Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Counsel Concerns

Damages Assessed Against Lawyer with Share of Royalty Company for Fraudulent Transfer of Assets

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas assessed actual and exemplary damages against a former attorney who the court ruled had fraudulently transferred the assets of a music royalties collection company. In Re: Galaz, 07-53287. Music producer Julian Jackson and California entertainment attorney Raul Galaz obtained the rights to the Ohio Players music and in 1998 formed Artist Rights Foundation (ARF) to collect the related royalties. In a 2002 divorce decree, Galaz assigned half of his 50% share of ARF to his then ex-wife Lisa Ann, who after filing for bankruptcy in 2007, pursued an adversary proceeding against Raul. The adversary proceeding was based on Raul's transfer of ARF's assets in 2005 to the Texas LLC Segundo Suenos. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Ronald B. King found that, as a managing member of ARF, “Galaz breached his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care through his failure to account for the property and profits derived from the business of ARF, the perpetration of an intentional fraud in an effort to secure the Royalties for his own benefit, and the wrongful dissolution of ARF after making the transfer. In breaching his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care, Galaz acted with malice.” Chief Bankruptcy Judge King thus awarded Lisa Ann $241,309 in actual damages for the value of her economic interest in the music royalties and $250,000 in exemplary damages for “gross negligence, malice, and fraud” by Raul Galaz and his father, an adversary proceeding co-defendant whom Raul had helped form Segundo Suenos. In addition, the bankruptcy judge awarded Julian Jackson $479,217 in actual damages and $500,000 in exemplary damages.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.