filed a full-fledged defamation lawsuit Wednesday against his longtime label – claiming UMG knew Lamar’s “inflammatory and shocking allegations” were false but chose to place “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers write in a complaint filed in Manahttan federal court. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Trending on Billboard
In one of the lawsuit’s most vivid accusations, Drake claims that the release of “Not Like Us” has subjected him to risk of physical violence, including a drive-by shooting on his Toronto area home just days after the song was released.
“UMG’s greed yielded real world consequences,” his lawyers write. “With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment, Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family, and his friends.”
Notably, the case does not target Lamar himself — a point that Drake’s attorneys repeatedly stress in their filings.
“UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal, but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists,” Drake’s attorneys say.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is yet another dramatic escalation a high-profile beef that saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks last year, culminating in Lamar’s knockout “Not Like Us” — a track that savagely slammed Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a hit in its own right.
Drake shocked the music industry in November when he filed petitions suggesting he might sue over the fued — first accusing UMG and Spotify of an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song, then later claiming that the song had been defamatory. But those cases were not quite full-fledged lawsuits, and Drake withdrew one of them late on Tuesday.
Now it’s clear why: In Wednesday’s lawsuit, he formally sued UMG over the same alleged scheme, claiming the label “unleashed every weapon in its arsenal” to drive the popularity of Lamar’s track even though it knew the lyrics were “not only false, but dangerous.”
“With his own record label having waged a campaign against him, and refusing to address this as a business matter, Drake has been left with no choice but to seek legal redress against UMG,” his lawyers write.
The filing of the case represents a doubling-down for Drake, who has been ridiculed in some corners of the hip-hop world filing legal actions over a rap beef. It also will deepen further his rift with UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
In his complaint, Drake’s lawyers said the label opted to boost “Not Like Us” despite its “defamatory” lyrics because they saw it as a “gold mine” — partly because UMG owns Lamar’s master recordings outright, but also because it could use the song to hurt Drake’s standing in future contract talks.
“UMG’s contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment … UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would be costly,” his lawyers write. “By devaluing Drake’s music and brand, UMG would gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to UMG.”
This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated with additional details as they become available.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Drake shocked his legion of fans and detractors by taking pre-trial legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify for allegedly platforming “Not Like Us,” the scathing diss track from his rival Kendrick Lamar. This week, Drake filed to drop the legal petition against UMG and Spotify which prompted many on X to assume that the OVO honcho is waving the white flag.
As reported in detail by Billboard, Drake and his legal team filed for the withdrawal of the petition on Tuesday (Jan. 14) in a Manhattan court. The Canadian superstar’s Frozen Moments LLC was the top name on the petition and as the outlet adds, the company still has an active filing aimed at UMG and iHeartRadio in Texas courts. No official statements have been made by the aforementioned parties in these matters.
In November, Drake took action against UMG and Spotify in the aftermath of his explosive audio feud with Kendrick Lamar, with “Not Like Us” topping the Billboard charts and shifting the musical landscape. Many on the sidelines believe that the Canadian superstar’s light has dimmed since taking the heavy blows delivered during the back-and-forth battle, along with unproven accusations of sexual misconduct and other heinous charges.
The petition was a revelation for many considering the longtime partnership between Drake and UMG, which began with Lil Wayne’s Young Money outfit before signing with Republic Records. In 2022, Drake signed a deal with UMG reported to be up to $400 million, adding to the shockwaves felt by the industry with the filing of the petition.
In it, Drake states that UMG violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and added that Spotify worked with the company by offering reduced licensing fees in exchange for pushing “Not Like Us” into the algorithms of users of the streaming service. The Texas petition levies similar charges. The outlet rightly explains that a petition is a pre-trial action that legal teams use to gather information ahead of filing a full-on lawsuit.
On X, formerly Twitter, music fans are taking shots at Drake for pulling the petition. We’ve got those reactions below.
—
Photo: Getty
Universal Music Group and Amazon Music have expanded their global partnership, embracing “Streaming 2.0” as both companies aim to enhance artist-to-fan engagement through exclusive content with UMG artists, innovative product opportunities and increased fraud protection.
The partnership will explore new and enhanced product opportunities, including advancements in audiobooks, audio and visual programming and livestreaming content. UMG and Amazon Music will also collaborate to combat issues such as unlawful AI-generated content, fraud and misattribution, ensuring the integrity of creative works.
“We are very excited to advance our long-standing, excellent partnership with Amazon Music that marks a new era in streaming — Streaming 2.0,” said Sir Lucian Grainge, chairman & CEO of UMG. “We appreciate Amazon Music’s deep commitment to the interests of our artists, and look forward to progressing our shared artist-centric objectives through product innovation and accelerating growth of their service.”
Trending on Billboard
UMG laid out its Streaming 2.0 strategy — focusing on innovation, consumer segmentation, geographic expansion and higher average revenue per user (ARPU) — at the company’s capital markets day gathering in August. UMG plans to grow subscriptions in developing markets, where subscribers significantly boost ARPU. Additionally, UMG aims to attract audiobook listeners and satellite radio subscribers to convert them into music streaming users, leveraging these new audiences to drive further growth.
Steve Boom, vp of audio, Twitch and games for Amazon, noted that the expanded partnership would redefine streaming services by introducing more artist-to-fan connections through innovative products and exclusive content. “We’re thrilled to expand our relationship with UMG which will enable us to partner on meaningful new ways for artists to deepen their engagement with fans around the world, while working together to protect the work of artists, songwriters and publishers,” he said.
UMG has partnered with several AI technology companies to enhance artists’ creative and commercial opportunities while ensuring ethical practices. These collaborations include YouTube/Google, ProRata.AI, Endel, SoundLabs and BandLabs, among others.
The two companies expanded their working relationship in 2022 as well, providing Amazon Music and Twitch users with greater access to UMG content, including live streams, spatial audio, artist merchandise and other exclusive experiences.
Universal Music Group, the owner of Republic Records, has reached a settlement to resolve a trademark lawsuit the music giant filed against a music investment platform called Republic.
The deal will end a case in which UMG accused the smaller company of confusing consumers by expanding into music royalties investing – a move UMG warned could dupe people into thinking Republic Records was involved in the project. But a judge later ruled that the case would be difficult to win.
In an order last week (Dec. 13), the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit said that all claims had been “settled in principle” and ordered the case dismissed. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for more details.
Trending on Billboard
Launched in 2016, OpenDeal Inc.’s Republic platform lets users buy into startups, cryptocurrency projects and other investments across a wide range of sectors. In October 2021, the company announced it would start allowing users to invest in music royalties by purchasing NFTs (non-fungible tokens), calling itself the first to “bring music investing to the masses.”
That quickly sparked the lawsuit from UMG, which acquired Republic Records in 2000 and now operates it as one of its top imprints, home to Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Drake, Post Malone and many others. In a November 2021 complaint seeking an immediate injunction, UMG called OpenDeal’s new service a “wanton effort to usurp plaintiff’s Republic name and trademarks for itself.”
“The artists, labels, managers, agents, and fans who currently know of plaintiff’s Republic label would be presented with two different companies offering identical services under identical names in the same industry,” UMG’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Confusion is inevitable.”
But in July 2022, Judge Analisa Torres ruled that that UMG was unlikely to be able to prove such allegations in court. She said the evidence of potential confusion was “extremely minimal,” since the services and consumers of the two companies “differ significantly” — and that a shared connection to the music industry was “not enough.”
“It is conceivable that there may ultimately be some overlap between the parties’ consumers—for instance, fans of a popular artist may both purchase that artist’s music through Republic Records, and make crowdfunded investments in recordings by that artist through the Republic Platform,” the judge wrote. “But, such scenarios remain hypothetical.”
That ruling – denying UMG’s request for a so-called preliminary injunction that would have forced OpenDeal to change its name while the case was litigated – was not a final decision on the case. But it indicated that UMG was unlikely to win, and such trademark cases often settle after such early skirmishes.
After that decision, UMG later filed an updated version of its allegations, and the case proceeded into discovery – the process of exchanging evidence in a civil lawsuit. But the lawsuit has largely been paused for more than a year as the two sides engaged in settlement talks that ultimately resulted in last week’s agreement.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Joe Budden has made a career out of dissecting music and Hip-Hop culture with his popular eponymously named podcast, and the latest episode found him aiming his sights at Drake. After the news went wide that Drake launched a pair of lawsuits against Universal Music Group, Joe Budden proceeded to heave heavy critique upon the Canadian superstar, which has social media reacting.
On episode 779 of The Joe Budden Podcast, Budden and his cohosts bumped into a conversation regarding Drake’s lawsuits against UMG, the label he’s currently signed to and accusing of boosting Kendrick Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” single. Since this episode exists on a Patreon subscription service, we’ve only seen clips that surfaced online, which we’ll share from X below.
Joe Budden telling the unfiltered truth about Aubrey Drake Graham. pic.twitter.com/K2hMLZFuII
— Busby 🏁 (@MrBusby4o8) November 27, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Joe Budden Podcast cooking again sheesh
🦉 “was disrespecting someone’s dead mom” “ idc about his dead mom tell him send a beat”
( I wonder if this why metro booming got upset)
🦉 “is more scared of Not Like Us being played at the SuperBowl”
Kendrick Lamar GNX out now pic.twitter.com/GsQ7fU141K
— Whooping feet (@WhoopingFeet) November 27, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As the clips highlight, Budden believes the industry has conspired in some regard against Drake due to alleged shady dealings with the personal affairs of his foes up to the business side of things. Fans online are taking note of Budden’s jabs as he’s been known to be friendly with Drake over the years but fell out of favor with the entertainer after Budden was critical of his musical direction For All The Dogs.
On X, formerly Twitter, the JBTV community space and others are sharing their thoughts about Joe Budden using the pod to air out his grievances against Drake. We’ve got the reactions listed below.
—
Photo: JBP/Screengrab
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Ethan Miller / Getty
Drake is doubling down. After initially accusing Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify of boosting Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” to his detriment, in a second filing, Drizzy claims that UMG and iHeartRadio defamed him in the process of making the song massive.
According to Billboard, Drake filed this latest petition in Texas, and he alleges that K. Dot “falsely” accused him of being “a sex offender” in his megahit diss song “Not Like Us.” But his label promoted it anyway.
Per Billboard:
A day after filing an action in New York accusing UMG of illegally boosting Lamar’s track on Spotify, Drake’s company leveled similar claims in Texas court regarding radio giant iHeartRadio. The new filing, filed late Monday and made public on Tuesday, claims UMG “funneled payments” to iHeart as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote the song on radio.
But the filing also offers key new details about Drake’s grievances toward UMG, the label where he has spent his entire career. In it, he says UMG knew that Kendrick’s song “falsely” accused him of being a “certified pedophile” and “predator” but chose to release it anyway.
Part of the backlash to Drake’s initial filing was that he had all this energy to question Kendrick Lamar’s ht song getting all these spins, but none for the accusation of being a pedophile. However, the way he addresses it in this filling is not earning him any points. Instead, the Toronto rapper sounds sour that UMG dared to make money at his expense—when considering they surely made cash off his own diss tracks.
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
While Spotify and iHeartRadio have yet to respond, UMG did so on Monday (Nov. 25). From the tone of its statement, the entity is not to happy with their superstar rapper and the nefarious actions he is insinuating.
“The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” said the company in a statement to Billboard. “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
This is only going to get more interesting, while Drake is going to continue getting cooked online.
Universal Music Group (UMG) is firing back at a lawsuit from Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst claiming the label owes the band more than $200 million, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court.
The blockbuster lawsuit, filed last month in Los Angeles federal court, claimed that Durst had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades — and that hundreds of other artists may have been treated similarly under “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies.
But in UMG’s first response on Friday, attorneys for the label said the lawsuit must be dismissed immediately because it is “based on a fallacy.”
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs’ entire narrative that UMG tried to conceal royalties is a fiction,” writes Rollin A. Ransom, an attorney with the law firm Sidley Austin who represents UMG in the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs’ complaint fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
The key problem with Durst’s claims? According to UMG’s attorneys, it’s that documents included in his own lawsuit “eviscerate” his allegations. They specifically cite emails in which a UMG exec appears to have reached out to get royalties flowing, but was rebuffed by the band’s own business manager.
“Over a year before plaintiffs’ ‘discovery’ of allegedly ‘concealed’ royalties, UMG affirmatively and unilaterally reached out to Limp Bizkit’s representative so that it could begin making royalty payments to the band, and was instead informed by him that all members of Limp Bizkit but one (including plaintiff Durst) had assigned their royalty shares to others, and were therefore not entitled to any royalty payments from UMG,” the company wrote in Friday’s filing.
Durst’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday. They will have a chance to file a formal response in court opposing UMG’s motion to end the case.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued UMG in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.”
That claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Durst, the answer was an “appalling and unsettling” scheme to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.” He claimed the company essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing it to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances.
But in Friday’s response, UMG said such claims of “concealment” were undercut by those emails. UMG says the message show a senior royalties director reaching out on his own initiative to Paul Ta, the band’s business manager, to “start making royalty payments,” but being rebuffed.
“Mr. Ta rejected that proposition, responding that all the Limp Bizkit members but one (including Plaintiff Durst) ‘have … sold/assigned their share [of the royalties] to various companies,’ such that no royalty payments were owing to any of those individuals (including Plaintiff Durst),” UMG wrote in Friday’s motion.
UMG says Ta later emailed back that his statements had been incorrect, at which point the label paid out roughly $3.4 million to the band and its companies – a fact that contradicts the lawsuit’s claims of “never received any royalties.”
“Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments from UMG,” the label wrote Friday. “Plaintiffs nevertheless brought this suit alleging breach of contract and fraud on their ‘suspicion’ that they are owed more royalties, and seeking rescission of the parties’ agreements.”