Universal-MCA Music Publishing v. Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc.

2003 WL 21497318, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51037(U) (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Universal-MCA Music Publishing v. Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc.

New York Supreme Court
2003 WL 21497318, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51037(U) (2003)

Facts

Universal-MCA Music Publishing (MCA) (plaintiff) was a publishing company that owned exclusive rights to all musical compositions written by Todd Gaither, Kelly Price, and Jeremy Graham (MCA cowriters) (plaintiffs). Sean Combs (defendant) was a songwriter and co-owner of the recording company Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc. (Bad Boy) (defendant). In 1996, Combs, in his capacity as a songwriter, and Bad Boy entered into a recording agreement that included a controlled-composition clause, which limited the amount of royalties the record company must pay for compositions to less than the minimum rate set by law. In 1997, Combs and the MCA cowriters coauthored several songs and expressly agreed on each writer’s ownership percentage and royalty rate. The MCA cowriters and MCA alleged that they made numerous attempts to recover their royalties. Bad Boy asserted to MCA that none were due per the controlled-composition clause. MCA and the MCA cowriters filed suit, alleging that Combs and Bad Boy entered the recording agreement to intentionally deprive them of royalties, thereby breaching Combs’s fiduciary duty to them. They further alleged that, as the president and CEO of Bad Boy, Combs profited enormously from the recording agreement to the detriment of his cowriters on the songs. Combs and Bad Boy moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and argued that no fiduciary relationship existed between Combs and the MCA cowriters.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (York, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership