MP has filed a lawsuit against Dream Theater

[unspoken]

I just got back from work and haven't read the 12+ pages of discussion of this topic, so sorry if this has been discussed. After having a look at the NY's Supreme Court's website, it looks like Mike has not served the summons to the DT members. Therefore, if he has not served the summons the lawsuit will not develop until he has done so (it can even be dismissed if he doesn't serve summons within the timeframe allowed by NY's law).

Anyways....notwithstanding the fact that I love DT and I hate what Portnoy is doing right now, I'm thinking that legally speaking, Mike could still have the law by his side in some aspects. I'm not an entertainment law attorney but I'm guessing that when a founder member of a band says "i'm quitting the band", he is not relinquishing any rights that he might have on the band's copyrights and trademarks. For that he would have to expressly execute documents and stuff like that.

I'm guessing that a settlement will be the only solution to this case....unless Mike wants blood and nothing else...

I'm drunk right now..sorry for any typos

[gentaishinigami]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

I would assume that he only quit superficially. Since it's a corporation, he'd have to sign off control to actually quit, which he may not have ever done. Saying "I quit" might not be enough. Hell, this is too crazy, remember when bands just played music together?

That resignation letter he dropped when he left is going to hurt his chances in court imo.  Stuff like that causes a lot of headaches once you get into the later stages of the case.  He even said he would allow the members to continue on without him and not stand in their way to continue the band Dream Theater without him, and that he needed the break and was leaving of his own free will.  You'd be amazed of the things people can bring up to use against you in civil lawsuits.  Things he said a decade ago may come up to bite him in the rear. 

The DT camp has been very smart keeping their mouth shut since this allows MPs camp very little ammunition to use against them.  Lawyers really are a special breed and can twist things against you about like how blabbermouth does to make headlines and stir the pot. 

[millahh]

So he quit superficially, but never rescinded his share of the name, and is now claiming to have been unjustly excluded because he never rescinded legal control.

So he was lying when he said all that stuff about everyone moving on, because if he meant it, he would have sold his share.  Apparently his intent was to hamstring them instead.

Not just is that slimy...it's calculated.

[Kotowboy]

Also, JP's statement in that German interview became a lot more important.  If I remember correctly, he said the band's name belonged to them, period.  I guess they won't be backing down.

Seem to remember something about " when a member leaves - he relinquishes all rights ". Dunno where I read that though. Might have been hypothesis. But that sounds feasible.

[Adami]

Petrucci and Mangini are of Italian background right?


I'm sure this can be settled "out of court".

[ReaPsTA]

So he quit superficially, but never rescinded his share of the name, and is now claiming to have been unjustly excluded because he never rescinded legal control.

So he was lying when he said all that stuff about everyone moving on, because if he meant it, he would have sold his share.  Apparently his intent was to hamstring them instead.

Not just is that slimy...it's calculated.

Can we be sure about that?  Maybe at the time he really thought he was done, and only after stewing for a few months did he decide to file the suit.  The timing is really strange.

Another question - If we buy that MP never resigned from the corporate entities that comprise DT, then why couldn't he sue to stop the band from doing everything it does?

[gentaishinigami]

Petrucci and Mangini are of Italian background right?


I'm sure this can be settled "out of court".

Well... you do remember how John Petrucci looked during the Hall of Fame ceremony right? 

[Kotowboy]

I'm gonna pick this up in the morning


Night all !

[MarlaHooch]

Something else I don't understand.

There was a 100% chance this lawsuit would eventually be uncovered.  It's a matter of public record.  Clearly, MP did not anticipate the story blowing up today.

But what was his endgame.  Assuming he knew it would come out, under what circumstances did he anticipate the internet finding out about it?

I took some more time to read the thread after my initial shock but now I'm a bit more level-headed about the situation so I'm going to reserve any further judgement until we get some real clarification from particularly Portnoy if he chooses to elaborate on the situation since I'm sure he will be asked. Things like this are hardly as black and white as they initially appear.

Here's what the court document says (I'm leaving the addresses out - obviously):

MIKE  PORTNOY,
Plainnff,
-against-
JOHN  PETRUCCI,  JOHN  MYUNG, JAMES
LaBRIE, JORDAN  RUDESS, YTSE JAMS,
INC.  and  INFINITIY  TOURS,  INC. ,

TO THE  ABOVE  NAMED  DEFENDANTS:
YOU  ARE  HEREBY SUMMONED  to  serve  a notice  of appearance  on  the
plaintift's  attorneys  within  20 days  after  service  of this  summons,  exclusive  of the  day  of service
(or within  30 days  after  service  is  complete  if this  summons  is  not  personally  delivered  to  you
within  thc  State  of New  York);  and  in  case  of your  failure  to  appear,  judgment  will  be  taken
against  you  by  default  for  the  relief  demanded  below.
Dated:  New  York,  New  York
April  19, 2011

NOTICE
The  nature  of the  action  is:
Plaintiff  is  one  of the  founding  members  of a rock  band  (the  "Band" ) and  one  of the
founding  and  current  shareholders  of the  defendant  corporations.  Defendants  Petrucci  and
Myung  are  the  other  founding  members  of the  Band  and  thc  other  founding  and  current
shareholders  of the  defendant  corporations.  The  individual  defendants  claim  to  be  the  current
members  of the  Band.
In  brcach  of contract  and  breach  of fiduciary  duty,  defendants:
(1) Have  wrongfully  excluded  plaintiff  from  the  Band;
(2) Are  wrongfully  using  the  name  of the  Band  in  connection  with  thc  individual
defendants'  recording  of an  album,  without  the  participation  or  consent  of plaintiff;
and
(3) Are  wrongfully  using  the  name  of the  Band  in  connection  with  the  promotion  of live
performances  by  the  individual  defendants,  without  the  participation  or  consent  of
plainnff.
The  relief  sought  is:
l.  A judicial  declarahon  that  defendants  may  not  use  the  name  of the  Band
(including  in  connecnon  with  the  making  of recordings  and  the  promotion  of live  performances)
without  plaintiff  s  consent;
2.  An  injunction  restraining  defendants  from  using  the  name  of the  Band
(including  in  connection  with  the  making  of recordings  and  the  promotion  of live  performances)
without  plaintifF  s  consent;  and
3.  An  awatd  of damages  in  an  amount  to  be  determined  at  trial.
Upon  your  failure  to timely  appear,  judgment  will  be taken  against  you  by
default  for the  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief  sought  herein,  an  amount  of damages  to be
determined  (together  with  interest  thereon),  and  the  costs  and  disbursements  of this  action.

I know that we don't know everything, but I don't see where the ambiguity here is.  Not only is it scummy to sue the band for their name, which we know is happening because it's public record, but I feel particularly slighted by the fact he made every effort to say and indicate the lawsuit wasn't happening when it in fact was.

Wow I really hope that was transcribed and the actual summons doesn't have that many typos!

The more I read of this thread the more amazed I am that everyone seems to think they know everything based off what they read in the press.  Not the poster I've quoted here, but quite a lot of people in this thread.  I'm not saying I know either, but for what it's worth I'm in law school/currently taking entertainment law so I'm just having a little fun with an alternative perspective here.

From a reading of this and considering when it was filed, it seems pretty straightforward.  Like any band or business that splits up, acrimonious or not, MP and DT must have a lot of legal issues and formalities to clear up.  I remember the way DT do their bootlegs was cited as one example early on, but there must be tons of loose ends re: use of the name, entities they entered into together, future earnings, etc. 

I'm only speculating obviously, but when MP learned that DT were choosing to record an album and go on tour as "Dream Theater" before working things out legally with him, it's possible he was just advised to file (and not serve) this in order to protect his legal/future interests.  These types of things have to be settled regardless.  If JP is only contacting MP through his attorney, why is anybody shocked that they're choosing to do this kind of stuff formally and in court?  It doesn't mean they're at war with each other, it's just business and they're all just protecting themselves.  They're all family men and these issues can involve hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

Not every lawsuit needs to be read as a war between parties.  Ozzy and Tony Iommi were just in a lawsuit against each other last year over legal rights to the name "Black Sabbath" and they're currently working together despite sniping in the press over it.  MP even said he's been in recent contact with Jordan.

Bottom line - it's unfortunate this news got out because it's nothing new to the band and only serves to rile everyone up.

[millahh]

So he quit superficially, but never rescinded his share of the name, and is now claiming to have been unjustly excluded because he never rescinded legal control.

So he was lying when he said all that stuff about everyone moving on, because if he meant it, he would have sold his share.  Apparently his intent was to hamstring them instead.

Not just is that slimy...it's calculated.

Can we be sure about that?  Maybe at the time he really thought he was done, and only after stewing for a few months did he decide to file the suit.  The timing is really strange.

Maybe, but I can't imagine "forgetting" that his name is on the legal documents and that he has rights with respect to existing songs and the name.

[sfam2112]

Dream Arena ?

Dream Theatre? 

[blackngold29]

I'm not an entertainment law attorney but I'm guessing that when a founder member of a band says "i'm quitting the band", he is not relinquishing any rights that he might have on the band's copyrights and trademarks. For that he would have to expressly execute documents and stuff like that.

Why would 'founder' matter in this situation? You've got a band with five full-time members, all of which at least give the impression of being equals. Sure MP did more promos and interviews, etc, but that was voluntary. It wasn't "MP and the Dream Theater's."

Obviously there may be legal things we don't know about which would change things, but that's speaking based on the current info we have.

[raygun47]

Oh.  Obviously I read too much into the post I read over at MP's forum.  Wey is not...in fact...quitting.  Or he decided not to quit.  So I guess I can't use that as a gauge as to how people "close" to Mike feel about all this.  Well, that was weird.  I could swear there was only one way to read all that...but obviously, there are several and I chose the wrong one.  Last post about this guy...right here.  Last post with this guy's name or with him as a subject.

I don't think Mike's the scum-of-the-earth because of all this.  I don't know that he's been deceptive on purpose.  It seems that way, but what do I know?  All bands do this?  I'm hearing that?  All bands that have people split do this?  Then I guess they all do it then.  He's still St. Mike.  Hey...my life is less than interesting, so I come here.  Read a few things.  Post a thing.  I don't want anyone to feel bad.  He's a drummer.  He's under know legal obligation to be a swell guy.  I stuck up for him last week.  Sat right here and said I'd find it hard to be cool to people that have said what James and Jordan had said in recent interviews.  Maybe I was wrong.  It doesn't matter.  Mike doesn't care what I think. 

Everyone goes off in every direction.  I just read a post over there where some guy tells Wey he's the "best guy he's encountered on the internet."  Then he says he doesn't know him real good.  I can't believe anyone who matters reads what we put out there anyway.  It's different over on MP's forum I guess.  I can see that.  Anyway.  This rant is done.  Good luck Mike, MP forum, and everyone else associated with all that.  I'm done with this subject.

[unspoken]

I'm not an entertainment law attorney but I'm guessing that when a founder member of a band says "i'm quitting the band", he is not relinquishing any rights that he might have on the band's copyrights and trademarks. For that he would have to expressly execute documents and stuff like that.

Why would 'founder' matter in this situation? You've got a band with five full-time members, all of which at least give the impression of being equals. Sure MP did more promos and interviews, etc, but that was voluntary. It wasn't "MP and the Dream Theater's."

Obviously there may be legal things we don't know about which would change things, but that's speaking based on the current info we have.

Because since he was a founder, he came up (along with Petrucci and Myung) with the Dream Theater name (trademark) and concept.

[blackngold29]

I'm not an entertainment law attorney but I'm guessing that when a founder member of a band says "i'm quitting the band", he is not relinquishing any rights that he might have on the band's copyrights and trademarks. For that he would have to expressly execute documents and stuff like that.

Why would 'founder' matter in this situation? You've got a band with five full-time members, all of which at least give the impression of being equals. Sure MP did more promos and interviews, etc, but that was voluntary. It wasn't "MP and the Dream Theater's."

Obviously there may be legal things we don't know about which would change things, but that's speaking based on the current info we have.

Because since he was a founder, he came up (along with Petrucci and Myung) with the Dream Theater name (trademark) and concept.

So it's just about the words 'Dream Theater'? If JP, JM, JR, JLB, and MM release an album and call themselves anything else MP loses any argument?

Not that I think he's got much argument (then again, I'm not well-versed in legal matters), but if JM left the band instead and sued I feel like they would've just laughed at him.

[ZKX-2099]

Dick move, Mike...

That's all I'm gonna say.

[bosk1]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

[Peter Griffin]

cough. 

[Jaffa]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:
*snip*

So you think he has a case?

[Chimpi]

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

Exceptional explanation.  Thank you

[Infinite Cactus]

cough. 

Flawless Victory

[YtseJam]

Let's use the marriage analogy again....

MP cheats on wife, wife moves on and starts banging rich doctor with big pecker, MP wants wife back, wife says go suck an egg, MP sue's for half the house. MP loses and sucks the egg. 

[Major Thirteenth]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

And I believe, as crazy as it sounds, that Mike is still collecting his paycheck as an officer of the corporation. Which begs the question: Is he getting paid more than Mike Mangini to be the "not" drummer of Dream Theater?

[unspoken]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

Agree 100%. Are you a lawyer? I'm a corporate attorney..your explanation is 100% accurate.

[zxlkho]

cough. 

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

cough. 

*snip*

This thread still hasn't been archived!

[theliloutkast]

Gonna keep this short, but simply put, I'm honestly ashamed of Mike Portnoy. He was my favorite drummer and I thought he was amazing for a long time, and now he's doing this. It's just sad, he has fallen a lot...

[volwrath]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

Thats a nice synopsis and all, but one would think DTs lawyers would have taken care of these issues before MM was made an official member.  I would think that DT's lawyers would hammer out the legalese to give MP royalties on back catalog and also have him relinquish all rights to future monies.

[blackngold29]

Another question for people smarter than me, Why is this just showing up if it's from April? It refers to time frames that have ended by now, so if they did meet why no updates? I assume it's on-going per MP's comments that he can't talk about it. Would this be something that would go on for a while?

[theseoafs]

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:
*snip*

Well, okay, but does establishing DT as a small company really have any legal weight? There is no physical "stock" to speak of, right? I obviously trust your explanation due to your credentials, but I'm just challenging Portnoy's case because I have a truly hard time believing the "I basically own stock in what is basically a company, so I basically have stockholders' rights" argument holds water.

[Major Thirteenth]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

Thats a nice synopsis and all, but one would think DTs lawyers would have taken care of these issues before MM was made an official member.  I would think that DT's lawyers would hammer out the legalese to give MP royalties on back catalog and also have him relinquish all rights to future monies.

I believe MM is more or less a hired gun for what amounts to a probationary period of time. Same as Jordan when he first joined. Although he is a new member of the band, his legal and financial rights do not extend anywhere close to the existing members. And that will not change for quite some time.

[volwrath]

Well my statement was more about DT lawyers dotting the i's and crossing the t's.  When MP wanted to quit, I would imagine DT's lawyers would draw up all necessary paper work to insure MP couldnt sue in the future.  And they may have

[gentaishinigami]

Another question for people smarter than me, Why is this just showing up if it's from April? It refers to time frames that have ended by now, so if they did meet why no updates? I assume it's on-going per MP's comments that he can't talk about it. Would this be something that would go on for a while?

This will definitely take a while if they don't settle before going to court.  Sometimes you can be waiting for months just to get a court date, not to mention all the stuff that has to happen BEFORE you get to court like depositions, subpoenas to everyone involved and mediation attempts while each side also builds their cases up. 

I'm not lawyer but was involved in a personal lawsuit against a large corporation and trust me these things are slimy and drawn out by nature.  You can't be 100% friendly and moral to the other party and still push your case to the max while suing them (I wish I had been slimy because being a stand up person hurt me badly while they were they were quite viscious).  I guess that is why lawyers are usually called such bad things is because they have to be ruthless if you want as good of a case as possible.

I could have sworn there was a way famous people could get records of these things suppressed for a while, but looking around on google I can't find anything so maybe not.  I'm sure bosk can elaborate.

[bosk1]

So you think he has a case?

No comment.    First off, I don't know N.Y. law.  Second, I have no idea what Mike's contract says.  But just looking at the claims, and applying my basic knowledge of those areas of the law, it sounds incredibly weak to me.  That being said, Mike's lawyer seems to be a heavy hitter, and unless he was doing it as a personal favor to make, probably wouldn't have filed unless he felt he could accomplish something.  As pointed out above, it may not be contentious at all, but may possibly just be the necessary process to get things divided up properly.  I hate the family law analogies, but I'll use one.  Sometimes, people get divorced amicably.  But if they've been together for a long time and have a lot of assets, it can still be incredibly tricky to divide everything up fairly.  So it may be necessary to have a court involved in dividing everything up even if it isn't contentious.  That may be the case here, which is why I hate to jump to conclusions, even though a quick reading of the papers seems to indicate that Mike is being a jerk about it all.  He may not be.  Or it may just be about leverage (because filing a claim raises the stakes, and increases the "settlement value" of whatever he may be trying to negotiate).  There are just so many variables we can't know, that it's almost pointless to guess.

Agree 100%. Are you a lawyer? I'm a corporate attorney..your explanation is 100% accurate.

Yes.

But if you are an attorney, you likely do a lot of work typing documents.  And I'm curious as to how you do that if your hand is a dolphin. 

:

Then again, if you have to type everything one-handed, it takes twice as long, which means you generate more billable hours.  Okay, never mind.  I get it now.

Thats a nice synopsis and all, but one would think DTs lawyers would have taken care of these issues before MM was made an official member.  I would think that DT's lawyers would hammer out the legalese to give MP royalties on back catalog and also have him relinquish all rights to future monies.

Nah, that's not an accurate assumption.  These things can take months and sometimes years to fully work through.  In the mean time, DT has an album to write and a tour to embark on.  They can't wait around until all the legal issues are resolved.  That takes time, and there's no reason they can't get on with their business while it is being worked out.

[MarlaHooch]

a)  Because he is an owner.

But, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand how he can be an owner of a band that he quit.

Good question, and it sometimes doesn't occur to me that not everyone understands how these things work.  Here's a quick, really basic overview:

Think of the band as a company, because that's what it is.  (specifically, Ytse Jams, Inc.)  Because it is a small company, people wear multiple hats within the company.  Shareholders own the stock, which means they own the company.  And the company owns the assets of the band, whether it be the name, the other intellectual property, etc.  So as a shareholder, Mike owns stock in the company, which in turn owns the assets of the band.  So assuming the company is owned in equal amounts by the bandmembers and no one else, Mike owns 20% of everything. 

As an officer and director, Mike is an employee of the company.  So he is also wearing the employee hat.  The law says that officers and directors have to run the company for the benefit of the owners.  So, one person can't just take over and run the company in a way that privately benefits him and screws over the other owners (unless of course they consent and give him control). 

By quitting, it's the same as if you quit your job.  You are out.  You no longer have a job.  You no longer have any rights as an employee.  But as an owner, he still owns his stock and, by extension, his share of the assets of the company.  As such, he has the ability to take steps to make the company look out for his rights, including filing a lawsuit if he thinks the stuff he owns isn't being taken care of or he isn't getting paid what he deserves when he tries to sell it back to the company.  Not saying he is right, but those are his legal rights.

Anyway, that's a really basic overview.  Hope it helps.

Well said!