Donald Fagen v. The Estate of Walter Becker

Ronnie Van Zant's widow allows the Lynyrd Skynyd name to go on - I assume she's been getting money out of it but I doubt she's getting 50 percent.

As far as Steely Dan goes, Fagen and Becker may have had the band on salary and dates booked, so they didn't want to pull the plug on the shows. The Becker estate might feel entitled to keep getting what Walter was getting, but keep in mind the top notch musicians they had, and how much they were shelling out to keep the well-oiled machine up and running, esp. if there were festival dates. Over the years the venues were smaller and the ticket prices went up, and I know they've had shows they lost money on, whether it was cancelled dates or a poor turnout.

 

Five letter word MONEY always raises its ugly head. Something has to sorted out for all concerned by mutual agreement.

 

According to the Reelin in the Years book , that was the case

 

Correct. Denny was finally "let go" from the Steely Dan organization following Aja in spite of the fact that when Becker and Fagen considered touring in 1977 they planned on paying Denny Dias more than any of the other musicians they planned on taking on the road with them. They were incredibly loyal to Denny Dias.

 

While I find it a bit distasteful that Fagan sued his partner's estate so soon after Becker died, I understand that it is better to get this sorted out now rather than a few years down the road. I have NO knowledge of the relationship Fagan had with the rest of Becker's family. As with the closely-held corporations I've dealt with, the death or absence of one of the founders can't be replaced by a widow or child.

I am interested to learn--if it is known--why Becker turned down what seems to be a better evaluation of the worth of his shares of the Steely Dan corporation. He may have been playing the odds that HE would be buying out Fagan or Fagan's estate.

JcS

 

Distasteful "
Guess he had no option.

" Becker playing the odds"
Could be.
Realistically Becker/Fagen should have sorted this out in the eighties.

 

Yeah, they probably should have, but to be fair in the eighties I think Becker and Fagen were more concerned with sorting themselves out...

 

Becker estate could make a claim even if Fagan used a name like that, but would have to prove the additional element that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two names. That would ultimately be a jury question unless both sides declined a jury trial. If I were on the jury, I would say that one letter change (and similar looking lowercase letters at that) would not eliminate the likelihood of confusion.

 

It was "sorted out" as recently as 2009 when Becker rejected the proposal to have the value calculated at market value. He wanted it to remain at book value. And he reaffirmed the original buy/sell agreement. See D-31.

 

Of course it is much harder to imagine Becker mounting a viable Steely Dan tour without Fagan's distinctive voice than imagining doing it with someone else playing Becker's licks. Though there would still be non performance ways to monetize the brand.

 

Maybe but maybe they did. It’s not Becker who is having an issue with what was agreed. No doubt it is a deeper issue and the other side will respond...

 

Rather than automatically assuming that the Becker estate is at fault, there's a possibility that this could have grown out of them being offered a buyout that they didn't think was fair.

I didn't read through the whole filing, though, so maybe I'm missing relevant details.

 

According to the filing, the Becker estate fired the opening salvo by sending a letter 4 days after Becker's death stating "we wanted to put you on notice that the Buy/Sell agreement dated as of October 31, 1972 is of no force or effect."

 

Wow, four whole days after the guy died, eh? Nice of 'em...

 

That's what it says!

I don't think the estate has a leg to stand on but, of course, I'm just reading the plaintiff's filing.

 

2 Smart guys. It should have been in plain writing.

 

Why do you keep implying it isn't ? There's a buy/sell agreement. Both sides agree on that. In plain writing.

 

Sorted then.

 

exactly! Maybe Walter would have started something later, but the fact remains the first 'salvo over the ship' was from WB's attorneys. I don't get the timing, why they thought it was good to do it asap WB passed. Fagan's tour was over.
I guess now the clock is ticking before DF starts any 2018 touring. He doesn't stand to lose any money yet.
Perhaps WB's widow has had issues with DF for awhile, but then again if there was bad blood that way, I can't help but think WB would have just walked away from tours.

 

This didn't happen in the old days.
Jon Hendricks didn't tour an imitation Lambert, Hendricks and Ross around for 50 years. He did his own thing.
Musicians are always crowing about their individuality. Then someone leaves or dies in a band -- "oh he can be replaced"
Feeling sorry for Glenn Frey's kid -- he has to be" Frank Sinatra Jr." - for a good payday of course .

 

Maybe Fagen hasn't got the memo yet that he isn't going to live forever either ... and to spend your remaining years in court over money. Give it a rest.

 

On the other hand, it's the deceased (well, the estate) that wants the money! Yeah, they oughta give it a rest for sure.

 

In hindsight, I find it interesting that Fagen said this right after Becker died.


"I intend to keep the music we created together alive as long as I can with the Steely Dan band,"

At the time I found it a little weird but I assumed they settled that before Becker’s death and Fagen got his blessing.

Now it looks like he said it to test what resistance he may get from the estate.

 

Having settled it with Becker (unless done in a written contract) would not bind Becker's estate which, is as true of most estates, cares more about maximizing $ than anything else. If fact, unless every beneficiary of a % of an estate agreed to do otherwise, or the will contained contrary instructions, the executor of the will is legally bound to seek to maximize the $ value of the estate. Doing anything other than that could be challenged by any % beneficiary who did feel he deserved the maximum possible payout.

 

Don't go dragging U2 into this...