Daryl Hall is a man-eater. Kissing John Oates isn’t on Daryl’s list. Hall & Oates are out of touch and out of time. And now they face each other in court, one on one. Say it’s not so! Because we can’t do that (that doesn’t work).
Yes, Hall & Oates’ puns pretty much write themselves. But the court battle between Daryl Hall and John Oates is really nothing to laugh about. It likely marks the end of the most successful duo in pop history – ahead of the Carpenters, the Everly Brothers and Simon & Garfunkel – after 33 Billboard Hot 100 hits, 14 million albums sold and more than 50 years together.
When the news broke on November 17th – initially via a tweet by Nashville journalist Nate Rau – that Hall filed a lawsuit against Oates in Nashville’s Chancery Court and even filed a restraining order against his longtime music partner came as a shock. While court documents remain under wraps, more details have emerged about the legal battle between the two War Babies legends. You can find adult education information about this case here.
Why is Hall suing Oates?
According to a Nov. 23 report from TMZ, Hall & Oates were in arbitration over which songs Oates could perform live at his solo concerts. Oates, who made several appearances this month, co-wrote many of the duo’s hits, including “She’s Gone,” “Sara Smile,” “You Make My Dreams,” “I Can’t Go for That” and… “Maneater.” , but not other crowd favorites like “Rich Girl,” “Kiss on My List,” “Private Eyes,” “One on One,” “Method of Modern Love” and “Say It Isn’t So.” .”
However, a Nov. 28 report from the Associated Press shows that the real dispute is over Oates’ desire to sell his stake in Whole Oats Enterprises LLP to Primary Wave IP Investment Management LLC. Hall’s lawsuit and injunction have temporarily blocked that sale, which Hall says violates the terms of a forged business agreement years ago. In addition, an arbitrator must weigh in before the sale can take place. In fact, Primary Wave IP already owns a significant share of the Hall & Oates catalog through a deal Hall struck in 2006, but Hall has since admitted he regretted that business decision. In a complaint obtained by People, Hall argued that selling Oates would cause him “immediate irreparable harm.”
Hall & Oates in their heyday in the 80s. (Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) (Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images)
Can Hall really stop Oates from performing the band’s material? Is Oates legally allowed to only sing songs for which he is responsible as the author?
According to Michael Ackerman, a Pasadena, Calif.-based entertainment attorney who has represented record labels, music publishers, artists, managers, producers, documentarians, reality television contestants and others in negotiating and drafting contracts, the answer is “None.” Problem”. and in litigation for more than 30 years.
“I don’t understand how Daryl Hall can dictate the playlist of a John Oates solo show. “The only legally required license or permission for live performance of songs is a public performance license, which is typically issued blanketly by ASCAP, BMI or SESAC,” Ackerman, who is not involved in this case, tells Yahoo Entertainment. “Unless they changed their affiliation, Daryl Hall and John Oates have been with BMI since the 1970s. Because the only license required for a live show is a public performance license, which would be issued by BMI and which would typically be obtained from BMI by the venue, not the artist, and presumably by any venue where John Oates has played or is playing is licensed by BMI, it seems impossible to say that the performance of, for example, “Kiss on My List” – a song written not by John Oates, but by Daryl Hall and Janna Allen – is inappropriate because The public performance falls under the public performance license that the BMI has granted to this venue.”
However, Ackerman notes that “there may be something in the agreement between Daryl Hall and John Oates, whether an LLP partnership agreement or a corporate operating agreement, that prevents one or the other from performing certain songs primarily composed by him.” “ the other partner who is not present. I doubt that’s the case, partly because it would be much more beneficial for Daryl Hall, but it’s possible.”
Ackerman says it’s also possible that Hall’s lawsuit includes a claim of false or misleading advertising. “For example, Dennis DeYoung, formerly of Styx, cannot describe himself as ‘the voice of Styx,’ but he can say ‘playing the music of Styx,’ and so there may have been an agreement between Daryl Hall and John Oates that “Like you would bill yourself for the costs of solo exhibitions,” Ackerman suspects. “For example, maybe John Oates promotes his shows by saying he’s playing ‘his classic Hall & Oates material’ and then he plays Daryl Hall songs. But even that is pretty paltry in terms of impact. How many people would demand a refund if John Oates played songs other than his own? My guess is not much – and even then, Daryl Hall appears to lack the legal standing to bring such a lawsuit in this case because the participant in the [Oates] Show would be harmed by the misnomer, not Daryl Hall.”
Hall & Oates, circa 1980. (Lynn Goldsmith/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images) (Lynn Goldsmith via Getty Images)
Can Hall really stop Oates from selling his share of the band’s catalog to Primary Wave?
“Whether John Oates had the right to sell his share in the company would be determined by the LLP agreement. It is common for such agreements, particularly when dealing with a business with two or even three partners, to provide for a right of first refusal if one partner wishes to sell their share in the partnership. In this way, the other partner or partners can buy out the distribution partner themselves,” explains Ackerman. “In such an agreement there could also be a matching right, which stipulates that the other partners can co-finance the purchase price that the sales partner achieves.
“But that’s all speculation,” the lawyer continues. “It is likely that the agreement will either contain no language restricting either partner’s right to sell their shares or, more likely, that the agreement will contain language restricting each partner’s right to sell in certain circumstances. restricted. I would imagine that if a partner were to sell their interest to a third party, notice to the other partner would be required, and perhaps that notice was not given here. There could also be other provisions that establish a price at which a Distributor’s share should be purchased by the other Partners. It’s impossible to say without seeing the agreement, but I suspect there is language in the agreement about selling a partner’s shares to a third party, and that’s actually why the injunction was issued – and not because of the performance of certain songs in live shows.”
Why would Hall go so far as to seek a restraining order against Oates?
While most people assume that restraining orders are a last resort due to the threat of violence, there are other reasons for such a step. “A temporary restraining order, or TRO, is typically an emergency remedy to prevent something that is imminent from happening. It can be related to the threat of violence, whether from a stalker or in a domestic situation, or it can be related to the sale of a publisher’s catalog or company,” explains Ackerman. “In order to obtain an interim injunction, the applicant must prove four things: the likelihood of success in the case, that the proposed measure will cause irreparable harm, that if the interim injunction is issued, less damage will be caused than if the defendant does so allowed to do what is intended and the determination that the issuance of the order will best serve the public interest.”
Ackerman points out that a motion or motion for a preliminary injunction is typically not served on the defendant until it is filed with the court. “Typically, this is an emergency motion, which does not necessarily allow the opposing side to make many arguments, if any, before deciding the TRO motion, although this argument is more common in a motion for a preliminary injunction or a permanent injunction,” he says . “Because Daryl Hall feared the impending sale of John Oates’ interest in the business…or if Daryl Hall felt that the ‘Hall & Oates’ brand/trademark might be diluted due to John Oates’ public performances of some of these songs.” “this may be the case.” have caused the “hasty crime” type [of] Technique used by Daryl Hall in this case.”
Hall & Oates in the early 70s. (Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) (Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images)
What did Hall and Oates do? — individually and together — in recent years?
The last decade and a half has been one big Hall & Oates revival. The prominent placement of “You Make My Dreams” in Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel’s 2009 romantic comedy “500 Days of Summer,” as well as songs in commercials for brands ranging from KFC to TJ Maxx; Hall’s Webby Award-winning variety show “Live From Daryl’s House,” which ran from 2007 to 2014 and was recently rebooted; and pop culture tributes like Bird and the Bee and John Oates’s album “Interpreting the Masters Volume 1: A Tribute to Daryl Hall” and Gym Class Heroes’ cheeky title “Daryl Hall for President ’07 Tour” have given the duo a whole new world opens up to audiences. Hall & Oates were eventually inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2014 and have collaborated on high-profile concert tours with ’80s bandmates Tears for Fears and Squeeze. As Hall told Yahoo Entertainment in 2018, there seemed to be a “sea change” after “the media being a bunch of fucking idiots for Hall & Oates for many years.”
With audiences’ passion for all things Hall and Oates seemingly stronger than ever, fans new and old began to wonder if the duo would ever record another full album. Hall dismissed such speculation in his 2018 Yahoo Entertainment interview, saying, “We’re not really about making albums together. We are individuals. We share the stage. We love the music we’ve made together throughout our careers. But we have our own lives and we have our own creative lives.” However, Hall & Oates released their first original song since 2002, “Philly Forget Me Not,” in 2018, and Hall said at the time that he and his bandmate were “connected by our long relationship “. I’ve known John since he was 17. We have already experienced 10 lives. A lot of water has gone under, and I think this shared experience connects us and makes it easier for us to communicate. I always say it’s like a brotherly relationship.”
Unfortunately, this lawsuit seems to put an end to all this brotherly love and shared career momentum. When Hall isn’t filming new episodes of Daryl’s House, he’s been touring regularly with Todd Rundgren lately, while Oates is releasing new solo singles every month in 2023 and serving as rock ‘n’ roll’s undisputed “patron saint of facial hair.” as a Movember speaker. Oates is also most likely the Anteater on the current season of The Masked Singer – sparking speculation that he was using the bizarre TV appearance to earn a quick paycheck amid this legal mess.
A hearing to extend Hall’s restraining order against Oates is scheduled for Thursday, November 30. (Representatives for both parties did not respond to Yahoo Entertainment’s request for comment.) In the meantime, since it’s that time of year, check out both renditions of their holiday classic — the reverb-fronted version and the less often heard Oates version – and remember them in happier times:
Read more from Yahoo Entertainment:
Follow Lyndsey on Facebook, XInstagram, Amazon