A High Court judge pauses part of the claim against Barry Manilow amid ongoing US litigation.
Topics covered
The ongoing legal dispute involving renowned singer Barry Manilow has taken a significant turn as a High Court judge in England has ruled to pause part of a claim against him. This decision comes while similar legal actions are being pursued in the United States, highlighting the complexities of international copyright and royalty agreements.
Background of the dispute
Since 2020, Hipgnosis Songs Fund has been in an agreement with Manilow, which stipulates that the singer would provide his worldwide earnings in exchange for a bonus of $1.5 million (£1.19 million). This bonus was contingent upon meeting specific performance targets related to the cash income generated from Hipgnosis’s share of Manilow’s assets.
The first target required a 10% year-on-year increase in income over three years, with the first half of the bonus payable upon achieving this milestone. The second half would be awarded if the target was met for a fourth consecutive year.
Claims and counterclaims
Manilow asserts that he has fulfilled the conditions of the agreement and is seeking the owed bonus through the courts in Los Angeles. Conversely, Hipgnosis contends that the targets have not been met, thus negating the obligation to pay the bonus. The company has initiated legal proceedings in the High Court in London, claiming that Manilow has failed to pay royalties owed to them. They also seek to have the purchase price claim addressed in England.
High Court’s ruling and implications
On Thursday, Mr. Justice Marcus Smith ruled that the English proceedings regarding the purchase price should be paused while the royalty claims continue. In his written judgment, he stated, “I conclude that the defendant is entitled to a stay as of right.” This ruling reflects the court’s recognition of the ongoing US litigation and the potential for conflicting judgments between jurisdictions.
During previous hearings, both parties accused each other of attempting to manipulate the legal process by advocating for different jurisdictions. Edmund Cullen KC, representing Hipgnosis, characterized the US legal action as a “tactical measure,” while Andrew Sutcliffe KC, representing Manilow, argued that having the full case heard in London would undermine his client’s position.
Looking ahead
The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for both parties, particularly in terms of financial repercussions and the future of their business relationship. As the case unfolds, it underscores the challenges artists and music companies face in navigating complex international agreements and the legal frameworks that govern them.
As the music industry continues to evolve, the resolution of this dispute may set important precedents for similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the enforcement of royalty agreements and the jurisdictional issues that often arise in cross-border disputes.
