Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[OutToDry]

[Pokey]

And Nick you can't say "that's different!" or anything like that, you made the analogy in the first place!

[jclive]

So Nick, let's go back to your analogy that you offered. Let's apply all of the fact on the table.

You are the head coach and your friend threatens to leave unless you make him the Defensive Coordinator. You decide that rather than let him leave, you make him the defensive coordinator.

As a part of your friend's compensation for that job, you agree that he can take 70% of the revenues from the sale of food and merchandise sales for the football team. You and your friend agree and you go away understanding that you have an agreement with your friend that you can live with.

Two years later, you find out that your friend has been selling truckloads of softpretzels and sodas and hotdogs and T-shirts and hats and sweatshirts out of the back of his car at the games. He also entered into a contract with another third-party company for $100,000 to allow them to sell food and merchandise at the games behind the bleachers and out of sight. He did this behind your back and you did not know about it.

You find out about this two years ago and you confront your friend about it. He gives you a thousand dollars, but refuses to give you that additional thousands of dollars that he owes you under the contract.

Still just business? Is your friend still a great guy who did the right thing?

No, I am not Nick. But you're really twisting some things in order to make your analogy somewhat follow the story line.

That being said.. Sounds to me like your coach didnt have any ownership stake to begin with, so I think we've just opened up another issue alltogether!

[thefunkyredcaboose]

No, I am not Nick. But you're really twisting some things in order to make your analogy somewhat follow the story line.

That being said.. Sounds to me like your coach didnt have any ownership stake to begin with, so I think we've just opened up another issue alltogether!

Or his point could be that the analogy was inapplicable in the first place.

[jclive]

Or his point could be that the analogy was inapplicable in the first place.

Indeed.

[FishOutaWater]

No, I am not Nick. But you're really twisting some things in order to make your analogy somewhat follow the story line.

That being said.. Sounds to me like your coach didnt have any ownership stake to begin with, so I think we've just opened up another issue alltogether!

Both involve friendships. Both involve contracts regarding revenue sharing. Both involve a breach of contract. Both involve secret side deals behind the back of the other party, which constituted the breach.

I just wanted to know how Nick would feel if he were the head coach who entered into the agreement with the Defensive Coordinator.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Jun 15 2010, 5:22 pm

[jclive]

Both involve friendships. Both involve contracts regarding revenue sharing. Both involve a breach of contract. Both involve secret side deals behind the back of the other party, which constituted the breach.

I just wanted to know how Nick would feel if he were the head coach who entered into the agreement with the Defensive Coordinator.

And both also assume things that we just dont know.

[burd]

What was saying is that Chad, Chad & Pat's legal representation presented that as fact. It doesnt mean that it is or isn't.

Actually their representation presented it as "FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS". And I found soup in the soup aisle today. I just can't believe the world we live in.

I haven't looked at this site in years, for no real reason other than my interest was waning severly. (Can't believe it's still got the BOP skin... that's how long it's been?? LOL) I read the summons, I read every post in this thread, laughed through most of it, and apparently found my breaking point with jclive's post. I'm just happy to see Todd is still the voice of reason around here.

And with that... ladies and gentlemen... good to see you all again... adios!

This post has been edited by burd: Jun 15 2010, 5:38 pm

[Wambangalang]

leaving so soon? Hang around for a bit, i've got muffins in the oven

[tiger]

And I found soup in the soup aisle today.

There's two sides to every story.

[AgentK7]

Based on what Chad Taylor reported regarding the band split last Fall, it was the "secret publishing contract" from 2005 that was the backbreaker.

I don't know that anyone can answer these questions, but I thought I'd put it out there. Was the 2005 publishing contract specifically an advance on publishing for SFBM (#33) or had that album already been recorded at that point (I'm fuzzy on the dates for that album, I just know the US got it last, months after everyone else)?

Ok, anyway, the Chads and Pat were paid 75,000, so that's 30% of $250,000 (and Ed got $175,000) according to the 2005 publishing contract. Where does that number come from or was that payment misrepresented to Chads and Pat as being tje 30% of the publishing advance for SFBM? Otherwise, what did they think that payment was?

According to point 35, did they demand the other $225,000 after they became aware of the secret contract in late 2009? I wish there were more dates noted...

I wonder if their accountant was the source of all the changes in the band in 2005? Is it possible that he put it in Ed's head that he should make those demands and change the publishing contracts? We know Ed has always had a bit of an ego (come on Nick, you know it be true), but I wonder if this David Levin is who ultimately pushed Ed over the edge....

This post has been edited by AgentK7: Jun 15 2010, 6:34 pm

[livefan80]

Based on what Chad Taylor reported regarding the band split last Fall, it was the "secret publishing contract" from 2005 that was the backbreaker.

I don't know that anyone can answer these questions, but I thought I'd put it out there. Was the 2005 publishing contract specifically an advance on publishing for SFBM (#33) or had that album already been recorded at that point (I'm fuzzy on the dates for that album, I just know the US got it last, months after everyone else)?

Ok, anyway, the Chads and Pat were paid 75,000, so that's 30% of $250,000 (and Ed got $175,000) according to the 2005 publishing contract. Where does that number come from or was that payment misrepresented to Chads and Pat as being tje 30% of the publishing advance for SFBM? Otherwise, what did they think that payment was?

According to point 35, did they demand the other $225,000 after they became aware of the secret contract in late 2009? I wish there were more dates noted...

I wonder if their accountant was the source of all the changes in the band in 2005? Is it possible that he put it in Ed's head that he should make those demands and change the publishing contracts? We know Ed has always had a bit of an ego (come on Nick, you know it be true), but I wonder if this David Levin is who ultimately pushed Ed over the edge....

Some of these were my questions through out all this. Ok so how I understand it.... and yes I read the whole doc. In 05 Ed signed a secret advance contract which gave him 100,000.00 for LIVE's next album..... which would be SFBM since that came out in 2006 right? Then he paid the rest of the band 75,000.00. WHERE DD THESE GUYS THINK THE MONEY CAME FROM if they had no idea about the contract until 09??? I may very well be missing something here, but how I read it the doc states that Ed paid a portion of the 100,000.00 advance..... so 4 years later the rest of the guys uncovered where it came from and are now looking for the rest???

[crazy1]

First, this made me feel much better about Ed. I don't think less of him - this actually clears up a great deal of confusion for me and I think more highly of him than I did. Ed didn't steal the publishing rights. The 4 members of Live signed a 2005 contract. This isn't about all of Live's music. It's about Live's music after 2005 (which is primarily Ed and is nothing compared to the commercial success of everything before 2005).

Thanks for the explanation Fish but no....still doesn't make me feel good about Ed.

Still think he is a tool. It's very sad that this happened.

I am just going to be happy that C,C &P decided to keep rocking!!!

[jclive]

Actually their representation presented it as "FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS". And I found soup in the soup aisle today. I just can't believe the world we live in.

I haven't looked at this site in years, for no real reason other than my interest was waning severly. (Can't believe it's still got the BOP skin... that's how long it's been?? LOL) I read the summons, I read every post in this thread, laughed through most of it, and apparently found my breaking point with jclive's post. I'm just happy to see Todd is still the voice of reason around here.

And with that... ladies and gentlemen... good to see you all again... adios!

I know burd isnt here anymore to comment on this.. but come on yall, I sure hope everyone understands these things. Has anyone here ever been served with a Summons? They are written by one party! They can put anything they damn well please into them, and twist it any way that the like or intend. Its not even close to analogous to selling products on a shelf (soup).

Thank you come again! - Apu

[OutToDry]

I contend there is way more bad actions on David Levin. This is the real meat of the lawsuit.....he violated his fiduciary obligations and sided, conspired, acted with Ed.


I listed the 5 principal allegations:

a) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Levin & DLBM)
b) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Ed & FVI)
c) Breach of Contract (Ed)
d) Tortious Interference with Contract (Levin, DLBM & FVI)
e) Equitable Accounting (Levin & DLBM)