A judge ruled that Limp Bizkit cannot void its contract with UMG, months after the group sued over claims of unpaid royalties
Limp Bizkit‘s lawsuit against Universal Music Group faces new hurdles as a federal judge has denied the band’s demand to void its contract with the company, months after the group first sued over allegations of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid royalties.
In decision filed on Friday, January 17, the court pointed to millions in royalties and advances UMG had paid the group, ruling that the band had failed to present a viable rescission claim.
“The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of “substantial” or “total failure” in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties’ agreements,” judge Percy Anderson wrote in a ruling filed on Friday. The band’s copyright infringement and declaratory relief claims hinged on the rescission claim, Anderson wrote in his decision, so those have been dismissed as well. Twelve other claims the band included such breach of contract and fraudulent concealment weren’t addressed in the decision.
Limp Bizkit and Fred Durst sued UMG — the world’s largest record company — back in October in one of the most notable lawsuits of the year in the music industry. Along with alleging that UMG withheld as much as $200 million dollars in royalties, in an equally notable allegation, the band claimed that the company had “designed and implemented royalty software and systems that were deliberately designed to conceal artists’ royalties and keep those profits for itself.”
“The Court on ruled on three of our claims against Universal and gave us the opportunity to amend our complaint further — in order to keep litigating in Federal Court,” Frank Seddigh, Limp Bizkit’s attorney, said in a statement. “The facts speak for themselves. Universal will be held accountable for its actions and will not get away with its conduct at the expense of artists.”
Limp Bizkit now has until February 3 to file an amended complaint based on the judge’s ruling. If the group’s new amended complaint doesn’t include a copyright infringement claim the court will “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the suit and will dismiss it, requiring the band to file the suit in a different court system.
A rep for UMG didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. In the company’s motion to dismiss the suit, UMG called the claim “a fallacy.”
“Plaintiffs’ entire narrative that UMG tried to conceal royalties is a fiction,” the company said.
