Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Backstreet Boys sue Lou Pearlman again

  1. #1
    Elite Member muchlove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,241

    Default Backstreet Boys sue Lou Pearlman again

    The battle of Backstreet still isn't over: A new round has begun with the group filing another lawsuit against Lou Pearlman, the manager/ Svengali who created them.

    The group first sued (and settled with) Pearlman in 1998 to get out of its contract with him (see "Backstreet Boys Settle With Pearlman, Record New Album"), and there have been a number of smaller lawsuits over the years. Last week, the group filed a suit in Orange County, Florida, that makes a number of complicated claims, one of which alleges that Pearlman did not dissolve all of the Boys' business entities but instead used the money to start up new ones in their name.

    The group also charges that Pearlman did not settle with some of its original, pre-stardom members (who were later replaced by Kevin Richardson and Brian Littrell), a move that has cost the latter-day act an undisclosed amount of money that exceeds $15,000.

    The Backstreet Boys are seeking reimbursement from Pearlman and his record label, Trans Continental Records, for monies paid out to former managers Jeanne Tanzy Williams and Sybil Galler Hall and former members Sam Licata and Charles Edwards to settle litigation that they claim was the result of "the actions or inactions of Mr. Pearlman," said the group's lawyer, Jordan Keller. "The Backstreet Boys assumed that Mr. Pearlman had properly dealt with the departures," but after settling with him, "the Backstreet Boys were then sued by these parties and ultimately settled with them in 2004."

    "Regardless of the fact that the Backstreet Boys had done nothing wrong, Mr. Pearlman's actions on behalf of the corporations tainted them," Keller said.

    The suit alleges "abuse of the corporate privilege" and "fraud," and notes that Pearlman had earned the band's trust "by repeatedly stating, among other things, that they were 'family' and that he ... would protect them and look after their best interest." Pearlman had lost the band's trust by 1997, the suit says, when the quintet alleged "a widespread pattern of misappropriation and concealment of revenues generated."

    This conduct continued after that settlement, the suit says, due to Pearlman's "false representations, fraudulent actions and concealments." According to the suit, those included telling the former managers and members to hold onto their stock in the group because it would be valuable, even as he was proceeding with plans to diminish its value, and telling the former managers and members that the Backstreet Boys had not yet realized any profits because they hadn't yet recouped and that any money they had received was tied up "in the pipeline," to convince them not to take legal action against him.

    Because some of these instances date back to the time that Backstreet Boys were originally settling with Pearlman — they ended up paying him $29,500,000 — they're also saying that the settlement was "fraudulently induced," since, according to the suit, he had represented to them that there no other claims known to him that could expose them to liability. For his part, Pearlman said through his spokesperson, Elizabeth Neff, that he's been "operating in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement."

    "We're tired of third party frivolous lawsuits trying to interfere with our settlement," Neff said. "Mr. Pearlman and Trans Continental Records still share in revenue received from the record sales of the Backstreet Boys and wishes them continued success."
    mtvnews

  2. #2
    Gold Member beauty_lies8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    College Campus
    Posts
    1,243

    Default Re: Backstreet Boys sue Lou Pearlman again

    this is the same guy behind nsync right? and then they sued him as well? i think..i don't remember... anyway i hope it works out for bsb.
    http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8910/congo36xq.jpg
    la maison est où le sang est
    avatar credit http://www.livejournal.com/users/teh_indy/

  3. #3
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,606

    Default Re: Backstreet Boys sue Lou Pearlman again

    'under this guy'? uh oh..

  4. #4
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,606

    Default Re: Backstreet Boys sue Lou Pearlman again

    how old are they?

  5. #5
    Elite Member MoodyJenny86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,711

    Default

    Wow...I almost forgot that the Backstreet Boys still existed...

    The brain doesn't need blood. It just needs to be kept wet.

  6. #6
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472

    Default

    this lou seems like a real douche and a half. i liked the bsb in their time. actually, i still listen to their songs sometimes. :O

  7. #7
    Hit By Ban Bus! Femmefatale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    I had to read this article 10x before I realized how poorly written it is. Great job mtv news...anyway


    ”The suit alleges "abuse of the corporate privilege" and "fraud," and notes that Pearlman had earned the band's trust "by repeatedly stating, among other things, that they were 'family' and that he ... would protect them and look after their best interest." Pearlman had lost the band's trust by 1997, the suit says, when the quintet alleged "a widespread pattern of misappropriation and concealment of revenues generated."

    Im not saying whos right or wrong, but stating “hey don’t worry youre like my kids Ill take care of everything” is completely worthless in the real world. And whoever takes that verbal stroking seriously is totally naive. Its like dressed up bar talk. Infact, I take patronizing words like that to mean guaranteed BS. In the business world you cant TRUST anyone or take someone’s word for something--- that’s WHY there are CONTRACTS. So if the bsb believed something simply based on idle chat, then that is their f*ck up---I dont care who said it. Its akin to putting ur house up for sale and thinking "I cant buy a new house til I sell my old one". Then meeting someone who says "I will buy your house for asking price"--and taking that to mean your old house is as good as sold, buying a new one, then being all upset and shocked when the person who said he'd buy it doesnt come thru. The house isnt sold til youve closed on it. And if you took someone's "word for it", your fault not their's

    This conduct continued after that settlement, the suit says, due to Pearlman's "false representations, fraudulent actions and concealments." According to the suit, those included telling the former managers and members to hold onto their stock in the group because it would be valuable, even as he was proceeding with plans to diminish its value, and telling the former managers and members that the Backstreet Boys had not yet realized any profits because they hadn't yet recouped and that any money they had received was tied up "in the pipeline," to convince them not to take legal action against him.”

    Again, NOT Pearlman’s fault in this accusation. Im so sick of people not taking any personal responsibility. Sleazy used car salesmen will sit there and tell a potential buyer what a great purchase a sh*t box is, knowing full well its not an accurate representation. Buyer beware. Lying verbally means nothing in the real world. Its not “nice” but it is not illegal. It sounds like bsb et al were lazy and didnt feel like researching sh*t themselves and are now trying to save face after the fact

    ”Because some of these instances date back to the time that Backstreet Boys were originally settling with Pearlman — they ended up paying him $29,500,000 — they're also saying that the settlement was "fraudulently induced," since, according to the suit, he had represented to them that there no other claims known to him that could expose them to liability. For his part, Pearlman said through his spokesperson, Elizabeth Neff, that he's been "operating in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement."


    I still don’t understand how you can sue Pearlman for saying “as far as I know you have no other liabilities”. Again, hearsay is meaningless. And saying “as far as I know…” is the obvious caveat. BSB are idiots for just ASSUMING they didn’t have to check things out for themselves. Pearlman may be manipulative but that doesnt make him a criminal...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Kevin Richardson Quits the Backstreet Boys
    By sluce in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 27th, 2006, 01:16 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 18th, 2006, 11:37 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 6th, 2006, 07:00 PM
  4. Funniest Video - Backstreet Boys
    By Tenaj in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 16th, 2005, 10:05 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 9th, 2005, 03:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •