Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Law Firm Sues Vivendi over Messier Fees
The law firm King & Spalding has sued Vivendi S.A. over the alleged failure to pay legal fees billed for the defense of Vivendi's ex-CEO in a securities class-action trial that resulted in a jury verdict against the Paris-based telecommunication and entertainment company. In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, King & Spalding claims that Vivendi didn't pay nearly $866,000 in fees billed for the defense of Jean-Marie Messier, the former Vivendi CEO, who was cleared of liability at the 2010 securities trial. King & Spalding, which continues to represent Messier post-trial and in other lawsuits, seeks damages for those fees and an order directing Vivendi to pay all of Messier's fees going forward. King & Spalding LLP v. Vivendi S.A., 10116232.
A spokesperson for Vivendi declined comment. Michael J. Malone, Messier's lawyer at King & Spalding and the one who filed the suit, didn't return a call seeking comment.
In its complaint, King & Spalding claims it has represented Messier in various legal actions since 2002, initially to represent him in an arbitration over Vivendi's refusal to honor his severance. An arbitration panel in 2003 awarded Messier $23.4 million, which he later agreed to surrender as part of a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over securities fraud charges.
Messier's fees were initially paid for out of insurance, but that became “severely depleted” by 2007, the law firm's fees complaint states, adding that Vivendi agreed in writing to pay King & Spalding's fees going forward.
The first of the suits that King & Spalding handled went to trial in 2009, resulting in a verdict that plaintiffs' lawyers have said could mean $9.3 billion in damages against Vivendi. The jury found Messier not liable, but he continued to need legal counsel during post-trial briefing and for an appeal. King & Spalding said possibly because of that result, Vivendi stopped paying Messier's fees, an action that the law firm calls “unjustified and wrongful.” Messier assigned the law firm his right and interest in the amounts due, the complaint states.
[Editor's Note: As this issue was going to press, Messier was convicted by a French court on insider trading charges involving Vivendi.]
Nate Raymond is a Reporter for The American Lawyer, an affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.
The law firm
A spokesperson for Vivendi declined comment. Michael J. Malone, Messier's lawyer at
In its complaint,
Messier's fees were initially paid for out of insurance, but that became “severely depleted” by 2007, the law firm's fees complaint states, adding that Vivendi agreed in writing to pay
The first of the suits that
[Editor's Note: As this issue was going to press, Messier was convicted by a French court on insider trading charges involving Vivendi.]
Nate Raymond is a Reporter for The American Lawyer, an affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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?