News Analysis India

Tag: lawsuit

  • Michael Jackson sexual abuse lawsuits on verge of revival by appeals court

    By Associated Press

    LOS ANGELES: A California appeals court on Wednesday will consider reviving the dismissed lawsuits of two men who alleged that Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children for years, a move the court appears likely to make after a tentative decision that would order the cases back to a lower court for trial.

    The suits were filed after Jackson’s 2009 death by Wade Robson in 2013 and James Safechuck the following year. The two men became more widely known for telling their stories in the 2019 HBO documentary, “Leaving Neverland.”

    Both sued MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., two corporations for which Jackson was the sole owner and lone shareholder.

    In 2021, Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young ruled that the two corporations and their employees had no legal duty to protect Robson and Safechuck from Jackson and threw out the suits. But in a tentative decision last month, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed that judge and ordered the cases back to trial.

    Lawyers for the Jackson estate on Wednesday will try to convince the appeals court to reverse course.The lawsuits have already bounced back from a 2017 dismissal, when Young threw them out for being beyond the statute of limitations. A new California law that temporarily broadened the scope of sexual abuse cases led the appeals court to restore them. Jackson’s personal estate — the assets he left after his death — was thrown out as a defendant in 2015.

    Robson, now a 40-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was 5 years old. He went on to appear in Jackson’s music videos and record music on his label.

    His lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him over a seven-year period. It says that he was Jackson’s employee, and the employees of two corporations had a duty to protect him the same way the Boy Scouts or a school would need to protect children from their leaders.

    Safechuck, now 45, said in his suit that he met Jackson while filming a Pepsi commercial when he was 9. He said Jackson called him often and lavished him with gifts before moving on to a series of incidents of sexual abuse.

    The Jackson estate has adamantly and repeatedly denied that he abused either of the boys, and has emphasized that Robson testified at Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial that he had not been abused, and Safechuck said the same to authorities.

    The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were victims of sexual abuse. But Robson and Safechuck have repeatedly come forward and approved of the use of their identities.

    LOS ANGELES: A California appeals court on Wednesday will consider reviving the dismissed lawsuits of two men who alleged that Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children for years, a move the court appears likely to make after a tentative decision that would order the cases back to a lower court for trial.

    The suits were filed after Jackson’s 2009 death by Wade Robson in 2013 and James Safechuck the following year. The two men became more widely known for telling their stories in the 2019 HBO documentary, “Leaving Neverland.”

    Both sued MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., two corporations for which Jackson was the sole owner and lone shareholder.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    In 2021, Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young ruled that the two corporations and their employees had no legal duty to protect Robson and Safechuck from Jackson and threw out the suits. But in a tentative decision last month, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed that judge and ordered the cases back to trial.

    Lawyers for the Jackson estate on Wednesday will try to convince the appeals court to reverse course.
    The lawsuits have already bounced back from a 2017 dismissal, when Young threw them out for being beyond the statute of limitations. A new California law that temporarily broadened the scope of sexual abuse cases led the appeals court to restore them. Jackson’s personal estate — the assets he left after his death — was thrown out as a defendant in 2015.

    Robson, now a 40-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was 5 years old. He went on to appear in Jackson’s music videos and record music on his label.

    His lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him over a seven-year period. It says that he was Jackson’s employee, and the employees of two corporations had a duty to protect him the same way the Boy Scouts or a school would need to protect children from their leaders.

    Safechuck, now 45, said in his suit that he met Jackson while filming a Pepsi commercial when he was 9. He said Jackson called him often and lavished him with gifts before moving on to a series of incidents of sexual abuse.

    The Jackson estate has adamantly and repeatedly denied that he abused either of the boys, and has emphasized that Robson testified at Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial that he had not been abused, and Safechuck said the same to authorities.

    The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were victims of sexual abuse. But Robson and Safechuck have repeatedly come forward and approved of the use of their identities.

  • 1968 ‘Romeo and Juliet’ director’s son slams actors for nudity lawsuit 

    By Express News Service

    We had earlier reported that the actors of Romeo and Juliet (1968), Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, have filed a lawsuit against Paramount Pictures accusing them of sexually exploiting them and distributing nude images of adolescent children. The director of the film, Franco Zeffirelli, is not one of the defendants, as he passed away in 2019. 

    On behalf of Franco, his son Pippo Zeffirelli has publicly condemned the two lead actors’ decision to sue Paramount Pictures for the nude scene in the film.

    In a statement Pippo gave to The Hollywood Reporter, he had written, “It is embarrassing to hear that today, 55 years after filming, two elderly actors who owe their notoriety essentially to this film wake up to declare that they have suffered an abuse that has caused them years of anxiety and emotional discomfort.” 

    He added that he believed the film’s two producers, John Brabourne and Anthony Havelock-Allan, acquired consent forms from the actors’ parents before the shoot. The lawsuit filed by the actor alleges that director Zeffirelli vouched that there would be no nudity in the film and that they would be wearing body-coloured undergarments in that particular bedroom scene.

    Hussey was 15 at the time, while Whiting was 16. The complaint alleges that the actors were filmed nude without their knowledge.

    We had earlier reported that the actors of Romeo and Juliet (1968), Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, have filed a lawsuit against Paramount Pictures accusing them of sexually exploiting them and distributing nude images of adolescent children. The director of the film, Franco Zeffirelli, is not one of the defendants, as he passed away in 2019. 

    On behalf of Franco, his son Pippo Zeffirelli has publicly condemned the two lead actors’ decision to sue Paramount Pictures for the nude scene in the film.

    In a statement Pippo gave to The Hollywood Reporter, he had written, “It is embarrassing to hear that today, 55 years after filming, two elderly actors who owe their notoriety essentially to this film wake up to declare that they have suffered an abuse that has caused them years of anxiety and emotional discomfort.” 

    He added that he believed the film’s two producers, John Brabourne and Anthony Havelock-Allan, acquired consent forms from the actors’ parents before the shoot. The lawsuit filed by the actor alleges that director Zeffirelli vouched that there would be no nudity in the film and that they would be wearing body-coloured undergarments in that particular bedroom scene.

    Hussey was 15 at the time, while Whiting was 16. The complaint alleges that the actors were filmed nude without their knowledge.

  • US rapper Kanye West sued for USD 7 million over unpaid event production fees

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: Los Angeles-based production and design firm Phantom Labs has filed a lawsuit against rapper Kanye West.

    According to Variety, the lawsuit, which was filed on July 14 in Los Angeles County’s Superior Court, alleged that West and his team owe Phantom Labs USD 7 million for work the firm contributed to West’s cancelled Coachella set, his Free Larry Hoover concert with Drake, a Donda 2 listening event, and multiple Sunday Service performances.

    The firm, Phantom Labs, alleged that, as the unpaid bills began piling up from multiple projects, it was assured that everything would be paid up once the star collected a reported USD 9 million fee for appearing at Coachella.

    Once West pulled out of that headlining appearance with weeks to spare, the company says it was on the hook not just for the millions already owed for past collaborations but the money it had paid other vendors for the scotched festival appearance.

    “We are incredibly proud of the work that we did with Ye and are disappointed that such a fruitful relationship has come to this. A celebrity weaponizing fame and reputation to take advantage of eager collaborators is simply unacceptable,” a spokesperson for Phantom Labs said in a statement.

    The suit alleged that the USD 7,154,177.67 owed accrued over a fairly short amount of time, from June 2021, when Phantom Labs first began working on producing events with West, until March 2022. The papers acknowledge that the company was paid for some of its early work, but indicate that those payments arrived only under pressure, when the firm threatened to pull out of the “Donda 2” streaming event as its own vendors warned they would quit the production unless paid by Phantom Labs. (ANI)

    WASHINGTON: Los Angeles-based production and design firm Phantom Labs has filed a lawsuit against rapper Kanye West.

    According to Variety, the lawsuit, which was filed on July 14 in Los Angeles County’s Superior Court, alleged that West and his team owe Phantom Labs USD 7 million for work the firm contributed to West’s cancelled Coachella set, his Free Larry Hoover concert with Drake, a Donda 2 listening event, and multiple Sunday Service performances.

    The firm, Phantom Labs, alleged that, as the unpaid bills began piling up from multiple projects, it was assured that everything would be paid up once the star collected a reported USD 9 million fee for appearing at Coachella.

    Once West pulled out of that headlining appearance with weeks to spare, the company says it was on the hook not just for the millions already owed for past collaborations but the money it had paid other vendors for the scotched festival appearance.

    “We are incredibly proud of the work that we did with Ye and are disappointed that such a fruitful relationship has come to this. A celebrity weaponizing fame and reputation to take advantage of eager collaborators is simply unacceptable,” a spokesperson for Phantom Labs said in a statement.

    The suit alleged that the USD 7,154,177.67 owed accrued over a fairly short amount of time, from June 2021, when Phantom Labs first began working on producing events with West, until March 2022. The papers acknowledge that the company was paid for some of its early work, but indicate that those payments arrived only under pressure, when the firm threatened to pull out of the “Donda 2” streaming event as its own vendors warned they would quit the production unless paid by Phantom Labs. (ANI)

  • Netflix targeted with shareholder lawsuit alleging securities fraud after subscriber miss

    By IANS

    LOS ANGELES: Streaming giant Netflix misled investors about declining subscriber growth over the course of six months leading to a massive drop in its stock price, according to a shareholder lawsuit.According to ‘Variety’, the lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in a federal district court in San Francisco, alleges Netflix violated US securities laws by making “materially false and/or misleading statements” and also because it “failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations and prospects”.Last month, Netflix reported a net loss of 200,000 subscribers in the first three months of 2022 and forecast a decline of another 2 million in Q2, citing various challenges including password-sharing behaviour among more than 100 million households that do not pay for the service.The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of investors who owned Netflix shares between October 19, 2021, and April 19, 2022. Those include “compensatory damages in favour of Plaintiff and the other Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon”.Netflix stock suffered its biggest one-day drop on April 20, the day after reporting its weaker-than-expected subscriber numbers, falling 35 per cent and shedding $54 billion in market capitalisation. That came after the stock fell 22% on January 21 after Netflix’s Q4 2021 subscriber gains came up short and the company forecast slower growth.According to the lawsuit, Netflix and its top executives “employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud (investors), while in possession of material adverse non-public information”.They also made “untrue statements of material facts and/or omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made about Netflix and its business operations and future prospects in light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading”, the suit alleges.As per the lawsuit, Netflix misled shareholders going back to its third-quarter 2021 earnings report on October 19, when the company failed to tell investors that “Netflix was exhibiting slower (customer) acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming services”, reports ‘Variety’.As a result of Netflix’s “wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages”, according to the complaint, reports ‘Variety’.Over the period covered in the lawsuit, Netflix’s stock price dropped 67 per cent, from a high of $691.69/share on November 17, 2021, to $226.19/share on April 20. The company’s shares closed at $204.01 apiece on Wednesday.The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is Fiyyaz Pirani, a trustee of Imperium Irrevocable Trust, which is a Netflix shareholder. The lawsuit names as defendants Netflix as well as co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos and CFO Spencer Neumann.The case is Pirani v. Netflix Inc et al., with docket number 22-CV-02672, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The firm representing plaintiffs is Glancy Prongay & Murray, which specializes in class-action lawsuits involving securities fraud claims.

  • Amber Heard to go on social media hiatus ahead of defamation lawsuit filed by Johnny Depp 

    By PTI

    LOS ANGELES: Actor Amber Heard says she will be “offline for the next several weeks” as she faces a defamation lawsuit in the US filed by her former husband and embattled Hollywood star Johnny Depp.

    Heard, who will next be seen in Warner Bros/ DC film “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom”, shared the update with her fans and followers on Instagram on Saturday night.

    “I’m going to go offline for the next several weeks. As you may know, I’ll be in Virginia where I face my ex-husband Johnny Depp in court. Johnny is suing me for an op-ed I wrote in the Washington Post, in which I recounted my experience of violence and domestic abuse,” the 35-year-old wrote in the note.

    According to Variety, Depp has launched a legal battle against Heard after she penned a Washington Post op-ed in 2018 stating that she is a survivor of domestic abuse. Although Heard did not mention Depp (58) by name in the column, she accused him of domestic violence after filing for divorce in 2016.

    In her message on Instagram, the actor said in the article in question she never named Depp but rather wrote about “the price women pay for speaking against men in power”.

    “I continue to pay that price, but hopefully when this case concludes, I can move on and so can Johnny,” she further said.

    Depp is pursuing a USD 50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard. Her plea to dismiss the suit after Depp lost his libel case in the UK was denied. The case is set to open Monday in Fairfax County, Virginia.

    In her post Heard continued she has always “maintained a love” for her former husband, adding that “it brings me great pain to have to live out the details of our past life together in front of the world”.

    “At this time, I recognize the ongoing support I’ve been fortunate to receive throughout these years, and in these coming weeks I will be leaning on it more than ever,” she added.

    In November 2020, Depp lost a UK libel case against the publisher of The Sun, a British tabloid that alleged he was a “wife-beater” in a 2018 article. The judge ruled that the words were “substantially true”.

    Later Heard requested that Depp’s defamation suit filed against her in the US be dismissed after the UK verdict came out, since both lawsuits involve allegations of Depp as an abuser. However, the Virginia court ruled that the two cases and statements were “inherently different”.

    Depp has since argued that Hollywood is “boycotting” him, pointing to the long-delayed release of his biopic “Minamata”.

    Since his losing the UK lawsuit, the actor also exited the Warner Bros franchise “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”, where he had played the main antagonist role of Gellert Grindelwald in two films. Mads Mikkelsen was later recast in the role for the upcoming third film titled “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore”, which was released in the UK on April 8.

  • Ed Sheeran faces legal trouble over 2017 hit song ‘Shape of You’

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON:: British singer and songwriter Ed Sheeran has found himself in legal trouble as a copyright lawsuit has been filed over his 2017 hit single ‘Shape of You’. According to Variety, this case, which is the culmination of a 4-year legal battle between Sheeran and songwriters Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghue, will be heard in London’s High Court.

    Chokri, better known under his pseudonym Sami Switch, is a grime artist, while O’Donoghue is a producer. Both of them have alleged that Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’ bears similarities to Chakri’s single ‘Oh Why’. On ‘Shape of You’, Sheeran holds the credit as its lyricist alongside Patrol singer Johnny McDaid and producer Steven McCutcheon.

    All of them along with Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Rokstone Music Limited, Polar Patrol Music and Kobalt Music, in 2018, had issued legal proceedings against Chokri and O’Donoghue in a bid to get a legal declaration saying there was no copyright infringement.

    A counterclaim was issued by Chokri and O’Donoghue two months later alleging copyright infringement and asking for damages and an account of profits, suggested reports. The Performing Rights Society (PRS), which collects royalties on behalf of artists, has suspended royalties to Sheeran, McDaid and McCutcheon while the dispute is ongoing, according to reports.

    This is not the first instance of Sheeran being sued over copyright infringement. Previously, in 2016, he was sued over his single ‘Photograph’, and two years later was sued for USD 100 million due to ‘Thinking Out Loud’.

    As per Variety, the lawsuit over ‘Photograph’ was settled out of court but the battle over ‘Thinking Out Loud’ is believed to still be ongoing. This new trial will be heard before Mr Justice Zacaroli and is expected to last three weeks. 

  • Cardi B wins million-dollar defamation suit against ‘malicious’ YouTuber

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: Singer Cardi B has won a million-dollar defamation lawsuit against a YouTuber who was sued by the star for hurting her reputation by posting fake content on the internet.

    As per The Hollywood Reporter, a federal jury on Monday sided with Cardi B on her accusations that a YouTuber named Latasha Kebe waged a “malicious campaign” to hurt the superstar’s reputation, issuing a verdict that the woman had defamed the rapper and awarding the star more than USD 1 million in damages.

    Following a two-week trial that featured testimony from both women, the jury returned a verdict that Kebe was liable for defamation and two other forms of wrongdoing over her YouTube videos and other internet posts — which claimed that Cardi B had contracted herpes, among other unsavoury rumours.

    ALSO READ | Cardi B offers to pay funeral costs of Bronx fire Victims

    The Hollywood Reporter informed that Monday’s verdict has awarded the 29-year-old rapper USD 1.25 million in damages. The total amount could potentially end up higher, as per the outlet.

    Further proceedings that will kick off on Tuesday will decide whether Kebe owes additional punitive damages, or whether she must reimburse Cardi B for her legal expenses.

    For the uninformed, Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, sued Kebe in 2019 over dozens of videos that contained shocking claims about the rapper saying she contracted herpes, she had been a prostitute, that she had cheated on her husband, she had done hard drugs and more.

    As per The Hollywood Reporter, a trial was held on January 10 in Georgia federal court, during which both women took the stand. Cardi B testified that she felt “suicidal” in the wake of Kebe’s videos, and said that “only an evil person could do that sh**.”

    Kebe initially admitted that she knowingly published lies about the rapper, but she later tried to walk back that statement when examined by her own attorneys.

    Ultimately, the jurors sided with Cardi B, as per the outlet.

    In addition to defamation, the jury also held Kebe liable for “invasion of privacy through portrayal in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

    The Hollywood Reporter informed that Kebe’s attorneys can challenge the verdict to the judge in the weeks ahead. If he upholds it, her attorneys can then appeal the verdict to a federal appeals court. 

  • Taylor Swift’s team slams theme park for frivolous lawsuit over ‘Evermore’ album name

    By ANI
    WASHINGTON: American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift’s legal team has slammed a frivolous lawsuit from a Utah based theme park named Evermore. The lawsuit is regarding the singer’s latest album titled ‘Evermore’.

    According to E! News, in the court documents obtained by the publication, the theme park claimed that the singer’s latest album has infringed its trademark by using the same name. The owners of the theme park also stated that the release of Swift’s ‘evermore’ has caused confusion about whether the two were linked.

    The Utah venue further claimed in court documents that there was a “dramatic departure from typical levels” of traffic on its website in the week following the album’s release.

    Swift’s team on Thursday responded to the lawsuit in a statement to E! News. A spokesperson for the singer said, “The fact is, this frivolous claim is coming from Ken Bretschneider, founder, and CEO of an experience park.”

    Her spokesperson further added that “the true intent of this lawsuit should be obvious” in light of lawsuits, debts, and liens the company is reportedly facing.

    As per E! News, the singer’s legal team also responded to the claims in a letter to the court writing, “Your client has suffered no damages whatsoever and, in fact, has openly stated that Ms Swift’s album release creates a ‘marketing opportunity’ for your client’s troubled theme park.”

    Utah’s Evermore Park has described itself online as an experience park where people of all ages can escape to a new realm, the fantasy village of Evermore.

    As for Swift’s ‘evermore’, the surprise album was released on December 11 last year and was the singer’s second body of music filmed during the quarantine period.

  • Aircel-Maxis case: CBI informs Delhi court it has procured sanction to prosecute Chidambaram

    The CBI Monday informed a Delhi court that it has procured the requisite sanction from the authorities concerned to prosecute former Union minister P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis case.

    The court however extended till December 18 the protection granted to Chidambaram and his son Karti from arrest after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it needed two weeks to get sanction against other accused in the case.

    The CBI is probing alleged irregularities in grant of FIPB approval in Aircel-Maxis deal, while the ED is probing alleged money-laundering related to the deal.