Celeb News: Bey settles $100 million lawsuit

Duca

Beyoncé Settles $100M Lawsuit With Video Game Company
Gate Five alleged the singer walked away from a motion-sensing dance project.

Beyoncé has wiggled out of a lawsuit brought by a video game company that sued the musician for allegedly backing away from a deal to create a motion-sensing dance game.

Gate Five filed the lawsuit in a New York court in April 2011, claiming that the superstar had acted on "a whim" the previous Christmas with an "extortionate demand" for more compensation for Starpower: Beyoncé. The demands drove away a financier and caused Gate Five to lay off 70 people during the holidays, the lawsuit said.

After saying it spent $6.7 million to develop the project, Gate Five looked to recover the $100 million in estimated profit the game was projected to make. But after a grueling court battle that never got to trial, the two sides have found a way to resolve their differences.

Beyoncé's argument in the case was that she had a valid contractual right to exercise termination provisions after Gate Five was unable to fulfill obligations to obtain $5 million of committed financing for the project.

In opposition, Gate Five contended that it was on the verge of closing a $19.2 million financing contract before Beyoncé got antsy.

In late 2011, a New York Superior judge denied Beyoncé's motion to dismiss, and a state appeals court later affirmed the ruling on the basis that Beyoncé hadn't objected to the loan at the time, the unresolved question of whether the non-finalized financing agreements constituted "committed financing" under the contract, and the possibility that the singer's own actions contributed to the collapse of financing.

In recent months, before the case was settled, the dispute went deeper. Gate Five looked to investigate whether Beyoncé had dropped Gate Five in the interest of scoring a better deal with a competitor. The company sought all sorts of documents, including a possible audit conducted by Beyoncé's law firm on the management company run by her father. Beyoncé's attorneys called it a "fishing expedition" and a breach of attorney-client privilege.

There won't be any trial. Last week, the parties submitted papers in court that discontinue the claims. An attorney for Gate Five couldn't be reached but has been quoted as saying that the lawsuit was settled amicably on confidential terms.

jomarr

Well there goes the Pepsi deal

NLX

Quote:

There won't be any trial.

Queen. /endthread!

Sunshine.

Quote:

Originally posted by jomarr

Well there goes the Pepsi deal

Ok...

KB.

Kisuke

This is old news

King B

Quote:

Originally posted by jomarr

Well there goes the Pepsi deal

What does that have to do with anything?

Kisuke

Quote:

Originally posted by jomarr

Well there goes the Pepsi deal

Because the Carters dont have a 100 million (which that company did not get) on their own

pink.hearts

Quote:

Originally posted by jomarr

Well there goes the Pepsi deal

weren't ya'll the ones saying that the money wasn't going directly to her?

Mister Martian

Quote:

Originally posted by King B

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm sure if the company was seeking 100 mil they settled for no less than 55.

Nicole

Beyonce partners with Pepsi, gets $50M to spend on her projects as she pleases.

Pepsi expects the project to be her new album.

Beyonce tells them the project is actually a $100M lawsuit she needs to settle.

She had it all planned right from the start. Now we know why there was no new music.

Kisuke

Quote:

Originally posted by Nicole

Beyonce partners with Pepsi, gets $50M to spend on her projects as she pleases.

Pepsi expects the project to be her new album.

Beyonce tells them the project is actually a $100M lawsuit she needs to settle.

She had it all planned right from the start. Now we know why there was no new music.

While pepsi also sponsers the tour and the videos for the next album going over the 50 million.

QueenBLadyG

At least it's over. Glad it didn't get any worse.

Reza

Quote:

Originally posted by Kisuke

This is old news

according to who? i didnt hear about a settlement.

_______________

Anyway i wonder who was really telling the truth?

Vin

You can bet that Beyoncé paid out a hefty settlement to Gate Five. I've been following this case because it's a landmark case in the world of gaming. Celebrities have yet to successfully fully crossover into the world of gaming, Beyoncé being another casuality of the crossover. One problem is that celebrities/musicians don't have nearly as much control over the creative direction of games as they do their own careers. Games cost anywhere between 50 million to 200 million to make, so believe me, if you're going to try to pull some crude business tactic or back out of a deal, they are going to DESTROY you and WILL get their money because these are billion dollar companies. It costs more to make games than it does to make the majority of feature films. I do believe Beyoncé DID try to be slick on the business side of things, which basically sabotaged the entire multi-million dollar project, so yes, she most likely basically cancelled out her Pepsi deal with this lawsuit. Beyoncé bit off a little more than she can chew this time. It's a fascinating case, and again, a very big deal within the gaming industry, which may prompt a change in some laws or contracts in the process, when it comes to partnership with celebrities.

I highly advise reading the fascinating rundown of the case here:
http://dlr-law.com/3/post/2012/12/co...12-2-of-5.html.

...Vin

Jaxsin

i just want the video game

cheers09

ffffff;; settlement usually means guilt

Walley

Did anyone expect anything other than a settlement though?

GrandMomCookies

Some of you wish on her down fall lmao I can't

I bet the settlement was to make a new game matter of fact it was bey lawyers aren't stupid

Ascension

Quote:

Originally posted by Vin

You can bet that Beyoncé paid out a hefty settlement to Gate Five. I've been following this case because it's a landmark case in the world of gaming. Celebrities have yet to successfully fully crossover into the world of gaming, Beyoncé being another casuality of the crossover. One problem is that celebrities/musicians don't have nearly as much control over the creative direction of games as they do their own careers. Games cost anywhere between 50 million to 200 million to make, so believe me, if you're going to try to pull some crude business tactic or back out of a deal, they are going to DESTROY you and WILL get their money because these are billion dollar companies. It costs more to make games than it does to make the majority of feature films. I do believe Beyoncé DID try to be slick on the business side of things, which basically sabotaged the entire multi-million dollar project, so yes, she most likely basically cancelled out her Pepsi deal with this lawsuit. Beyoncé bit off a little more than she can chew this time. It's a fascinating case, and again, a very big deal within the gaming industry, which may prompt a change in some laws or contracts in the process, when it comes to partnership with celebrities.

I highly advise reading the fascinating rundown of the case here:
http://dlr-law.com/3/post/2012/12/co...12-2-of-5.html.

...Vin

Ummmm that's only the most influential game lawsuits of the year 2012. It didn't even go to trial for any precedents to be set; it was simply high profile because of who was involved.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Martian

I'm sure if the company was seeking 100 mil they settled for no less than 55.

Yeah because that's totally how lawsuits work. If they really and honestly stood a chance of winning 100 million, do you really think they would have settled for 55 million?

The 100 million dollar figure was simply posturing to begin with; the only actual loss was a total 6.7 million dollars paid out by five different investors. This was a new venture and not an established entity years of documented revenue to reference. It's not possible to prove what could have been made off of what at that point was essentially a gamble -- the game could have been massively successful and net them tens of millions or a massive flop and lost everything they invested; that's simply how investments work.

Monetary damages are about proving actual harm and not potential, which in this case was 6.7 million; which is a lot of money clearly, but, nowhere close to 100 million dollars. It's highly unlikely that this was settled for any more than 10 million or on the extreme high end, 14 million which would have gotten then back double what was actually lost.