Universal Music Group is aggressively doubling down on a push to dismiss a royalties-related lawsuit filed by Limp Bizkit. Photo Credit: UMG
About one month after firing back against Limp Bizkit’s massive unpaid-royalties and infringement suit, Universal Music Group is aggressively doubling down on its dismissal arguments.
The major made its newest push to have the case tossed via a reply in support of a late November dismissal motion. Limp Bizkit and frontman Fred Durst levied the initial action, alleging north of $200 million in potential damages, back in October.
Without rehashing the case’s multifaceted specifics – we’ve already covered those particulars as well as UMG’s counterarguments in detail – the plaintiffs say the major withheld sizable royalty payments under a JV with Durst’s Flawless Records and a deal with Limp Bizkit itself.
Durst unearthed the allegedly missing payments, allegedly stemming from “unsubstantiated” recoupment balances and different “fraudulent accounting practices,” upon hiring a new team, per the complaint. And among other things, he’s seeking the immediate termination of the relevant contracts.
But the allegations amount to “fiction,” UMG maintained in the November dismissal motion, claiming in more words that Limp Bizkit’s then-business manager had fueled any potential payments mix-ups through his own misrepresentations.
As to the allegedly inflated advances, certain still-unrecouped accounts allegedly offset other accounts’ positive balances at various points, according to Universal Music. Meanwhile, a Limp Bizkit rep didn’t hesitate to push back against UMG’s arguments, decrying in a statement the alleged “well-trodden strategy of reaching for any escape route by desperately grasping at technicalities.”
Now, those same dismissal arguments have resurfaced, with a bit of additional detail, in the aforesaid reply.
Keeping the focus on the top level here, one of the relevant deals, complete with a New York forum-selection clause, is still in place notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ rescindment claims, per UMG. And in any event, the validity of the rescindment alleged in the California-filed action “is therefore a question for a New York court to answer,” the legal text reads.
Next, after diving into a slew of challenges to Limp Bizkit’s actual effort to nix the deal, the firmly worded retort explores the suit’s alleged failure to state a claim when it comes to royalty-related breach of contract allegations.
“UMG has further acknowledged that Plaintiffs have the explicit right under all three agreements to audit Interscope’s books and records to determine whether additional royalties are owed,” one relevant line spells out. “And yet, with all this information available, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a single transaction that would trigger a royalty that has not been paid.”
Lastly, Limp Bizkit and Durst “do not (and cannot) dispute that the relevant agreements expressly allow the cross-account recoupments they allege as fraud,” the document suggests.
If the original complaint and above-highlighted response are any indication, the plaintiffs will have much to say about UMG’s position. Previously, the involved parties jointly requested an early January hearing on the dismissal question, though it remains to be seen whether the sought timetable will come to fruition.
