Tag Archives: George Clinton

Bamboozled! UMG’s Inter-Company Accounting At Issue

The legal battle between brothers Mark and Jeff Bass, the Detroit producers credited with grooming rapper Eminem in his early days, and Aftermath Entertainment, the American record label founded by Dr. Dre and distributed through Universal Music Group’s Interscope Records, has grown to include the inter-company accounting practices of large, multinational record labels.

History

A brief history is in order.  The Bass brothers, working under their nom de rap Funky Bass Team a.k.a. F.B.T. Productions, signed fellow Detroiter Marshall Mathers (a.k.a. Eminem), to a recording contract in 1995.  In 1998 and 2000, F.B.T. signed agreements with Aftermath to (first) distribute and (later) own all of Eminem’s sound recordings in exchange for between 12% – 20% of the retail price of copies of Eminem’s records sold (“Records Sold” provision) or 50% of the net revenue Aftermath obtained by licensing Eminem’s master recordings (“Masters Licensed” provision).

[Side Note: It is quite common in recording contracts for royalties paid on records sold to be lower than royalties paid of masters licensed; see, e.g., here.]

When an audit of Aftermath revealed that F.B.T. was receiving royalties for permanent downloads and ringtone sales under the Records Sold provision (and not the more lucrative Masters Licensed provision), F.B.T. filed suit in 2007.  After a jury found that Aftermath had been correctly accounting to F.B.T. (i.e., digital downloads were Records Sold), F.B.T. appealed.  The 9th Circuit reversed and held, as a matter of law, that digital downloads and ringtones were licensed to various third parties such as iTunes who, in turn, distributed over the Internet.

The agreements also provide that “notwithstanding” the Records Sold provision, F.B.T. is to receive a 50% royalty on “masters licensed by [Aftermath] . . . to others for their manufacture and sale of records or for any other uses.” The parties’ use of the word “notwithstanding” plainly indicates that even if a transaction arguably falls within the scope of the Records Sold provision, F.B.T. is to receive a 50% royalty if Aftermath licenses an Eminem master to a third party for “any” use. A contractual term is not ambiguous just because it is broad. Here, the Masters Licensed provision explicitly applies to (1) masters (2) that are licensed to third parties for the manufacture of records “or for any other uses,” (3) “notwithstanding” the Record Sold provision. This provision is admittedly broad, but it is not unclear or ambiguous.

The 9th Circuit remanded the case back the Central District of California for a trial on damages, which was supposed to begin in April, 2012.

[Another Side Note: If you wonder how Richard S. Busch, a commercial litigator from Tennessee, ends up representing the Bass brothers, I have a theory.  Busch represented Bridgeport Music, a publishing company that owns or controls much of the catalog of George Clinton, and Westbound Records, a record company that released several albums of Clinton’s famous funk band Funkadelic, in a series of cases in the Middle District of Tennessee over alleged unlicensed sampling.  In a controversial landmark decision, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), the 6th Circuit held that the unlicensed use of a two-second guitar chord from Funkadelic’s song “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” in gangster rap group N.W.A.’s song “100 Miles and Runnin’” constituted copyright infringement.  In its decision, the 6th Circuit wrote: “Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.”   It turns out that prior to working with Eminem, Mark and Jeff Bass worked as a production team for George Clinton and his label Westbound Records.]

Present Dispute

The present dispute involves whether F.B.T. can supplement the complaint they filed in 2007 on the eve of a second trial, which was to commence on April 24, 2012.  F.B.T. claims that Aftermath’s expert report, served on February 7, 2012, revealed for the first time that Aftermath was receiving only 29% of the revenue generated from foreign sales of downloads and ringtones under an inter-company agreement with its foreign affiliates.  Because under the 9th Circuit’s decision Aftermath is to pay F.B.T. 50% of revenue (under the Masters Licensed provision), it makes an enormous difference whether that calculation includes 100% of revenue generated by the foreign sales or just the 29% of revenue Aftermath recognizes on its books.

In opposing F.B.T.’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint under FRCP 15(d), Aftermath argued, in part, that a prior partial summary judgment ruling had already decided the issue of foreign revenue.  In rejecting Aftermath’s argument, Judge Gutierrez noted that

Defendants largely rely on a single sentence from their summary judgment brief for the proposition that the issue they wanted determined was clear: “In audits conducted post-dating the trial, F.B.T. has contended it is entitled to 50% of what is received by any company affiliated with Universal Music Group, anywhere – including 50% of the ‘receipts’ of foreign distribution companies.” Mem. ISO Defs. Mot. for Summ. J., 20:21-25. In light of Defendants’ current position on revenue sharing with foreign affiliates, the import of this sentence now seems clear. However, at the time, FBT did not seem to understand the reference. In opposition, FBT stated in a footnote that the “significance of this sentence is not clear.” Opp. to Defs. Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. # 710, at 17:24-28 n.11.

Judge Gutierrez went on to complain

[The] Court is deeply troubled by Defendants’ argument. While it is hard to see what FBT could gain by feigning ignorance, it is now quite apparent what Defendants could hope to gain by bamboozling the Court and Plaintiffs on this issue. Defendants’ current stance makes it appear as though Defendants carefully inserted the issue into the motion for summary judgment before they had notified FBT or the Court of what percentage of the revenues from foreign sales of permanent downloads and mastertones would be paid to FBT. An attempt to dupe the Court into a premature ruling will not serve as the basis to deny FBT an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ accounting practices.

So, F.B.T. now has until July 6 to filed its amended complaint.  The parties will then get to conduct further discovery on the issue of inter-company accounting.  Looks like a trial won’t be happening until the end of this year or early next.

Judge Gutierrez’ opinion is below:
[scribd id=99206217 key=key-1lbo4w2u3s37vujrhdna mode=list]

Clinton Sings Sad Tune in Court but Loses

Singer, composer, performer, George Clinton’s request for $33 million, in allegedly unpaid royalties, hit a wrong note with the Central District of California Court. In fact, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, on remand from the 9th Circuit and having allowed Clinton to amend his earlier complaint to add “for the first time in this protracted litigation … a new claim for alleged underpayment of ‘internet royalties, i.e., exploitation by ‘download providers . . . and mastertone providers . . . for permanent downloads’” against Universal Music Group Inc. (UMG), has granted UMG’s motion for summary judgment.

In this case Clinton claimed that UMG failed to pay him appropriate royalties. UMG’s defense to these claims was simple: they argued that Clinton’s claims were barred by their 1980 performance contract, a copy of which is below. The contract provided that Clinton must specifically object to any royalty statement within 3 years of receiving the statement.  One problem was that UMG apparently had trouble finding Clinton:

“For a period of time, UMG was unable to locate Clinton and the royalty statements it sent were returned as undeliverable. In the spring or summer of 2001, UMG did locate Clinton and provided him with his first royalty statements and payments from Defendants for the exploitation of Parliament sound recordings under the 1980 Agreement. The royalty statement covered the period from 1996 through 2000, and the payment amounted to over $800,000.”

The contract further provided that Clinton was deemed to have received the statement, unless he informed UMG otherwise, within 90 days of the end of the statement period. There was controversy over a subsequent agreement which, as written, tolls any relevant statute of limitations regarding contract rights of the 1980 agreement. Clinton argued that the specified tolling also tolled contractual obligations such as the requirement that he provide specific objection to royalty statements. The issue at hand was whether Clinton ever timely and properly objected to payment of “internet royalties.” This Court found that he did not, stating, “[T]he 1980 Agreement bars Clinton’s internet royalty claims here.” Clinton was contractually barred from challenging royalty statements for the period of 1991-1999 because, in part, “in each of the two audit reports, Clinton not only categorizes the different types of royalties allegedly owed (omitting any reference to internet or internet-related royalties), but also itemizes each category and identifies the infringing records, artists, television shows, and movies, without ever referencing the type of claim he now raises as owed internet royalties.” As to later royalty statements and other related claims, Clinton’s argument became irrelevant because even if the contractual obligations were tolled, as applied to royalty statements provided after the tolling agreement, the Court found that either Clinton did not have any evidence to support his claims or there is no genuine dispute of the claim stated.

However, the Court did deny UMG’s request to deny Clinton an accounting based on their finding that there could be a material disagreement as to the relevant facts.

The court’s order is below:
[scribd id=70707357 key=key-1j5g944rihoj3fvycddh mode=list]

Clinton’s Production Agreement is below:
[scribd id=70707415 key=key-8jtqt70ct2zgh6860dc mode=slideshow]

George Clinton Looks to Tear the Roof Off Seattle Law Firm

Why must I feel like that
Why must I chase the cat
Nothin’ but the dog in me
George Clinton, Atomic Dog © 1982

George Clinton has filed a lawsuit against Seattle law firm Hendricks and Lewis (“H&L”) and named partner Oscar Lewis alleging legal malpractice in H&L’s representation of Clinton.  The alleged facts are somewhat tortured (as is, unfortunately, most things in Clinton’s legal life), but the charges against H&L and Lewis are extremely serious.

According to the complaint, Clinton came to know Lewis and H&L during his 2003-05 litigation against Nene Montes, Clinton’s former manager, seeking the return of certain masters Clinton recorded as Funkadelic.  Clinton was introduced to Lewis and H&L because they had handled a RICO action on behalf of Jimi Hendrix’ estate regarding Hendrix’ masters.  According to the complaint, as part of their representation of Clinton, Lewis and H&L received a report from a forensic document expert who determined that the two assignments on which Montes was basing his claim of ownership of Clinton’s Funkadelic masters were fabrications.  Clinton won his case against Montes.

Fast forward to 2007 when H&L and Lewis file suit against Universal on behalf of Clinton on a breach of contract claim.  Here is where things get interesting.  Attached to the complaint, which Clinton himself did not verify, were the two assignments at issue in the Montes case that Clinton’s forensic document expert had determined were forged.  According to the complaint, H&L and Lewis had actual knowledge that these purported assignments were fake–based on their involvement in the Montes suit–but included them as true and correct copies nonetheless.  The complaint then alleges that prior to his deposition “… ATTORNEY LEWIS instructed and directed MR. CLINTON to testify under oath that he had, in fact, signed the October 17, 1980 Agreement upon which the complaint was based.”  At his deposition, Clinton answered that he did not sign the document, which his forensic document expert had determined was fake.  On the day before trial, Lewis and H&L file an emergency motion to withdraw from the case, which is granted.  Clinton lost the case at the district court level, but the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded back to the district court, where the case is still pending.

Attorney malpractice cases are always tricky, but if the allegations in his complaint are true, Lewis and H&L could be in trouble.

The complaint is below
[scribd id=60013814 key=key-2jk10q4jjw5vve0xf8mn mode=list]