The Breakdown Room - Queensryche Discussion Forum

  • October 01, 2016, 03:19:13 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Geoff Tate and Operation: Mindcrime Struggle to Ascend with Resurrection: http://bit.ly/2bKyOlA (album review)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 101   Go Down

Author Topic: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court  (Read 311724 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rmp0012002

  • Global Mind
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 280
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2012, 03:58:30 PM »

As I see it, Tate would argue that QR would not exist if it weren't for him (wrote 81% of songs, steered the band for years, etc) so he is entitled to earnings from work created by QR even after he left.

I see where you're going with this and I think the counter argument could be made that the direction Tate took the band was to the detriment of the band's reputation and earning capacity. 

If I was in QR's attorney's shoes, yes, that would be the counter argument I'd make to that point by Geoff.

The writing credits or as former president of the corporation are the only issue I could see where CDG would be called in to verify documentation. I don't know if the music holds more weight in a case like this or the lyrics or just having his name on a song.  I don't see the outcome preventing either side from playing any of the songs but a royalty fee could be tagged on for playing someone else's music for profit.  While Geoff is looking for the best monetary solution I think he wants the name.  Geoff just as "Geoff Tate" doesn't sell tickets but along with "Queensryche" in some form it does.  I would have to think the corporation papers would hold all the answers, maybe I'm wrong.
Logged

AynRand

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2012, 04:26:19 PM »

Here is what I have found on Melodisc.

MELODISC LTD
10751 DENSMORE AVE N
SEATTLE,  WA  98133-8943

COMPANY OVERVIEW

MELODISC LTD is in the LEGAL SERVICES industry in SEATTLE, WA. This company currently has approximately 1 to 5 employees and annual sales of Under $500,000.

Upon further research, I located whom it is:

Registered Agent Information
Agent Name   NEIL SUSSMAN
Address   10751 DENSMORE AVE N
City   SEATTLE
State   WA
ZIP   98133
This information is located on the Tri-Ryche Corporation Registration Page.

 


Neil Sussman was the band's attorney for eons. I have no idea if he currently is or not.

From my limited knowledge about corporations, these are my thoughts. The companies the band members own are likely S-corporations due to the tax structure (much better than a C-Corp) and small ownership (less than 100 shareholders). The spouses in an S-Corp. are automatic single shareholders which is likely the reason the spouses are named in the lawsuit Geoff and Susan filed. Ex spouses and family are also single share holders as long as they elect to be a share holder. So, for instance if Eddie is divorced, his spouse may have elected to remain a share holder.

Melodisc is another company of the Band- Sussman, as with Queensryche Merchandising Inc and Tri-Ryche Corp, is the agent (entertainment lawyer) whom reresent(s/ed) those entities on renewal of each registration with the state. The companies, which are all set up as different business entities, with different tax structures (i.e. Corporation, LTD) limit individual liability for losses, so the individual owners can't be held responsible to debtors.

Each of the three companies also show each band member/owner in different roles. Geoff is not the President of any of the three companies. Eddie is the President, Chairman and a Director of Tri-Ryche Corp. They are all Vice Presidents and Directors of Tri-Ryche, but Michael is also the Treasurer and Scott is the Secretary.
With Melodisc, Scott is the President, Secretary and Director, Geoff is VP, Treasurer and Director, Michael and Eddie are VP's and Directors.
With Queensryche Merchandising Inc., Scott, again is the President and Director, Geoff is VP,  Director, Treasurer, AND Secretary! And yet, Michael is also listed as Treasurer and Eddie is listed as Secretary... Hmmm strange for there to be dual roles for Treasurer and Secretary? Interesting since Tate claims the Merchandise company was the start of disagreement, and we know Susan and family had a lot of control over the store/merchandising. As an aside, and having nothing to do with the business structure,  Parker is still listed (as of the last time I looked- a couple weeks ago) as the "contact" for the web store on the Quensryche website (which, is, of course, outdated)- but I am sure he was listed as such when he and Miranda were dating- prior to his guitar role in the band. I have had both, Michelle Maison (Susan's friend), and Miranda answer the store phone (more than a year ago when there was an issue with an order for baby onesies). It was definitely under Tate family control. I am sure there was a reason they wanted to transfer it to a third party.

At least on the business end of things in the governing boards, things seem fairly equal, but a distinction is that Tate is not the President or Chairman of any of the businesses (whether that matters or not). In the Rolling Stone article, Tate said he is "25% holder" in their businesses together, so that makes me think he has equal ownership/profit holding shares. Of course, his family being heavily involved in staffing, the Tates take more of the pie from an employee standpoint, and with Susan as manager, that's probably a big blow to her and to Miranda running the store/Facebook Page. Income and power drops significantly for them.

Based on the "Rising West" KISW Men's Room interview in the first week of June, just prior to their live shows... I personally think that there was no band agreement made on the rest of the band structure, who owns the name, etc. One would think that with Geoff's divorce and Chris leaving and the way they have had to set up business with 3 guitarists that there would be something on paper, but it doesn't seem like it's all set in stone by the way Michael and Scott answer the questions below. I like Scott's french fry analogy too.  :)

I also think Geoff Tate assaulting two of the band members, and perhaps not working in the best interest of the company, as a a Director on a Corporate board should, could prove to be detrimental to his attempted legal maneuver.

***************
KISW:
Transcription mine.


Scott: "Everything is day by day right now."

KISW: "I tell my kids that all the time."

Scott: “Hey listen, if my kids take my French fries, I tell them I am going to talk to the guy with the tie, because I’m not sure you have legal right to take my fries right now.”

KISW: “In the legal world, how soon will you guys know what’s able to be done and is this something that was set so long ago that you’re… is it like a oh, God, like a marriage that happened 25 years ago where you have to go back and look at the paperwork and see what was done early on to figure out what’s to come in the future is it one of those… like, are you going to have to pay child support?

Scott: “It’s a major work in progress.”

KISW: “Would you give any advice to any bands who are starting out now and getting ready to sign a record deal and making it in the business. Is there any advice that you would give them in hindsight from this experience that would be something good for them to know for down the road in case they do become successful like Queensryche and they do make it in the world. Is there one thing that you would tell them from this experience that you would be something good for them to know?”

Michael: "MAKE A BAND AGREEMENT!"

Scott: “Everything on paper is always good, and Uh, just know everything about what you do. We’ve been through ups and downs for decades. I mean we’ve known you guys for a long time and you know the history of what we’ve done for 30 years.”

Scott then goes on to repeat what he said in the RealTimeTV interview a couple days earlier saying to "know your business, know the people working for you, you’ve got to trust them" etc.  


edited to add- the governing board and company information I cited all comes from the WA Secretary of State website in a search under corporations. It's public information.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 04:46:28 PM by AynRand »
Logged

symptom

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2012, 04:43:08 PM »

For example -- Steve Perry STILL gets paid by Journey. He has a claim in their future earnings. That happens often in cases like this. I believe that is what Geoff is angling for.  That could also be hugely detrimental to the rest of the band. Because if Geoff successfully gets a court to agree that Tate is owed 25 percent in all future earnings of the band, it's a huge chunk of money over time.

Y'know, I have been thinking along these lines ever since the initial announcement of the formation of Rising West.  When Pink Floyd brought in David Gilmour to initially support and then ultimately replace Syd Barret as he slipped into his own reality, Syd still got his checks for being in Pink Floyd; even after the catalog had surpassed—in quantity—his initial offering.

After reading some of Geoff's comments in the Rolling Stone article about someone else singing the songs, maybe that's ultimately what he's gunning for?  IMO his solution as he wanted it to begin with was that he'd do solo stuff, they'd do Rising West, and after some time away they'd reunite to see if they were a reinvigorated QR.  Knowing that won't happen now, I think that he's looking for a legal settlement that will retain his ownership in the band's business body on the grounds that he is a contributor to what made QR a well-recognized and bankable name to begin with and that if they continued on without him to make money with concerts, merchandise and albums as part of that composing & performing body, he'd expect continued payments on that notion.  It's all conjecture, so the above is worth only the pixels it took to display it.

Also, HAS Queensryche made an official announcement?  I know that a Billboard announcement made it through the media, but has anything been officially announced by individual members, or the Rising West FB page?  Even though they have images with the name on them, I have to wonder if the lack of something from the proverbial horse's mouth is intentional.  I think someone on here (I wish I remembered who) speculated at some point that the guys were perhaps moving on as Queensryche more or less until someone stopped them.  Perhaps making that move to ensure that the other shoe would drop so that they could get the ball rolling on their goal.
Logged

fruitloop

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2012, 11:46:30 AM »

just stick with the name Rising West.......then Geoff gets nothing, things will move on quickly, the guys dont have the baggage that is Q2K through to DTC.......and the fans know that its still pretty much QR so people aint gunna suddenly desert them. Really cant see the point of dragging things through the mud in a long drawn out court process just for the sake of 11 letters. Line in the sand, QR is dead long live RW :metal:
Logged

Eyes Of A Stranger

  • Global Mind
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 871
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2012, 12:36:02 PM »

just stick with the name Rising West.......then Geoff gets nothing, things will move on quickly, the guys dont have the baggage that is Q2K through to DTC.......and the fans know that its still pretty much QR so people aint gunna suddenly desert them. Really cant see the point of dragging things through the mud in a long drawn out court process just for the sake of 11 letters. Line in the sand, QR is dead long live RW :metal:

I disagree. I think they need to fight this so they can bring the name Queensryche from the depths of hades into the light after so many years of the name being tarnished and dragged into pig shit.
Logged

Karst

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #46 on: July 01, 2012, 01:17:32 PM »

RW has little to do with it really, it is the the fast that Tate was sacked. Its what the courtcase essentially is about.
Logged

Big Log

  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1382
  • Buy my album ... it sucks and you can tell me so.
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #47 on: July 01, 2012, 01:50:25 PM »

RW has little to do with it really, it is the the fast that Tate was sacked. Its what the courtcase essentially is about.

The case is about an injunction...most likely about who owns the rights to the name. It has less to do with Tate being axed, and more to do with who can use the name and profit from it.

Tate wants to do to QR the same thing I want to do to my 9 year old 4Runner ... drive it into the ground and milk every penny out of it possible.
Logged
You can put out an album that says FU on the cover ... or you can put out an album that says FU because it kicks ass.  I'll take the latter.

alanjason

  • Global Mind
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 576
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2012, 10:37:06 AM »

I have no ideal how the legal side of band names works. Looking at the history of band members fighting for the rights to the band name, how does it play out?  I mean, what are the main deciding factors on who has more of a right to the name? If Ownership was the deciding factor, it wouldn't even be an issue since Michael, Ed and Scott have 75% owernship. If writing credits are hugely important, then I can see why GT came out with the interview.  But if writing credits are that important, they why wasn't Roger Waters able to keep the other members of Pink Floyd from using the name? Or does everything depend on how the band's contract is written up, which varies from band to band? Just thougth I'd ask.
Logged
I proudly support the men and women
who go UNAPPRECIATED, doing the UNTHINKABLE, for the UNGRATEFUL.

DarkLordTrading

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2012, 11:35:44 AM »

I have no ideal how the legal side of band names works. Looking at the history of band members fighting for the rights to the band name, how does it play out?  I mean, what are the main deciding factors on who has more of a right to the name? If Ownership was the deciding factor, it wouldn't even be an issue since Michael, Ed and Scott have 75% owernship.

I recall Dokken had no problem continuing on after George Lynch left in 1997, but after Jeff Pilson left in early 2001 a clause came into effect that prohibited only 2 original members from using the name w/out some legal maneuvering, a waiver perhaps, which I'm sure resulted in some kind of financial compensation to Jeff in order for him to sign off. As for Queensryche, if each member has 25% say in how the band does business, then perhaps given Tate's tendency to overestimate his worth and value, his case is really that of a disgruntled ex employee who is going to base his argument on his inflated idea of what he and La Tate #2 put into the band and business. At the end of the day, it's always more expensive to be a Plaintiff than it is to be a Defendant.
Logged

Lucretia

  • Khaleesi/Ice Queen
  • Administrator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6940
  • Reformed fan girl...
    • Trans World Tribe
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2012, 11:40:04 AM »

I have no ideal how the legal side of band names works. Looking at the history of band members fighting for the rights to the band name, how does it play out?  I mean, what are the main deciding factors on who has more of a right to the name? If Ownership was the deciding factor, it wouldn't even be an issue since Michael, Ed and Scott have 75% owernship.

I recall Dokken had no problem continuing on after George Lynch left in 1997, but after Jeff Pilson left in early 2001 a clause came into effect that prohibited only 2 original members from using the name w/out some legal maneuvering, a waiver perhaps, which I'm sure resulted in some kind of financial compensation to Jeff in order for him to sign off. As for Queensryche, if each member has 25% say in how the band does business, then perhaps given Tate's tendency to overestimate his worth and value, his case is really that of a disgruntled ex employee who is going to base his argument on his inflated idea of what he and La Tate #2 put into the band and business. At the end of the day, it's always more expensive to be a Plaintiff than it is to be a Defendant.

And while I'm no attorney, I also don't see how the work Susan put into the band would entitle Geoff to the name any more than the other three guys. She was paid management, so her work was compensated. Just because she happened to be married to the singer shouldn't give him any extra consideration in the naming issue, but I could be wrong.
Logged
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

Lucretia

  • Khaleesi/Ice Queen
  • Administrator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6940
  • Reformed fan girl...
    • Trans World Tribe
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2012, 09:21:32 AM »

Some new info has been posted on declarations from several folks on behalf of the Tates, including Jason Slater and Paul Gargano:

Quote
18  06-29-2012 MEMORANDUM  Memorandum Of Pltf Re Prelim Inj   
19  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Geoff Tate   
20  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Karen Ahmed   
21  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Paul Gargano   
22  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Kelly Gray   
23  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Jason Slater   
24  06-29-2012 DECLARATION  Declaration Of Susan Tate   
25  06-29-2012 NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET  Note For Motion Docket /prelim Inj  07-10-2012 
26  06-29-2012 AFFIDAVIT/DCLR/CERT OF SERVICE  Affidavit/dclr/cert Of Service

For the record, a declaration is sort of like an affidavit, but does not have to be done under oath. It saves the plaintiff the trouble of going through a notary, but is still subject to penalty of perjury if proven false.

Also, I suppose this shows where Mr. Slater stands in all of this. Curious...
Logged
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

symptom

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2012, 09:31:52 AM »

Also, I suppose this shows where Mr. Slater stands in all of this. Curious...

I dunno, I feel like a lot of what Jason says is often on the up and up, and I don't think he's firmly entrenched in one camp or another.  I think if he thought either party did something wrong, he wouldn't hesitate to say it.  At least with the way he often words things, I get a good vibe off of him and respect him for it.  Maybe he just feels like he has valid information about recent goings on and wants it to be heard.
Logged

Lucretia

  • Khaleesi/Ice Queen
  • Administrator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6940
  • Reformed fan girl...
    • Trans World Tribe
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2012, 09:36:55 AM »

Also, I suppose this shows where Mr. Slater stands in all of this. Curious...

I dunno, I feel like a lot of what Jason says is often on the up and up, and I don't think he's firmly entrenched in one camp or another.  I think if he thought either party did something wrong, he wouldn't hesitate to say it.  At least with the way he often words things, I get a good vibe off of him and respect him for it.  Maybe he just feels like he has valid information about recent goings on and wants it to be heard.

True, but again, his and the Tates are the only perspectives we have heard.

Also, bear in mind that a declaration like this is voluntary, and not compelled by a subpoena, which begs the question--why even get involved until/unless you have to?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 09:51:33 AM by Lucretia »
Logged
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

ShadowWalker

  • Global Moderator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3030
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2012, 09:54:21 AM »

Don't we have any lawyers with PACER who can get access to these documents and not just a record of who filed what so we can know exactly what they say? This is probably the only time I wish I was a music journalist so I could see the papers (which are usually a part of the public record).

... take what you hear from Slater with a huge grain of salt. Because he's obviously speaking for the Tate contingent on these matters. Wow.

I think the tone of recent posts about the trio revealed that hand (for me at any rate) very clearly...
Logged

SkookS

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2012, 09:59:48 AM »


"25  06-29-2012 NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET  Note For Motion Docket /prelim Inj  07-10-2012" 

I'm no lawyer, but does this mean that a preliminary injunction could be announced on 7-10-2012?
Logged

symptom

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2012, 10:02:11 AM »

Maybe it's because I "like the cut of his jib," but I'm having a hard time accepting all of these as "Geoff's right and they're all wrong" people. 

I myself am type who when asked as a teenager what I wanted out of life answered "The truth."  As such, whenever I see a platform that I think I could access to say what I know/believe, I jump at it—even if I don't like the person who opened the door to that platform.

You guys have already seen that I can't shut up  :biggrin:
Logged

Lucretia

  • Khaleesi/Ice Queen
  • Administrator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 6940
  • Reformed fan girl...
    • Trans World Tribe
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2012, 10:07:58 AM »


"25  06-29-2012 NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET  Note For Motion Docket /prelim Inj  07-10-2012" 

I'm no lawyer, but does this mean that a preliminary injunction could be announced on 7-10-2012?

No, that's the hearing for the injunction.

Yeah, a judge doesn't just rule on an injunction--there has to be a hearing for both sides to present evidence supporting/opposing the injunction.
Logged
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

ShadowWalker

  • Global Moderator
  • Disciple of Dr. X
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3030
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2012, 10:17:05 AM »

"25  06-29-2012 NOTE FOR MOTION DOCKET  Note For Motion Docket /prelim Inj  07-10-2012" 
I'm no lawyer, but does this mean that a preliminary injunction could be announced on 7-10-2012?
No, that's the hearing for the injunction.
Yeah, a judge doesn't just rule on an injunction--there has to be a hearing for both sides to present evidence supporting/opposing the injunction.
And in my journalism career, what I have found is that a decision on a preliminary injunction typically comes very quickly. A judge is going to make a basic decision, based on the evidence presented, whether (s)he feels there is enough evidence to support an injuction. That is not to say once it goes to trial to make an injunction permanent (especially because all evidence is generally not presented to support a preliminary injunction) is auotmatic if a preliminary one is granted (or vise versa, if one is not granted, it is not automatic that a request for permanent injunction will be dismissed). But we should know very quickly if Queensryche will be injuncted from using the name...
Logged

AynRand

  • Guest
Re: On Going Queensryche legal battle in King County Superior Court
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2012, 10:54:00 AM »

Well, there you go folks, take what you hear from Slater with a huge grain of salt. Because he's obviously speaking for the Tate contingent on these matters. Wow.

Seems like that's been pretty obvious for a while now.
Kind of humorous to me that Slater and Gray will be on the same team again under Tate who has thrown them both under the bus so to speak.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 101   Go Up