IBJNews

Live Nation seeks dismissal of Murat lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Live Nation Worldwide Inc. is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Murat Shriners over a naming-rights deal for the Murat Centre in downtown Indianapolis.

The Shriners believe Live Nation, which leases the iconic venue at 502. N. New Jersey St., needed permission to change the facility's name to the Old National Centre, as part of a three-year deal with Old National Bank. The Shriners affiliate that owns the Murat, the Murat Temple Association, filed suit March 26, seeking an injunction to remove signage and receive unspecified damages.

Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Live Nation is represented in the lawsuit by Shawna Eikenberry, a construction and real estate attorney for Indianapolis-based Baker & Daniels. In a brief filed April 14 in Marion Superior Court, Eikenberry said the Murat lease grants "rights that are broad in scope." Eikenberry went on to note that the assocation's complaint "cites no provisions in the lease that prohibit Live Nation from changing signs on its leased premise, or otherwise change the name of the buildings Live Nation has leased. That is because the lease contains no such provisions."

The Murat lease was struck Sept. 1, 1995, and runs for 100 years. It covers the main public spaces within the complex, including the Murat Theatre and Egyptian Room. Eikenberry notes that the lease also covers, "all appurtances, rights, privileges and interest" belonging to or related to the leased areas, or "derived therefrom."

The only naming restriction in the document refers to the 100-year-old Murat Theatre. Live Nation did not change the name of the 2,500-seat theater or the Egyptian Room, so it's in compliance with the lease, Eikenberry said in the brief.

The lease also allows Live Nation to change or add signs to the building, as long as they are legal and are removed at the end of the lease, Eikenberry said. The only time the lease requires Live Nation to seek permission to put up a sign or make other changes to the building, Eikenberry noted, is if there's a change to the "external appearance and structural integrity of the improvement." Otherwise, the lease states, "consent of the lessor shall not be required."

"Changes to both appearance and structural integrity are required in order for Live Nation to need consent," Eikenberry wrote. "MTA has pleaded itself out of court, and its complaint should be dismissed."

Legal experts say the case is likely to come down to the language in the lease.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I'm no lawyer, but.....
    Seems the lease covers "the main public spaces within the building" and so maybe the promoters should move their sign to "within" the building. Looks to me like the Shriners retain control of all other features of the building. I'll send them my bill.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT