Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Players On the Move

By Entertainment Law & Finance Staff
March 31, 2025

Jordan Fasbender has resigned as chief legal officer of iHeartMedia just four months after securing a contract extension that included a pay raise and loftier title. The radio and audio-streaming giant stated in a recent SEC filing that Fasbender would leave around April 1 to accept a job elsewhere. The filing did not identify the position and Law.com was unable to reach Fasbender for comment. Last November, San Antonio-based iHeart promoted Fasbender from general counsel to chief legal officer and increased her salary from $725,000 to $825,000, with a boost to $850,000 scheduled to kick in in October of this year. In addition, the company increased her target annual bonus from 110% of her salary to 115%. And iHeart said that it planned to award Fasbender a stock grant valued at $1 million. It wasn’t clear from iHeart’s SEC disclosures whether she received that award. In the recent SEC filing, the company stated, “Ms. Fasbender’s resignation is not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to the Company’s operations, policies or practices.” iHeart had not yet disclosed 2024 executive pay. In 2023, Fasbender earned $2.33 million, including an $852,049 stock award and $751,169 in non-equity incentive compensation. That made her iHeart’s fourth-highest paid executive. The company didn’t name Fasbender’s successor in its recent announcement. iHeart owns about 860 radio stations in 160 markets. Fasbender joined iHeart in 2019 as deputy general counsel and became general counsel in January 2021, in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was her first legal chief role. Fasbender joined iHeart from 21st Century Fox, where she was associate general counsel. There, she worked on the $71 billion sale of 21st Century Fox to Disney, which closed in 2019. iHeart revenues last year rose 3% to $3.9 billion. But $923 million in non-cash impairment charges resulted in a $1 billion net loss. Pierson Ferdinand has added Andrew Lurie as a partner in Los Angeles, the sixth new partner hire to the firm’s Global Media, Entertainment & Sports Practice in the last several months. Pierson Ferdinand’s announcement describes Lurie as having two decades of experience in “IP/licensing matters, business structuring, employment law, and various entertainment transactions.” Kurie was formerly in-house counsel at Sony Music.

— Chris O’Malley contributed to this report.

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.

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.

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.