Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Courthouse Steps

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
April 01, 2004

CASE CAPTION: Maverick Records LLC, Tadpole Records L.P., Wise Guy LLC and Rosie Enterprises LLC v. SR/MDM Venture Inc., WBR/Sire Ventures, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc., Warner Music Group Inc. and Time Warner Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC312716.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of joint venture agreement; breach of fiduciary duty; inducing breach; fraud; accounting; declaratory relief; and injunctive relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Maverick Records is a partnership between the plaintiffs and Warner Bros. Records started with $10 million in 1993. Since then, Maverick has generated revenues of $900 million and profits of $100 million for the Warner Music Group. The plaintiffs have been attempting to settle disputes over accounting for months and told the defendants that they would file suit in California if they were not resolved. On March 24, 2004, while negotiations were still in progress, the defendants without warning filed a preemptive action in Delaware ' a blatant instance of forum shopping. Members of Maverick include Tadpole, Wise Guy and Rosie. Madonna Ciccone is a partner in Tadpole, Guy Oseary is the managing partner of Wise Guy, and Ronnie Dashev is the managing member of Rosie. The defendants are all Warner affiliates. The defendants have breached the Maverick joint venture agreement by failing to provide guaranteed promotion and marketing services, improperly calculating profitability, and using improper accounting methodology to create the false impression of losses when, in fact, there were profits. The venture incurred costs of more than $30 due to the failure to provide services. Warner also failed to negotiate competitive rates with subsidiaries for services such as manufacture of recordings.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?