Update #275 - AllGood appeals dismissal / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

[riviera1992]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

^^^ Thanks for the great info.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

thanks for the updates as ive been away. seems the breach of contract case is very weak aswell. but presuming this goes to a jury trial? then who knows. petty daft having ppl with no clue about business law determining whats right and what isnt

 

[christy]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

estate (Branca and McClain representing Michael) is still listed as defendants so they are still being sued however it doesn't look like they filed anything with the court. AEG and Dileo did file opposing documents.

No Dileo is still being sued for breach of contract. It looks like AEG is off the hook.

true . for the other claims (fraud, false promises etc) judge says there's no evidence to support and prove it according to the law.

breach of contract is not determined. For example

judge says the contract says a "letter of intent" , needs "written confirmation" from MJ on one hand however on the other hand it says "its a binding agreement".

(Judge also says that need for a "written confirmation" from MJ is a strong evidence that this wasn't an enforceable final contract but just an intent letter.)

AllGood claims breach of contract but Dileo says they first breached it by not paying him the money they promised (and therefore he wasn't under any obligation).

Although the judge's wording looks like he thinks AllGood doesn't have a strong case (uses "just enough facts" for example) he will let the "breach of contact" to be determined in the court.

It's a weak breach. Dileo can claim intent is not even honoured because of non-payment, or in this instance - an advance.
What monetary loss did All Good Entertainment incurr since no money has ever left their pockets? Only for loss of face and bragging rights and opportunity costs.

 

[Roxa]

Re: $300M Lawsuit Against Michael Jackson Tossed

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/02/28582.htm

$300M Lawsuit Against Michael Jackson Tossed


By JONATHAN PERLOW
ShareThis

(CN) - A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed most of a $300 million lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson's proported ex-manager and AEG, the promoter of Jackson's "This Is It" tour, of cutting another promoter out of a deal to produce the return concert for the King of Pop.
AllGood Entertainment sued Frank Dileo, Jackson's alleged manger, along with Dileo Entertainment, AEG and the special administrators of Jackson's estate, John Branca and John McClain.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. dismissed claims for fraud and tortious interference with contract but allowed a claim for breach of contract to proceed. Trial is set for October.
AllGood claims it had a binding agreement with the pop star's management in which it would produce his first concert tour in years or a Jackson Family reunion concert featuring Michael, Janet and others.
Dileo allegedly signed a deal with AllGood for a concert tentatively titled "The Jackson Family Reunion: A Concert for the World," in consideration for $24 million. Another $2 million went to Dileo Entertainment as a partial payment, AllGood said.
Michael Jackson died in June 2009 in his Los Angeles home of a drug overdose while preparing for a series of comeback concerts in London, which were going to be produced by AEG.
Dileo allegedly told AllGood CEO Patrick Allocco that he was Michael Jackson's manager and "could make the [e]vent a reality." Dileo said that he already spoke to Jackson about the idea and that the pop star was "very interested."
Dileo represented that he had "the power to bind [Michael] Jackson and/or the Jackson Family to an agreement requiring them to perform," the lawsuit claims.
After a deal was signed, AllGood claims, it learned Jackson and Dileo "secretly teamed up" with the AEG Defendants to produce a concert or series of concerts in London, along with "perhaps" a pay-per-view Jackson Family reunion event.
AllGood asserts that "AEG knew of a deal between Dileo and AllGood, but due to 'dominance and power in the live performance industry, coerced and/or induced Dileo and Jackson to disregard the agreements with AllGood and to work with it instead,'" according to the lawsuit.
Judge Baer wasn't fully convinced.
"The Dileo defendants make a strong showing, based on the plain language of the contract, that the binding agreement is merely an agreement to agree and should not be construed as an enforceable contract," Baer wrote. "The document itself states that it is a 'letter of intent.'"
Baer noted that "the location of the performance is not listed and a number of the conditions are at best vaguely described or set to be negotiated at a later date," the ruling states.
The contract required some sort of "written confirmation" from Michael Jackson and possibly the Jackson family as well, according to the judge.
But Baer said there was "sufficient factual ambiguity that it would not be appropriate to dismiss as matter of law at the pleading state."
AllGood argued that the deal was not an "agreement to agree" but an enforceable contract."While I am highly skeptical that this in fact amounts to a complete and enforceable agreement, any judgment about the meaning of this ambiguous agreement necessarily requires an inquiry into the actual facts and is better suited for a motion after discovery or a jury," the judge concluded.

So, a ''agrement to agree'' would be a ''previous contract''. Like, ''I signed this to just to promisse that I will do what is on the agreement, probabilly.'' ?
Well, I see this on the football and generally is when a player makes a agreement with a club that he will signed with it soon.... This is to ensure that he will not sign with any other. I guess this is what I understand.

 

[Roxa]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

So basically Dileo is off the hook and MJ is going to have to pay something.

Yes, this is what I just understand too.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

not at all

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Suit Against Jackson Estate Over Final Tour

Victor Li

New York Law Journal
July 09, 2010
function EmailWindow(param) { if (param!=null) { var page="/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=PubArticle&cid=" + param + "&rendermode=view&t=sendEmail"; window.open(page,"emailwindow","toolbar=no,scrollbars=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,resizable=no,width=469,height=440"); } else { alert("no param"); } }


A federal judge in Manhattan said Beat It to most counts in a $300 million suit filed against Michael Jackson's estate, Jackson's supposed ex-manager, and Anshutz Entertainment Group over promotional rights to the comeback tour the King of Pop was planning prior to his death last summer.
The plaintiff, AllGood Entertainment, Inc., alleged in a May 2009 complaint (filed a month before Jackson died) that Jackson, though his purported manager, Frank Dileo, had signed a deal to perform either a solo concert tour or a Jackson Family reunion concert to be promoted by AllGood. But months after striking its deal with Dileo, AllGood alleged, AllGood found out that Jackson had, in fact, agreed to work with AEG on the "This Is It" series of shows scheduled to begin in London in the fall of 2009. Represented by Meyerowitz Jekielek, AllGood claimed breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference against Jackson, Dileo and AEG.
But Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer found in AllGood Entertainment, Inc. v. Dileo Entertainment and Touring, Inc., 09 Civ. 5377, there were "no specific factual allegations" to support AllGood's claim for tortious interference, and AllGood's factual basis for fraud was "at best thin." In an 18-page ruling, the judge denied AllGood's request for an injunction and granted defense motions to dismiss the fraud and tortious interference claims. He denied a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, finding there was sufficient uncertainty for it to proceed. But the judge seemed skeptical about whether AllGood even had an enforceable contract with Dileo, agreeing with defendants that the document in question was more of a letter of intent rather than a binding offer and acceptance.
AEG's lead counsel, Kathleen Ann Jorrie of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, told us she was not surprised by the ruling. "I believe the judge is correct in his assessment, and that he did a very thorough analysis in his review of both our motion and Dileo's. It was nice to receive it when we did, because we were in the process of preparing a summary judgment motion," Jorrie said. AEG, she noted, is now out of the case because it is not a party to the surviving breach of contract claim.
Howard Weitzman of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert, who is counsel to Jackson's estate, said he intends to file a summary judgment motion on the contract claim within the week. "From the estate's perspective … Michael Jackson never agreed to anything, never breached any agreement, and … should not be held liable for any damages that were incurred, if they were incurred," he said. "Based on what I know today, I don't think any truthful fact will surface that will change my opinion that the estate does not owe AllGood anything." (Frank Dileo, according to the docket, was represented by Greenberg Traurig. He could not be reached for comment.)
Plaintiffs lawyers Ira Scot Meyerowitz and Jon Damon Jekielek of Meyerowitz Jekielek said that they were still expecting a Thriller of a trial in the fall. "We were disappointed that the claims against AEG were dismissed, but we're encouraged that the claims our client has against Dileo and the estate of Michael Jackson are still in play," Jekielek said. "We've gone forward with depositions and discovery over the last couple of months, and we're more confident in our claims against the remaining parties."
Meyerowitz said he was not ready to give up on claims against AEG. "I may consider a motion for reconsideration," he said. "We believe there is knowledge on AEG's side, however we don't have the smoking gun we need. What do you do when you have a person who is dead like Michael Jackson, who can't say he knew about the AllGood agreement and told AEG about it?"
Victor Li is a reporter for The American Lawyer, an affiliate of the New York Law Journal

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?...n_Suit_Against_Jackson_Estate_Over_Final_Tour#

 

[MJStorm]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

AEG, she noted, is now out of the case because it is not a party to the surviving breach of contract claim.

The Estate is alone now.

 

[blankyluvdoodoo]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

estate and delio.

 

[ivy]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

So basically Dileo is off the hook and MJ is going to have to pay something.

Yes, this is what I just understand too.

The Estate is alone now.

No. Frank Dileo and MJ's estate is still being sued for breach of contract. Only AEG is no longer a part of the lawsuit. (Of course that can change if AllGood files the motion to reconsideration however their own lawyer says that they don't have the evidence to tie it to AEG).

 

[MJStorm]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

No. Frank Dileo and MJ's estate is still being sued for breach of contract. Only AEG is no longer a part of the lawsuit. (Of course that can change if AllGood files the motion to reconsideration however their own lawyer says that they don't have the evidence to tie it to AEG).

I know that, but Frank has no money.

 

[ivy]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

I know that, but Frank has no money.

Doesn't matter. In the end if the judge/jurors think that only Frank is guilty of breach of contract it would mean a judgement against Frank. Then AllGood can collect the money from Frank (if they can when they can).
If both MJ and Frank is seen as guilty then estate and Frank will share the judgement. In that case estate will pay for their part.
They cannot legally force MJ's estate pay for Frank.

 

[MJStorm]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

^^^^^^^^In my country is different. If both MJ and Frank is seen as guilty then estate would have to pay Frank's part. Obviously the Estate could sue Frank.

But this case is a joke. I hope the Estate pay nothing.

 

[ivy]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Actually I'm going to ask that (both found guilty) to a more legally experienced friend. I'm not sure and you might be right that a joint judgement might be collected from any party - I'll check it.

However I personally do not think that breach of contract would stick against Michael (and his estate) as he has never signed anything including the required written confirmation. If anything IMO in the end only Frank could be found guilty of breach of contract.

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Breach of contract

Here, the Dileo Defendants make a strong showing, based on the plain language of the
contract, that the Binder Agreement is merely an agreement to agree and should not be construed as an enforceable contract. The document itself states that it is a “letter of intent” and that “pon receipt of a signed copy of this letter, then we will proceed with full acting contract Agreement at later agreeable date.” Heller Decl., Ex. C at 3. The location of the performance is not listed and a number of conditions are at best vaguely described or set to be negotiated at a later date. The contract requires some sort of “written confirmation” from Michael Jackson and possibly the Jackson Family as well. However, while the open-ended nature of so many terms and the language of certain clauses imply that this is merely a letter of intent, there is sufficient factual ambiguity that it would not be appropriate to dismiss as matter of law at the pleading stage. The Binder Agreement also includes the statement that “[t]his contract constitutes a complete and binding agreement between the PURCHASER and the Jacksons (ARTIST/S).” Heller Decl., Ex. C at 3. Further, Plaintiffs allege that the parties
intended this agreement to be an enforceable contract. While I am highly skeptical that this in fact amounts to a complete and enforceable agreement, any judgment about the meaning of this ambiguous agreement necessarily requires an inquiry into the actual facts and is better suited for a motion after discovery or a jury.

Defendants next argue that the contract was subject to a condition precedent, in that it
was contingent upon receipt of written confirmation from Jackson and the Jackson Family. Tennessee law provides that “[a] party's obligation to perform a contract is relieved if that party in good faith is unable to complete conditions precedent by a closing deadline.” Davidson & Jones Dev. Co. v. Elmore Dev. Co., Inc., 921 F.2d 1343, 1350 (6th Cir.1991) (citing Covington v. Robinson, 723 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn. App. 1986)). Again, there is significant logical force behind Defendants’ argument. The Binder Agreement contract language does in fact carve out “120 days to acquirer [sic] written confirmation from all family members involved.” Heller Decl., Ex. B ¶ 3(B). However, the language does not expressly state that confirmation is a necessary precondition for effective agreement, or that any performance of the Binder Agreement is subject to the ratification of Jackson or his family. Moreover, while “even without an express contractual provision, a party to a contract must in good faith work to see that the
terms of conditions precedent occur,” Davidson, 921 F.2d at 1351, whether the Dileo Defendants worked in good faith to secure this alleged condition precedent is one that cannot be determined at the pleading stage. This “written confirmation” clause certainly lends even more credence to the Dileo Defendants’ argument that no enforceable contract was ever agreed to, but the Amended Complaint recites just enough facts to sufficiently plead a breach of contract claim to survive a motion to dismiss. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(c) (conditions precedent need not be alleged with particularity unless denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed).

The Dileo Defendants also argue that AllGood’s breach of contract claim should be
dismissed because Plaintiffs breached the contract first. Specifically, they point to the language that apparently required AllGood to pay $2 million to Dileo “on or before December 31st, 2008” and $400,000 “mmediately upon written confirmation of this deal,” Heller Decl., Ex. B ¶ 3(A), and claim that AllGood failed to make these payments. “A party who has materially breached a contract is not entitled to damages stemming from the other party's later material breach of the same contract.” McClain v. Kimbrough Constr. Co., Inc., 806 S.W.2d 194, 199 (Tenn. Ct. App.1990) (citations omitted); see also Lee Masonry, Inc. v. City of Franklin, No. M2008-02844-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 1713137, at *10 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 28, 2010). The Binder Agreement language does indicate that AllGood needed to pay certain amounts of money to the Dileo Defendants within certain time frames to satisfy their part of the agreement. Also notable,
Plaintiffs simply chose not to address whether or not they actually performed their end of the alleged bargain in the motion papers and only generally allege in the Amended Complaint that they “fully performed,” see Am. Compl. ¶ 68, lending strong credence to the idea that they may in fact not have done so. But unlike New York law, Tennesee does not require a Plaintiff to affirmatively plead performance as an essential element of the claim, and the question of which party breached first requires at least some factual development in a case such as this one.

Finally, the Dileo Defendants claim that AllGood has failed to allege any facts that
plausibly infer that they breached the NDA Agreement. However, Plaintiffs do make certain factual allegations about the Dileo Defendant’s conduct with regard to NDA Agreement, specifically that they “disclos[ed] information prepared and/or provided by AllGood to third parties including AEG” and breached noncircumvention and noncompete terms by agreeing to do the London show with AEG. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 64-65. This is certainly not the most detailed or clear pleading by a plaintiff, and, as noted above, I am fairly skeptical that this agreement is even applicable to the Dileo Defendants given the differing signatures and language of the document itself. But Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged enough facts to state a breach of contract cause of action and the contract is ambiguous enough that it would be improper to conclude at the pleading stage that it does not apply to the Dileo Defendants.

 

[Krshna28]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Dileo signed the contract...........

Michael knew nothing of it..........

So Dileo should pay!!!!!!!.......His Mistake!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Roxa]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

No. Frank Dileo and MJ's estate is still being sued for breach of contract. Only AEG is no longer a part of the lawsuit. (Of course that can change if AllGood files the motion to reconsideration however their own lawyer says that they don't have the evidence to tie it to AEG).

Yes, Dielo has to pay too. He signed.

 

[Vici]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

It's All Good For Michael Jackson
38 minutes ago by TMZ Staff

Michael Jackson would be smiling today ... if circumstances were different, of course, because a judge just dismissed a $300 million lawsuit that had been filed against him.

A federal judge in New York just dismissed a lawsuit filed by AllGood Entertainment, claiming Michael had agreed through an agent to perform several Jackson family reunion concerts in Indiana before going on the road with any other show.

AllGood claimed ... by agreeing to do the London concerts, Jackson breached his agreement with AllGood.

The federal judge ruled today ... Jackson's agent -- Frank Dileo -- merely struck the deal with AllGood in principle, that couldn't become binding without the sign-offs of MJ and his brothers. The judge also said the deal was just too sketchy to be enforceable.

The case had been partially dismissed last month. Now it's officially history.

Howard Weitzman, the lawyer for the Michael Jackson Estate, tells TMZ, "This case never had any merit

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Judge dismisses promoters' lawsuit against Jackson
(AP) – 21 minutes ago
NEW YORK — A federal judge has dismissed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by a concert promoter against the late Michael Jackson over a failed reunion concert.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. on Thursday granted a motion by lawyers for Jackson's estate to dismiss the case.
Allgood Entertainment sued Jackson on June 10, 2009, roughly two weeks before the singer's death in Los Angeles at age 50. They claimed Jackson and his then-manager broke a contract for a Jackson reunion show.
Baer wrote in the ruling that if there was a breach in the contract, Allgood broke the agreement first.
An after-hours phone message left for Allgood's attorney, Ira Meyerowitz, was not immediately returned.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcVT1QJugVoU6MUY0abRKuZGSoWAD9HMRTBO3

 

[PCR]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

So that means... this is finally over?

 

[Vici]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

So that means... this is finally over?

Yes!! Finally!!!!!!!!!! (Hopefully they wont be able to appeal !!)

 

[PCR]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Michael Jackson would be smiling today ... if circumstances were different, of course, because a judge just dismissed a $300 million lawsuit that had been filed against him.

... I think I hate the silly sarcasm of those Totally Mean Zombies known as tmz :angry:

 

[PCR]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Yes!! Finally!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully they wont be able to appeal !!

OMG!!!!!!!!
So now all his "debts" are finished?
for I guessed this was the one standing still... sorry, but this has always got me confused :doh:

 

[Vici]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

OMG!!!!!!!!
So now all his "debts" are finished?
for I guessed this was the one standing still... sorry, but this has always got me confused :doh:

Im not sure if all of his debts are cleared but this is a big victory because I believe this was one, if not THE biggest lawsuit against the estate.

Raymone Bain also sued for a ridicolous amount of cash, 44million and that was tossed out too and now this one... yaaaaaaaaaay !! soo im pretty sure that the biggest claims against the estate have proven to have NO merit!!

 

[ivy]

Re: Update #193 - Case partially tossed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

The federal judge ruled today ... Jackson's agent -- Frank Dileo -- merely struck the deal with AllGood in principle, that couldn't become binding without the sign-offs of MJ and his brothers. The judge also said the deal was just too sketchy to be enforceable.

The case had been partially dismissed last month. Now it's officially history.

Baer wrote in the ruling that if there was a breach in the contract, Allgood broke the agreement first.

First of all let me say YAY :dancin: this is wonderful news.

OMG!!!!!!!!
So now all his "debts" are finished?
for I guessed this was the one standing still... sorry, but this has always got me confused :doh:

already existing debts ($300M+) is still out there and is still being paid.

IF this case went to court and if All Good won some or all of their lawsuit that would mean additional debt for the estate.

Now we know that the estate will not be burdened with additional payments so it's good.

 

[Buttercup]

Re: Update #228 - Case totally dismissed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

This is good news! (It's a shame the lawsuit was ever filed in the first place though, especially 2 weeks before MJ's death.)

 

[Vici]

Re: Update #228 - Case totally dismissed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Baer wrote in the ruling that if there was a breach in the contract, Allgood broke the agreement first.

Ivy or anyone else.. why do you think the judge believes AllGood broke the agreement first? What did they do??

 

[raz2911]

Re: Update #228 - Case totally dismissed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

+1 How did they break the agreement.

I'm glad this is finally over, little over a year ago I remember being nearly in tears when I heard they were trying to cancel the TII shows, little did I know what was to come :weeping:

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: Update #228 - Case totally dismissed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Judge dismisses promoters' lawsuit against Jackson
(AP) – 24 minutes ago
NEW YORK — A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by a concert promoter against the late Michael Jackson over a failed reunion concert.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. granted a motion by lawyers for Jackson's estate to dismiss the case, citing a lack of evidence that the late King of Pop or his family were under a binding agreement to perform at a reunion concert.
AllGood Entertainment, a company started in Morristown, N.J., sued Jackson for $40 million on June 10, 2009, roughly two weeks before the singer's death in Los Angeles at age 50. It claimed Jackson and his then-manager broke a contract for a Jackson reunion show.
AllGood later filed a creditor's claim with Jackson's estate, claiming the potential value of the lawsuit was at least $300 million.
Baer determined that there was a letter of intent between Jackson's then-manager, Frank DiLeo, and AllGood. He noted that neither Jackson nor any other members of the family who were to be involved in the show ever signed a contract.
The judge also wrote in the ruling that if there was a breach in the contract, AllGood broke the agreement first because it did not issue a payment to Jackson before a required deadline.
"This case never had any merit and the claim was frivolous from day one," Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman said in a statement. "Michael Jackson never agreed to participate in a concert promoted by AllGood as the judge clearly found in his opinion."
An after-hours phone message left for AllGood's attorney, Ira Meyerowitz, was not immediately returned.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcVT1QJugVoU6MUY0abRKuZGSoWAD9HMSL4O1

 

[ivy]

Re: Update #228 - Case totally dismissed / AllGood Entertainment lawsuit Against MJ / Dileo/ AEG

Ivy or anyone else.. why do you think the judge believes AllGood broke the agreement first? What did they do??

+1 How did they break the agreement.

AllGood claims breach of contract (for Dileo and MJ) but Dileo says they first breached it by not paying him the money they promised (and therefore he wasn't under any obligation).

apparently judge thought what Dileo said made more sense legally.

and from article

The judge also wrote in the ruling that if there was a breach in the contract, AllGood broke the agreement first because it did not issue a payment to Jackson before a required deadline.