Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Counsel Update in Destiny's Child Song Litigation

By Lynne Marek
November 25, 2009

Singer-actress-celebrity Beyonc' and her father-manager Mathew Knowles have parted ways ' at least in their choice of lawyers ' in defending a copyright case set for trial in Chicago this month. Allen v. Destiny's Child, 06 C 6606. Over the past few months, Beyonc' and Destiny's Child Inc., the company named after her famous trio and run by her father, have tapped new and separate counsel.

The case arose over the song “Cater 2 U,” which Beyonc' recorded as part of Destiny's Child and released in 2004 in conjunction with the group's reunion album. Chicago resident Rickey Allen claims he wrote the song in 1992 and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1994 before it made its way through intermediaries to the singers.

In Nov. 2006, Allen sued the performers, Destiny's Child Inc., and related companies, including tour sponsor McDonald's Corp., for copyright infringement, misappropriation, fraud and breach of contract, claiming damages of more than $500 million. All counts except the infringement claim have since been dismissed. The trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was scheduled to start Dec. 8. Beyonc' and her Destiny's Child cohorts Michelle Williams and Kelly Rowland were slated to be called as witnesses.

Until October, Henry James Fasthoff IV, a shareholder with Stumpf Farrimond in Houston, and Donald Tarkington, a partner at Novack and Macey in Chicago, had been representing Beyonc' and her former bandmates as well as Destiny's Child Inc. and related corporate entities. They were hired in Jan. 2007. But last month Fasthoff and Tarkington dropped out of the case and were replaced by Reed Smith partner James Hultquist and associate Raven Moore with respect to all the defendants except Destiny's Child Inc.

On Nov. 3, a day after the court issued an updated proposed pretrial order, Loeb & Loeb partner Douglas Masters, the Chicago-based co-chair of the firm's intellectual property protection practice, and associates Thomas Jirgal and Julie Samuels filed appearances with the court to represent Destiny's Child Inc.

Fasthoff, who was the primary contact with Destiny's Child Inc., wasn't able to reach the Houston-incorporated company for a release of service in October, according to an Oct. 21 court filing by Tarkington. “Destiny's Child Inc. has not been in contract [sic] with or provided any direction to movants with respect to substitution of counsel or the litigation of the case generally,” Tarkington wrote.

Fasthoff and Hultquist declined to comment on the case. Tarkington and Masters couldn't be reached for comment.

Allen, who is represented by Chicago solo practitioner Matthew Wildermuth, proposed a settlement of the case, but the defendants declined the offer and said they wouldn't counter-offer, according to the pretrial order.


Lynne Marek is Chicago Bureau Chief for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.

Singer-actress-celebrity Beyonc' and her father-manager Mathew Knowles have parted ways ' at least in their choice of lawyers ' in defending a copyright case set for trial in Chicago this month. Allen v. Destiny's Child , 06 C 6606. Over the past few months, Beyonc' and Destiny's Child Inc., the company named after her famous trio and run by her father, have tapped new and separate counsel.

The case arose over the song “Cater 2 U,” which Beyonc' recorded as part of Destiny's Child and released in 2004 in conjunction with the group's reunion album. Chicago resident Rickey Allen claims he wrote the song in 1992 and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1994 before it made its way through intermediaries to the singers.

In Nov. 2006, Allen sued the performers, Destiny's Child Inc., and related companies, including tour sponsor McDonald's Corp., for copyright infringement, misappropriation, fraud and breach of contract, claiming damages of more than $500 million. All counts except the infringement claim have since been dismissed. The trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was scheduled to start Dec. 8. Beyonc' and her Destiny's Child cohorts Michelle Williams and Kelly Rowland were slated to be called as witnesses.

Until October, Henry James Fasthoff IV, a shareholder with Stumpf Farrimond in Houston, and Donald Tarkington, a partner at Novack and Macey in Chicago, had been representing Beyonc' and her former bandmates as well as Destiny's Child Inc. and related corporate entities. They were hired in Jan. 2007. But last month Fasthoff and Tarkington dropped out of the case and were replaced by Reed Smith partner James Hultquist and associate Raven Moore with respect to all the defendants except Destiny's Child Inc.

On Nov. 3, a day after the court issued an updated proposed pretrial order, Loeb & Loeb partner Douglas Masters, the Chicago-based co-chair of the firm's intellectual property protection practice, and associates Thomas Jirgal and Julie Samuels filed appearances with the court to represent Destiny's Child Inc.

Fasthoff, who was the primary contact with Destiny's Child Inc., wasn't able to reach the Houston-incorporated company for a release of service in October, according to an Oct. 21 court filing by Tarkington. “Destiny's Child Inc. has not been in contract [sic] with or provided any direction to movants with respect to substitution of counsel or the litigation of the case generally,” Tarkington wrote.

Fasthoff and Hultquist declined to comment on the case. Tarkington and Masters couldn't be reached for comment.

Allen, who is represented by Chicago solo practitioner Matthew Wildermuth, proposed a settlement of the case, but the defendants declined the offer and said they wouldn't counter-offer, according to the pretrial order.


Lynne Marek is Chicago Bureau Chief for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.

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?