Barry Manilow’s $1.5 Million Bonus Claim Against Hipgnosis Faces Legal Dispute Over Jurisdiction.

Barry Manilow, the legendary US singer, has filed a $1.5 million (£1.19 million) claim for bonus payments against Hipgnosis Songs Fund, a prominent music catalogue owner. However, the High Court has heard that the case should be heard in the US rather than England.

Manilow, known for iconic hits like Mandy and Copacabana, entered into an agreement with Hipgnosis in 2020. Under this deal, the company was to receive all of his worldwide income, earnings, and financial interests from various sources. As part of the agreement, Hipgnosis was also obligated to pay Manilow a bonus of $1.5 million if certain performance targets were met.

The Agreement Details: Manilow’s Bonus Payment Conditions

The agreement stipulated that Hipgnosis would pay the $1.5 million bonus in two installments. The first installment was due after Hipgnosis achieved a 10% year-on-year increase in cash income from its share of Manilow’s assets for three consecutive years. The second half of the bonus would be paid if the company continued to meet these targets for a fourth consecutive year.

Manilow, however, believes these conditions have been met and has filed a claim in Los Angeles to collect the full $1.5 million. He contends that Hipgnosis has failed to meet its obligations and must honor the bonus payment.

Hipgnosis Disagrees: Claims Targets Were Not Met

In response to Manilow’s claim, Hipgnosis maintains that it did not meet the required performance targets. The company has initiated legal action in England against Manilow, as well as his production and management companies, to confirm that the bonus payment is not due.

Recent: Hunter Schafer Passport Mistake Reveals Gender Marker Discrepancy

Furthermore, Hipgnosis claims that Manilow has not paid royalties he received from Sony, which adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. Edmund Cullen KC, representing Hipgnosis, argued that the case should remain in England, citing a contractual obligation for the case to be heard in UK courts. He also described Manilow’s attempt to have the case heard in Los Angeles as a “tactical measure” aimed at delaying the resolution of the dispute.

The Legal Back-and-Forth: Jurisdictional Battle Between UK and US

Cullen further explained that Hipgnosis’ share of income dropped drastically over the four-year period, with the payment falling from nearly $540,000 (£427,032) in the second year to zero by the fourth year. Despite this, Manilow's legal team is adamant that his client’s claim is valid and should be adjudicated in Los Angeles, as per the original terms of the agreement.

Andrew Sutcliffe KC, representing Manilow, criticized Hipgnosis for attempting to thwart the contractual right to pursue the claim in a court of choice. He warned that this could lead to “irreconcilable judgments” if the case were to be heard in London, where the contractual agreement did not intend to place jurisdiction.

The Impact of Hipgnosis' Business Moves and Legal Disputes

Hipgnosis, co-founded by former Beyoncé manager Merck Mercuriadis and Nile Rodgers of Chic, has become a major player in the music catalog industry. In January 2022, Hipgnosis offered up to £20 million for investors to acquire its music catalogue, which includes songs by world-renowned artists like 50 Cent and Blondie. The catalog was later purchased by Blackstone in July 2022.

Despite the ongoing legal issues, Manilow’s career continues to thrive. He has enjoyed a lengthy and successful career, and his work remains in demand. The outcome of this case will set important precedents for the legal handling of music catalog agreements and bonus payment disputes.

Legal Clash Over Bonus Payment in Music Catalog Deal

As the hearing before Mr. Justice Marcus Smith continues, the outcome of this case may have broader implications for the music industry, particularly for musicians and companies entering similar agreements with music catalog funds. With millions of dollars at stake, both Manilow and Hipgnosis are committed to seeing their legal arguments through, and the battle over where the case should be heard will likely have long-lasting effects on the music industry’s approach to contract disputes.

The decision in this case will help clarify the interpretation of music catalog agreements, especially those involving bonus structures tied to asset performance. It will also determine where future music industry disputes of this nature should be legally adjudicated—setting a critical precedent for artists and music fund companies alike.