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 |
January 31, 2007

CASE CAPTION: Global Icons LLC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and Lisbeth Barron, L.A. Superior Court # BC364745.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud; and unjust enrichment.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a leading company in the field of licensing and merchandising corporate brands and entertainment properties. Barron is a senior managing director at Bear Stearns, an investment banker. In March 2004, the plaintiff was presented with an opportunity to acquire Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE), the company that controls the intellectual property rights for the Elvis Presley estate. Global began to actively pursue the acquisition and disclosed the opportunity to Barron. The fact that EPE was potentially on the market was highly confidential. Barron recommended discussing the investment with Robert F.X. Sillerman. She also executed a confidentiality agreement acknowledging Bear Stearns as a 'representative of Global Icons.' Barron was authorized to disclose the possible acquisition to Sillerman as a possible investor. After discussions, Global agreed to relinquish the right to acquire EPE to Sillerman, cease efforts to raise financing, and assist Sillerman in acquiring it. In exchange, Sillerman agreed to grant Global the right to control the licensing and merchandising operations. Sillerman acquired EPE with financing arranged by the defendants but breached his agreement with Global. The defendants knew Global wouldn't be granted the licensing rights and ignored their fiduciary duties to Global. The defendants got millions of dollars for introducing Sillerman to the transaction and Global got frozen out.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Ellyn S. Garofalo and Edward A. Klein of L.A.'s Liner, Yankelevitz, Sunshine & Regenstreif (310-500-3500).


CASE CAPTION: Glenn Wheatley, Gerard Bartelkamp, Days on the Road Pty Ltd., formerly known as the Little River Band Pty Ltd. v. Capitol Records Inc. and EMI Music North America, L.A. Superior Court # BC364166.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; aiding and abetting fraud; violations of Calif. Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; constructive trust; and accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs were in a group called Little River Band. They performed on well over 100 songs on 15 albums for the defendants. EMI uses a so-called 'Unmatched Earnings Database' in a fashion that violates its duties to the plaintiffs. Monies that aren't allocated by EMI/Capitol to particular recordings aren't reported or paid to any royalty recipient, even though the royalties are owed the artists. EMI is supposed to pay royalties within six months of receiving money. Instead, it only pays if and when EMI allocates the product units represented by the monies received to the artist. Monies frequently stay in an unallocated database for years. EMI doesn't make reasonable efforts to clear unmatched accounts. This allows it to willfully underreport royalties. The defendants also used an incorrect royalty rate on a 'Greatest Hits' release.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages, an accounting and injunctive relief.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Anthony Kornarens of Santa Monica, CA (310-458-6580).

CASE CAPTION: Global Icons LLC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and Lisbeth Barron, L.A. Superior Court # BC364745.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud; and unjust enrichment.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a leading company in the field of licensing and merchandising corporate brands and entertainment properties. Barron is a senior managing director at Bear Stearns, an investment banker. In March 2004, the plaintiff was presented with an opportunity to acquire Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE), the company that controls the intellectual property rights for the Elvis Presley estate. Global began to actively pursue the acquisition and disclosed the opportunity to Barron. The fact that EPE was potentially on the market was highly confidential. Barron recommended discussing the investment with Robert F.X. Sillerman. She also executed a confidentiality agreement acknowledging Bear Stearns as a 'representative of Global Icons.' Barron was authorized to disclose the possible acquisition to Sillerman as a possible investor. After discussions, Global agreed to relinquish the right to acquire EPE to Sillerman, cease efforts to raise financing, and assist Sillerman in acquiring it. In exchange, Sillerman agreed to grant Global the right to control the licensing and merchandising operations. Sillerman acquired EPE with financing arranged by the defendants but breached his agreement with Global. The defendants knew Global wouldn't be granted the licensing rights and ignored their fiduciary duties to Global. The defendants got millions of dollars for introducing Sillerman to the transaction and Global got frozen out.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Ellyn S. Garofalo and Edward A. Klein of L.A.'s Liner, Yankelevitz, Sunshine & Regenstreif (310-500-3500).


CASE CAPTION: Glenn Wheatley, Gerard Bartelkamp, Days on the Road Pty Ltd., formerly known as the Little River Band Pty Ltd. v. Capitol Records Inc. and EMI Music North America, L.A. Superior Court # BC364166.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; aiding and abetting fraud; violations of Calif. Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; constructive trust; and accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs were in a group called Little River Band. They performed on well over 100 songs on 15 albums for the defendants. EMI uses a so-called 'Unmatched Earnings Database' in a fashion that violates its duties to the plaintiffs. Monies that aren't allocated by EMI/Capitol to particular recordings aren't reported or paid to any royalty recipient, even though the royalties are owed the artists. EMI is supposed to pay royalties within six months of receiving money. Instead, it only pays if and when EMI allocates the product units represented by the monies received to the artist. Monies frequently stay in an unallocated database for years. EMI doesn't make reasonable efforts to clear unmatched accounts. This allows it to willfully underreport royalties. The defendants also used an incorrect royalty rate on a 'Greatest Hits' release.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages, an accounting and injunctive relief.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Anthony Kornarens of Santa Monica, CA (310-458-6580).

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
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.

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.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment 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.