IBJNews

Shriners sue Live Nation, Old National over Murat renaming

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Murat Temple Association has filed suit against Live Nation Worldwide and Old National Bank with hopes of overturning a naming-rights deal for a landmark entertainment and hospitality venue in downtown Indianapolis.

The lawsuit was filed March 26 in Marion County Superior Court.

The Murat Temple Association is a Shriners affiiate that owns the Murat Centre, which on March 16 was renamed the "Old National Centre" in a three-year deal between the bank and Live Nation. Terms of the naming-rights deal were not disclosed.

MTA's suit alleges that Live Nation's lease does not include rights to rename the building, and that the name change "caused Shriners to be held in lesser light by the general public, who erroneously believe Shriners were responsible for the name change, and from whom money is raised to support ... Shriners Hospital for Children."

The lawsuit says MTA notified Live Nation that it did not have the right to change the facility's name more than six weeks before the official renaming took place.

The Shriners are seeking an injunction to reverse the name change and unspecified damages.

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 the MTA. The lawsuit notes that the lease does not include the basement, the Shrine Museum, the Trian Room or the Kniepe Room, and that the fraternal organization has access to the Murat Theatre and Egyptian Room for its own functions nine times a year.

The lawsuit also claims that Old National, based in Evansville, knew Live Nation did not have the right to sell naming rights, but "intentionally induced Live Nation to
proceed with executing the naming-rights agreement over MTA's objection."

The suit accuses the bank of "tortious interference" and says "Old National had no justification for interfering with the business relationship
between MTA and Live Nation."

Attorney Bryce H. Bennett of Riley, Bennett  and Egloff is representing the MTA. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

Live Nation is based in Beverly Hills, Calif. Terry Hennessy, Live Nation's general manager in Indianapolis, did not respond to a phone call seeking comment.

Old National Bank CEO Randy Reichmann also did not immediately return a call to comment on the suit.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Interesting
    I doubt the issue is as cut-and-dry as the Shriners would make it out to be. These types of deals are reviewed with a fine-tooth comb by lawyers before anyone signs, and a bank seeking to engender goodwill and promote its name is not going to sign a naming-rights agreement without carefully reviewing the validity of the agreement, especially if as the Shriners claim they sent notice six weeks before the deal was signed claiming that Live Nation did not have naming rights.

    I suspect the Shriners probably signed a broader original lease agreement than they may have intended with Live Nation, and now they are upset with the rights given over to Live Nation.

    This will be a long-drawn out legal fight and there will be no winners, except the lawyers raking in the legal fees. I would suggest all parties involved try mediation first.

  • Right on.
    Best news I've heard all day!

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT