news:

news main page

07/14/04
All Legal Action is Over!

06/22/04
It's Getting Crazier
and Crazier Folks!

01/30/04
Update on the Lawsuits Against Dead Kennedys

06/20/03
Excerpts From The Appellate Decision

06/19/03
DKs Completely Vindicated In Appeal

04/09/03
Statement of Facts

11/12/02
DKs Respond to Lawsuit

08/28/02
DKs v ATR Appeal

03/27/02:
DKs Puzzled By Biafra's Latest Legal Maneuver

01/16/01:
DKs Plan New Releases

10/29/98:
DKs Sue Jello Biafra

10/01/98:
DKs Sever Ties with ATR

I.   INTRODUCTION
II.  STATEMENT OF FACTS
      A. The Parties
      B. Dead Kennedys
      C. The Decay Music Partnership
      D. Alternative Tentacles Records
      E. Biafra’s Fiduciary and Contractual Breaches
      F. Biafra’s Deception About Underpayment of Royalties
      G. Termination of the ATR Agreement
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      A. Commencement of Action
      B. Removal and Remand
      C. Answer and Cross-Complaint(s)
      D. Resolution of Post-Lawsuit Sales by ATR/Mordam
      E. Biafra’s Federal Court Action
      F. Trial of the Action
      G. Evidence at Trial
      H. The Jury Verdicts
      I. The Trial Court’s Statement of Decision
      J. Judgment and Appeal(s)
IV. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL
      A. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Factual Determination that as Among the Decay Music Partners, the Band’s Musical Compositions or Songs Were Owned in the Percentages Set Out in the 1991 Partnership Agreement.
      B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s Determination That the 1991 Partnership Agreement Was a "Writing" Satisfying the Copyright Act’s Statute of Frauds and Transferring "Ownership" From the Partners to the Decay Music Partnership
      C. The Partnership’s Exclusive Rights Did Not Terminate Upon Dissolution of the Decay Music Partnership
      D. The Partnership’s Damage Claims for Breach of Contract Against Biafra Were Not Time-Barred
      E. There Was Substantial Evidence That Biafra’s Partners Detrimentally Relied Upon His Misrepresentations in His Attempt to Fraudulently Induce Them to Enter into a Perpetual Worldwide Contract with ATR
      F. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury’s Verdicts Against Biafra With Respect to UK/Europe Distribution and the Breach of Fiduciary Duty to His Partners
      G. The Band’s Album Artwork Belongs to the Partnership
V.  CONCLUSION RE APPEAL
VI. ARGUMENT ON CROSS-APPEAL
      A. The Trial Court Committed Error in Granting Biafra’s Petition for Dissolution
      B. The Trial Court Erred in Overturning the Jury’s Verdict on the Issue of the Partnership’s Ownership of Rights in the Band’s Creative Works
      C. The Jury Verdict Against East Bay Ray is Internally Inconsistent and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
VII. CONCLUSION RE CROSS-APPEAL