Spinnin’ Records Wins Appeal in Lawsuit with Martin Garrix

Spinnin’ Records Wins Appeal in Lawsuit with Martin Garrix

In the Netherlands, a Dutch appeals court has ruled against DJ Martin Garrix in an appeal filed by his former label Spinnin’ Records and MusicAllStars Management.

In August of 2015, Garrix announced that he was leaving both companies. Soon afterward, he filed a lawsuit against them, alleging that the two had coerced both him and his father into signing a contract that he believed was not in his best interests.

A few months after this, Garrix withdrew part of the suit, but he continued to go forward with what remained. Nearly two years later, a Dutch court ruled in his favor.

In the original decision, a group of judges determined that a distinct conflict of interest existed because Eelko van Kooten — who was then the director of Spinnin’ Records — was also the director of MusicAllStars Management.

Because of this, Kooten was essentially negotiating a contract with himself on behalf of Garrix.

As a result of the ruling, Garrix received the rights to some of his biggest hit songs, such as “Animals,” as well as his master recordings.

However, the two companies appealed the ruling, and the Higher Court in Leeuwarden disagreed with the original court’s findings. It declared that the agreements Garrix signed with the two companies were proper and that the companies had fully complied with the terms of them.

It also ruled that the agreements Garrix signed were not unreasonable, and it said, “It can be concluded that Martin Garrix was not falsely led into agreements in 2012 and 2013, in mid-2015 and not before.”

Also Read:  Sony Music Entertainment Restructures, Bolsters Asian and Middle Eastern Operations

Neither Garrix nor his legal representatives have yet to comment on the ruling.

But Kooten said in regards to it: “I am delighted with the ruling of the Higher Court that we made valid agreements with Martijn at the time, which should have been respected. This statement confirms that the accusation of deception or fraud was unjustified.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.