Live Nation's legal right to rename the Murat Shrine Center might boil down to nothing more than whether the company's
lease with the Shriners gives it the right to put up signs.
The Murat Temple Association, a Shriners affiliate that owns the iconic building at 502 N. New Jersey St. in Indianapolis,
is suing Live Nation and Old National Bank over a naming-rights deal announced March 16.
In its suit, filed March 26 in Marion County Circuit Court, the association argues that its lease with Live Nation does not
include the right to rename the Murat Shrine Center. The lease, which dates back to 1995, covers the parts of the complex
used as an an entertainment venue, including the Murat Theatre and and the Mosque Building, which houses the Egyptian Room.
In announcing its naming-rights deal with Evansville-based Old National, Live Nation said the Murat as a whole would be named
"Old National Centre," while venues inside the complex, especially the 2,500-seat, 101-year-old Murat Theatre and
Egyptian Room, would keep their original names.
The association is seeking an injunction to remove the new sign for "Old National Centre" over the Murat's
marquee, plus damages. The Shriners argue that the renaming casts them in a poor light because the general public may think
it brings some financial benefit to the not-for-profit fraternal organization.
Live Nation representatives did not return multiple phone calls seeking comment about the case.
"I was amazed that two people think so diametrically about what the rights are under the lease," said Jeff Abrams,
partner in charge of the Indianapolis office for Benesch Law. Abrams has been one of the city's topcommercial real estate
attorneys for more than a decade.
If Live Nation had been his client, Abrams said he would have simply looked at the lease to see what's allowed. "In
every good lease, there's always a provision dealing with signs."
The lease does deal with signs, as well as improvements to the building. However, the Murat Temple Association lawsuit does
not cite those provisions. Instead, it focuses on the fact that the lease does not offer the right to rename the entire multibuilding
facility, which includes several areas the Shriners continue to use.
The lawsuit also names Old National Bank, accusing the bank of improperly entering into a naming-rights agreement without
regard the Shriners' objections
Plaintiff's attorney Bryce Bennett said Old National was included because the bank never determined whether Live Nation's
lease included the right to sell naming rights.
The suit says the Shriners first contacted Live Nation's local general manager, Terry Hennessey, by letter in January
to warn against changing the facility's name. On March 16, association President Craig Hinshaw sent Hennessey another
letter, which was copied to Old National CEO Bob Jones, warning him that the association considered the renaming a violation
of the lease.
Randy Reichmann, Old National's CEO for the Indianapolis region, said he wasn't sure what steps the bank took to
determine Live Nation's rights. He said he was surprised to learn that the Shriners objected to the renaming.
"Our intention is to push forward," Reichmann said Tuesday morning. "We've got a valid contract with LIve
Nation, and we're going to let them work out the issues with the Shriners."
The Murat Temple Association originally struck the 100-year lease with Murat Centre LP, an entity controlled by Dave Lucas
and Sunshine Promotions Inc. on Sept. 1, 1995. At the time, the Murat’s historic buildings were in desperate need of
renovation, and Lucas’ company agreed to do the work in partnership with the city of Indianapolis. The renovation cost
more than $12 million. The annual rent paid under the lease is $50,000.
Live Nation, a spinoff of Clear Channel, inherited the lease after a series of acquisitions.

















IBJ Conversations
13 Comments
Add Comment
Again, it is time for the Peanut Gallery to shut up. This is a legal dispute which should and will be settled in a court of law, not in the "court of public opinion."
And, it certainly has nothing to do with greed. I have been a customer of Old National for 11 years and as someone who has negotiated a naming rights deal for one of my clients, I can tell you that both Old National and Live Nation are well within their boundaries to strike such a deal. It hurts no one...
Live Nation is not stupid, it's a big business. It's not going to enter into a contract without a solid legal argument that it has naming rights, especially when the Shriners objected long before the deal with Old National was signed. Again, I repeat, if the Shriners had such a solid legal claim as they assert, then they why didn't they do what any other organization would do once Live Nation rejected their letter objecting to the name change--which is sue for an injunction BEFORE the name change occurred? What wait now? It makes zero sense. Perhaps, it is because they didn't read their own lease with Live Nation and their legal claim is not so solid.
In any event, this is a matter for the legal system, not the "court of public opinion." Finally, it's sad that people want to bad-mouth a Hoosier bank, no wonder Indiana is struggling to hold on to the good companies it has and to attract new ones.
Look, it is a contract dispute, and it is a legal, not an emotional issue. Perhaps, the Shriners should have hired a better real estate attorney and read what they signed before entering a lease if they didn't want Live Nation to have rights to change the name on the signs. Also, what was the Murat before Shineshine Productions and later Live Nation took over? Oh yeah, it was a DUMP! I know, I was in it for weddings, etc. over the years, and if it weren't for the theater renovation and the productions first Sunshine Productions and now Live Nation books, the place would be a big mouldering heap.
As for Old National, it is a HOOSIER bank that has done and is doing more for Indiana than any of the big Wall Street banks ever have done or are doing now. The Shriners claim they knew about and objected to Live Nation about the name-change long before it happened, but they didn't get a satisfactory response from Live Nation. If their legal claim was so solid, then why didn't they simply file a lawsuit back then to get an injunction to prevent the name change in the first place? Why wait until well after the new signs were put up and press releases were sent out? The whole point of an injunction is to stop an injury before it occurs, if you have advanced notice and you think the other party won't cooperate, then assuming you have a valid legal claim, you should file for an injunction BEFORE you suffer the alleged injury. It is rather strange they are just suing now.
I think this whole thing is best left to the legal system to sort out. Although, I will repeat my advice that all parties try mediation before the legal fees rack up and the attorneys end up being the only individuals who profit from the situation.
Hicks, really? You should be ashamed that is the best arguement you can come up with. What's so wrong with a business trying to gain market share by advertising and helping put recognition back to the building. Yes, that's right, more conversation has taken place about the Murat than in the past 10 years. And this is bad for the Shriners, how? Most people forget that when the lease was signed the previous company put up $12MM to improve the building, would there have been a building to complain about had that not happened?