Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jeezy's Ex-Partner Loses Trial Against The Atlanta Rapper
A Fulton County, GA, court turned aside claims to millions of dollars by a former producer and business partner of Atlanta-based rapper Young Jeezy. The jurors found for the defense in a case in which the plaintiff claimed that his ownership interest in a music production company with Jeezy entitled him to half of the proceeds from the hip hop artist's record sales. Ellerbee v. Jenkins, 2012CV220124 (Fulton Cty. Sup Ct.).
Demetrius Ellerbee claimed in his 2012 suit that Jeezy, whose real name is Jay Jenkins, diverted millions of dollars in advances, royalties and distributions that should have gone to Ellerbee. Ellerbee co-founded and was half owner of Corporate Thugz Entertainment with Jeezy when the rapper signed with Def Jam Records in 2004 and released a string of hit albums. The original complaint sought at least $5 million in damages. Corporate Thugz was later re-named CTE Music Co.
Defense attorney Von DuBose said Ellerbee, also known as “Kinky B,” made a fortune off of his friendship and business relationship with Jeezy and blew the chances Jeezy offered to rise higher in the music business. “This guy made a substantial amount of money in a short time,” says the Bondurant Mixson & Elmore partner, who defended the rapper with associate Manoj “Sachin” Varghese. DuBose says he hammered the jury with the message that Jeezy not only owed Ellerbee nothing, but that the rapper had bent over backward to help his friend as his own career skyrocketed.
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?