Sirius Response
Sirius Response
Sirius Response
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
18
19
20
Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Courtroom:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIRIUS XMS STATEMENT RE:
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Sirius XM submits this statement to apprise the Court of an issue that could
Settlement signed by the parties on November 13, 2016 and submitted to the Court
with plaintiffs preliminary approval motion on November 28, 2016. Doc. 666-4.1
nationwide while allowing the parties to obtain guidance from the New York,
Florida, and California appellate courts on the Performance Right Issue and the
10
In the event that Sirius XM Prevails on the Performance Right Issue in the
11
New York Court of Appeals, the prospective royalty rate provided for in
12
Section IV.C.2 shall be reduced by 2% points (i.e., from 5.5% to 3.5%, if not
13
14
15
New York Court of Appeals, Sirius XM shall pay into the Settlement Fund
16
17
IV(B)(1)-(2).
18
On December 20, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals held that New
19
York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of
20
pre-1972 sound recordings. 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 3811, at *38 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016).
21
This ruling definitively resolves the Performance Right Issue under New York law,
22
along with Flo & Eddies claims challenging Sirius XMs performances of its pre-
23
1972 recordings under New York copyright and unfair competition law, in Sirius
24
XMs favor. See Seto Decl. Ex. A (Sirius XMs Jan. 17, 2017 letter brief to Second
25
Circuit). Under the plain terms of the Stipulation, Sirius XM has Prevail[ed] on
26
the Performance Right Issue in the New York Court of Appealswhich means the
27
royalty rate Sirius XM may have to pay for future performances of class members
28
The capitalized terms used herein are defined in the Stipulation. Doc. 666-4.
SIRIUS XMS STATEMENT RE:
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Class counsel, however, has taken the remarkable position that Flo & Eddie
prevailed on the Performance Right Issue in the New York Court of Appeals
meaning the royalty rate will not be reduced, Sirius XM is required to pay class
fees. Seto Decl. Ex. B; Doc. 670 at 2 & n.2. This position is indefensible and
reflects an attempt to rewrite and repudiate the Stipulation, in violation of its plain
terms and the parties extensively documented negotiations. See Seto Decl. Ex. B.
10
Sirius XM will submit complete briefing addressing these issues if and when
11
appropriate, but the parties dispute may be moot, since class counsel has agreed to
12
abandon its position if the Second Circuit confirms that Flo & Eddies performance
13
claims are no longer viable. Id. Ex. B, 6-12. Because of the position asserted by
14
class counsel, Sirius XM reserves all rights to rescind and challenge the Stipulation,
15
oppose approval of the Stipulation, and oppose class counsels fee motion.
16
17
premature to raise these issues with the Court, since they could be mooted by the
18
Second Circuits decision, but agreed to a stipulation to (1) confirm that Sirius XM
19
reserves all rights to rescind and challenge the Stipulation, oppose approval of the
20
Stipulation, and oppose class counsels fee motion, and its agreement to delay
21
adjudication of these issues pending the Second Circuits decision does not waive
22
any such rights; and (2) amend the proposed Class Notice attached to the
23
24
Id. On January 24, 2017, class counsel reneged on (1), forcing Sirius XM to
25
separately submit this statement in order to apprise the Court of the parties dispute
26
in advance of the preliminary approval hearing scheduled for January 30, 2017.
27
Id. The parties are continuing to meet and confer about the amended Class Notice,
28
Dated:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3