IBJNews

Court affirms Murat Centre renaming decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A state appellate court has affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a naming-rights lawsuit brought by The Murat Temple Association against California-based event promoter Live Nation and Evansville-based Old National Bank.

The decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals, made public Tuesday morning, stems from a March 26 lawsuit brought by MTA. It attempted to block a three-year deal between the bank and Live Nation to rename the historic building the “Old National Centre.”

Marion Superior Court Judge John Hanley dismissed the suit in August, and MTA appealed.

“The plain language of the lease grants Live Nation the authority to sell naming rights to the leased premises and to post appropriate signs and advertising,” Senior Judge William Garrard wrote. “We conclude that there are no possible set of facts upon which MTA can recover against Live Nation for breach of contract.”

Live Nation operates the 2,500-seat Murat Theatre, Egyptian room and other rooms within the building at 502 N. New Jersey St. under a long-term lease with MTA.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Forever Murat
    No matter what anyone puts out on the marquee, the building will forever be the Murat to the residents of Indianapolis.
  • Up front or not worth much
    It appears that if the Murat people wanted to avoid this they should have had a clause preventing it in their agreement with the promoter. To most of the public, this venue will remain "The Murat" anyway. The only time these naming deals are really valuable is when they are done up-front, ala Conseco Fieldhouse, which is often referred to as just "Conseco".

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT