Court of Appeal bites 'Dog' in TAA case

By Matthew Belloni

Here's an appellate decision that should be of interest to showbiz lawyers who navigate the murky waters of California's Talent Agencies Act. 

In our experience, courts tend shy away from interfering with TAA disputes pending before the California Labor Commission, the venue in which actors and others often try to extricate themselves from contracts by arguing that someone acted as an unlicensed talent agent.  

So we were a bit surprised to see this week that the California Court of Appeal has bitten reality TV personality Duane "Dog" Chapman on the hand, ruling that a New York lawsuit filed by would-be "Dog the Bounty Hunter" producer Boris Krutonog against the producers and distributors of the hit A&E show can go forward at the same time as Chapman continues to battle Krutonog in front of the Labor Commissioner.

Chris Brown's former agents sue for $475K

By Eriq Gardner

R&B singer Chris Brown has trouble with relationships. 

Earlier in the year, Brown pleaded guilty to assaulting his pop star girlfriend, Rihanna. Now, on the brink of releasing his comeback album, "Graffiti," Brown's former talent agency has taken aim at some of his closest business partners.

Boy Blue has filed a lawsuit against Sony Music, Zomba Recordings, Hit Mission Music Production and Lamont Flemming for tortiously interfering with its business relationship with Brown.

According to the complaint, Brown's mother, Joyce Hawkins, gave Boy Blue exclusive artist representation of her then-underage singer in 2002. The management agreement was for a one-year period with automatic yearly renewals for four additional years unless Boy Blue provided written notice that it wanted out. Boy Blue says that Brown agreed to fork over 25% of his gross income, although the talent agency admits it "inadvertently omitted" the percentage term from its executed copy.

In September 2002, Boy Blue says it became harder and harder to reach Brown. When the agency finally got in contact, Brown said he was unsure whether he wanted to continue pursuing a career as a recording artist. Boy Blue responded he was still bound by his agreement.

Over the next few years, Brown made deals without the involvement of Boy Blue, including with Hit Mission to produce and with Sony's Zomba Recordings to release albums. In 2004, Brown sent notice to Boy Blue disaffirming the management agreement.

Boy Blue claims the agreement was still in full force and now seeks damages of at least $475,000. 

Korean talent agencies hold more power than talent

By Eriq Gardner

There's been a wave of client defections at Hollywood agencies lately, as diminishing star salaries have caused talent develop wandering eyes.

If things get too rough for agents, there's always Korea.

According to The Korea Times, contracts requiring stars to remain under an agency's wings for up to 13 years are standard in the entertainment industry there. Currently, Korean pop group TVXQ is leading a charge against so-called "slave contracts," suing their agency, SM Entertainment, in hopes of revising their contract and getting better profit participation. 

The country doesn't seem to have anything similar to California's Talent Agencies Act, limiting the power of agencies over talent here, although the Korean government is attempting to get involved. The Fair Trade Commission is recommending a standard contract for artists and agencies. 

Socialism? There's probably a better chance of health care legislation being passed than that happening here, regardless of what some in town might like.

Mark Burnett faces off with ex-associate: Was Conrad Riggs an agent?

By Matthew Belloni

Spotting a talent agent isn’t always as easy as looking for the dark suit at a hot August movie premiere.

Just ask Mark Burnett.

Last week, the reality kingpin sat in a California Labor Commission hearing trying to prove that Conrad Riggs, his former attorney and business associate, had for years operated as an unlicensed agent who illegally negotiated megadeals for such iconic shows as “Survivor” and “The Apprentice.”

The outcome of the proceeding, which could render moot a $70 million lawsuit Riggs filed last summer seeking a cut of revenue from Burnett’s company, provides a high-stakes twist on typical Talent Agency Act cases. Actors and recording artists often try to avoid paying managers by accusing them of performing the work of agents, who are exclusively empowered to “procure” employment. The commissioner can void contracts if a single violation is found, a harsh remedy meant to scare managers away from trampling on agent turf.

But Burnett is hardly your average piece of talent, and Riggs maintains that he and Burnett were sophisticated business partners in one of the most successful independent TV production companies ever.

When “Shark Tank” premieres on Sunday on ABC, Burnett will have a series on all four broadcast nets, plus a slew of cable shows. So it’s easy to forget that in the late ’90s, “kicked off” was a TV term that only applied to football games. Shortly after the former paratrooper was introduced to Riggs, a one-time Disney exec with some industry contacts, they made an oral agreement: Riggs would set up some meetings and help Burnett hammer out the financial side of his business — including negotiating with networks — and they would split revenue from the deals 90-10.

Sounds like an agent, right? But the relationship is a bit more complex. During the next decade, Riggs says he and his company, Cloudbreak Entertainment, became de facto partners with Mark Burnett Prods., playing a hands-on role in turning the company into a powerhouse. It was Riggs, he argues, who encouraged Burnett to perform his original “Survivor” pitch as if he were telling a story around a campfire so network execs could get a sense of how the show would play. And it was Riggs whose negotiation skills helped make Burnett’s entity worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Conrad Riggs was Mark Burnett’s partner and an essential part of the success of Mark Burnett Prods.,” Riggs’ attorney Bart Williams says.

But during the seven-day hearing that ended July 30, Burnett’s camp countered that Riggs was merely a hired hand on the company’s deals, which earned Riggs more than $25 million in commissions until 2007, when Burnett started using other negotiators. “Riggs was never Burnett’s ‘partner’ or a co-owner of any of Burnett’s businesses,” says Burnett attorney Harry Mittleman, who cross-examined Riggs for four days. “He was Burnett’s lawyer and manager, and we will show that Riggs breached his ethical and professional duties.”

The jobs of Hollywood agents, managers and lawyers never have been clearly defined. Burnett has always gone without a traditional agency for his unscripted projects, and he says Riggs played that role, never appearing on the payroll as an employee or officer of the company — much less a partner. And the timing of the lawsuit last summer, amid Burnett’s negotiations (since tabled) with several suitors to possibly sell a chunk of his company for as much as $500 million, suggests that Riggs simply wanted to stake his claim to a piece of a sale.      

But Riggs’ attorney says Burnett is trying to downplay his client’s role in the company. His negotiations for Burnett don’t run afoul of the law because, in part, he was merely doing his job as an integral part of the enterprise. “Mark Burnett Prods. employs talent to make shows; among those people were Mark Burnett and Conrad Riggs,” Williams says. “To make a finding that Riggs was operating as an agent would have a sweeping impact on Hollywood and allow business partners to try to void their deals.”

Edna Garcia Earley, the labor lawyer who heard evidence in the hearing, will forward her findings to the commissioner, who might take months to issue a ruling. If Riggs violated the TAA, the commission could void his deal with Burnett in its entirety. That would kick him off the island, boot him from the boardroom, render him dumber than a fifth-grader — whatever Burnett metaphor you want to use. But regardless of the outcome, the lesson is: An agent might be an agent, even if he doesn’t look or act the part.

Supreme Court Gives Another Boost to Managers with 'Judge Alex' Decision

Posted by Matthew Heller

In the ongoing struggle between talent managers and the clients who fire them, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision yesterday in a case brought by TV's Judge Alex may be the second court ruling in less than a month to tilt the balance of power toward management.

As reported in today's THR, the Supremes found that Alex Ferrer's contract dispute with manager Arnold Preston should be heard by an arbitrator and not, as Ferrer contended, by California's labor commissioner. Under the state's Talent Agency Act, all disputes are referred to the commission, which tends to be hostile to managers who "procure" employment for clients, as outlawed by the TAA. But the high court said the act was superseded by the arbitration clause in the Ferrer-Preston contract.

"[W]hen parties agree to arbitrate all questions rising under a contract, state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative, are superseded by the FAA," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for an 8-1 majority.

Analyzing the Blasi/Marathon Talent Manager Commissions Case

Posted by Matthew Belloni

The California Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Marathon Entertainment v. Blasi, the closely-watched case concerning talent managers who "procure" work for their clients. Here's the decision.

For those unfamiliar with the issues, a quick refresher: Under California's strict Talent Agencies Act, only licensed talent agents can "procure" jobs for clients; managers may not, although it's no secret that almost every single manager has solicited work for a client at one point or another. They do so knowing the punishment is that a client who wants to leave them can later ask the state's Labor Commissioner to void the management contract if the manager is found to have procured work without a license.

That's what happened to Rick Siegel and his company, Marathon Entertainment, when actress Rosa Blasi (Lifetime's "Strong Medicine") decided to end their relationship. She stopped paying commissions, he sued, then she got the Labor Commissioner to declare the deal void because Siegel had procured work, even though that work was unrelated to "Strong Medicine."

There's the issue. Siegel and his lawyers, led by Donald Smiley, convinced the state appellate court that a single act of procurement shouldn't necessarily void the entire agreement and in certain instances a violation of the Talent Agencies Act should be "severable" from the rest of the deal. In short, even though Siegel may have violated the law, he shouldn't lose the "Strong Medicine" commission because he didn't illegally help procure it.