Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Shock Jock Loses NY Business Lawsuit Over Key Contract Term
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: April 23, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Howard Stern recently suffered another legal setback in his lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio Inc. A New York state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of his $330 million breach of contract lawsuit.
The disputes centered on the terms of a 2004 employment agreement under which Stern agreed move his radio program to Sirius XM. The two sides disagreed over whether subscribers to former XM Satellite Radio Inc., which is now owned by Sirius, should be counted when calculating performance incentives.
Stern’s production company, One Twelve Inc., and his agent, Don Buchwald, maintained that they exceeded the subscriber targets set under the agreement by at least 2 million. However, Sirius argued that XM subscribers should not be taken into account, noting that the only contractual provision that pertained to XM subscribers involved one-time payments to be made if the XM merger took place. These obligations were satisfied.
Last year, a New York judge agreed that with Sirius that XM subscribers should not be counted. “While it may be true that Stern and Buchwald hoped and expected to reap the benefits from any significant growth that Sirius experienced after they entered into the agreement, that subjective expectation cannot suffice to override the clear, unambiguous language of the agreement,” New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick wrote last year.
Most recently, New York’s First Appellate Division confirmed the decision. As explained by the court, “We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs are not entitled to additional performance-based compensation under the unambiguous agreement between plaintiffs and defendant’s predecessor, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. Looking solely to the plain language used by the parties within the four corners of the agreement … the disputed term ‘Sirius subscribers,’ by which plaintiffs’ performance-based compensation was measured, did not include subscribers to XM Radio, a wholly owned subsidiary which defendant acquired by merger, even though the merger had been anticipated within the agreement.”
As this case highlights, courts are bound by the terms of the agreement when deciding a contractual dispute. Therefore, when negotiating an agreement, parties should be prepared to live with the terms, even after a change in circumstances.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Shock Jock Loses NY Business Lawsuit Over Key Contract Term
Author: Robert E. Levy
Howard Stern recently suffered another legal setback in his lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio Inc. A New York state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of his $330 million breach of contract lawsuit.
The disputes centered on the terms of a 2004 employment agreement under which Stern agreed move his radio program to Sirius XM. The two sides disagreed over whether subscribers to former XM Satellite Radio Inc., which is now owned by Sirius, should be counted when calculating performance incentives.
Stern’s production company, One Twelve Inc., and his agent, Don Buchwald, maintained that they exceeded the subscriber targets set under the agreement by at least 2 million. However, Sirius argued that XM subscribers should not be taken into account, noting that the only contractual provision that pertained to XM subscribers involved one-time payments to be made if the XM merger took place. These obligations were satisfied.
Last year, a New York judge agreed that with Sirius that XM subscribers should not be counted. “While it may be true that Stern and Buchwald hoped and expected to reap the benefits from any significant growth that Sirius experienced after they entered into the agreement, that subjective expectation cannot suffice to override the clear, unambiguous language of the agreement,” New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick wrote last year.
Most recently, New York’s First Appellate Division confirmed the decision. As explained by the court, “We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs are not entitled to additional performance-based compensation under the unambiguous agreement between plaintiffs and defendant’s predecessor, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. Looking solely to the plain language used by the parties within the four corners of the agreement … the disputed term ‘Sirius subscribers,’ by which plaintiffs’ performance-based compensation was measured, did not include subscribers to XM Radio, a wholly owned subsidiary which defendant acquired by merger, even though the merger had been anticipated within the agreement.”
As this case highlights, courts are bound by the terms of the agreement when deciding a contractual dispute. Therefore, when negotiating an agreement, parties should be prepared to live with the terms, even after a change in circumstances.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.