{"id":3822,"date":"2025-01-22T19:34:05","date_gmt":"2025-01-22T19:34:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/limp-bizkit-suffers-setback-in-200m-umg-royalties-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2025-01-22T19:34:05","modified_gmt":"2025-01-22T19:34:05","slug":"limp-bizkit-suffers-setback-in-200m-umg-royalties-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/limp-bizkit-suffers-setback-in-200m-umg-royalties-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Limp Bizkit Suffers Setback In $200M UMG Royalties Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tLimp Bizkit has suffered a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group, with a federal judge ruling that the band cannot legally void its contracts of \u201cnearly 30 years\u201d over accusations of underpaid royalties.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe blockbuster case, filed last year in Los Angeles federal court, claims that frontman Fred Durst<\/strong> and the band have \u201cnot seen a dime in royalties\u201d over the years. Among other claims, the lawsuit argued that the band is therefore entitled to a ruling of \u201crescission\u201d that terminates its deals with UMG.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in a decision Friday (Jan. 17), Judge Percy Anderson<\/strong> ruled that the band had in fact been \u201cpaid millions in advances\u201d and that UMG had fronted \u201csubstantial sums\u201d to record and distribute Limp Bizkit\u2019s albums \u2013 meaning the band doesn\u2019t deserve the drastic remedy of terminating the decades-old deals.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cPlaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties\u2019 relationship beginning in 1996 \u2013 nearly 30 years \u2013 because the agreements should be rescinded as fraudulently induced,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cPlaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of \u2018substantial\u2019 or \u2018total failure\u2019 in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties\u2019 agreements.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe ruling isn\u2019t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn\u2019t reach many of the lawsuit\u2019s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit\u2019s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge\u2019s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when \u201cmillions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIf finalized, the decision is something of a double blow for Durst\u2019s lawsuit. It would not only reject his efforts to rescind the contracts, but would sink one of his other core allegations: that UMG has infringed Limp Bizkit\u2019s copyrights. Such a claim \u2014 which could carry a huge damages award \u2014 can only succeed if the band\u2019s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights, the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tThat could also mean the case is headed to another court entirely. If Limp Bizkit\u2019s lawsuit no longer contains federal copyright claims, a federal court would no longer have jurisdiction over the case, meaning the lawsuit\u2019s remaining accusations against UMG would need to be refiled in a state court.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement to Billboard <\/em>on Wednesday, attorneys for Durst and Limp Bizkit downplayed the impact of the ruling, noting that the court had \u201cupheld a majority of our claims\u201d and given them a second shot at the rejected claims.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe facts speak for themselves,\u201d said Frank Seddigh<\/strong>, the band\u2019s lead attorney. \u201cUniversal will be held accountable for its actions and will not get away with its conduct at the expense of artists.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA spokesman for UMG declined to comment.<\/p>\n

\n\tDurst and Limp Bizkit sued in October, claiming the band had \u201cnever received any royalties from UMG,\u201d despite its huge success over the years: \u201cThe band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThat claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry\u2019s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?<\/p>\n

\n\tAccording to Durst, the answer was an \u201cappalling and unsettling\u201d scheme to conceal royalties from artists and \u201ckeep those profits for itself.\u201d He claimed UMG had essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing the label to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped \u2014 meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount paid in upfront advances.<\/p>\n

\n\tUMG hit back a month later, calling the allegations \u201cfiction\u201d and demanding they be thrown out of court. The music giant\u2019s attorneys argued that Limp Bizkit\u2019s own legal filings contradicted the accusation that the band had not been paid: \u201cPlaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tFollowing Friday\u2019s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Limp Bizkit has suffered a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group, with a federal judge ruling that the band cannot legally void its contracts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3823,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3744,3765,303,3764,1219,2364,4372,1109],"class_list":["post-3822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-200m","tag-bizkit","tag-lawsuit","tag-limp","tag-royalties","tag-setback","tag-suffers","tag-umg"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3822\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}