HV JVCO I, LLC v. Open Sunday, LLC

── HV JVCO I, LLC v. Open Sunday, LLC ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HV JVCO I, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff-Counterclaim ) Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N22C-12-237 PRW ) CCLD OPEN ON SUNDAY, LLC, ) ) Defendant-Counterclaim ) Plaintiff. ) Submitted: January 20, 2026 Decided: April 20, 2026 DECISION AFTER TRIAL Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire, Griffin A. Schoenbaum, Esquire, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; John A. Wait, Esquire, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, New York, New York. Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant HV JVCo I, LLC. David L. Finger, Esquire, DAVID L. FINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Wilmington, Delaware; Manotti L. Jenkins, Esquire, THE LAW OFFICES OF MANOTTI L. JENKINS, LTD., Chicago, Illinois; William Gray, Jr., Esquire, James M. Gross, Esquire, Langie Cadesca, Esquire, FOLEY HOAG, LLP, New York, New York; Jonathan Bard, Esquire, FOLEY HOAG, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts. Attorneys for Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Open On Sunday, LLC. WALLACE, J.  This case concerns music royalties. But it also concerns something more prosaic: names. People often use or are known by different names in different settings—nicknames, middle names, initials, or whatever others happen to call them (for better or worse). Ordinarily, that morphing poses no problem. A variation in name rarely obscures identity. That’s largely so in the music industry, too. Fans and consumers seldom trouble themselves with the legal names of the performers they follow. An artist’s public identity may bear only a passing resemblance to the name on a birth certificate; no one is misled by the difference. As well, artists may adopt different names depending on the persona they wish to project. Recognition, not precision, is what matters. The law can be less forgiving. There are contexts in which a name must be exact. This case presents one of them. Here, the difference between one version of an artist’s name and another determines whether a filing is effective and, in turn, which party holds superior claim to certain royalty assets. From that premise, the remainder of the dispute follows. I. THE TRIAL The trial of this case lasted two days and included testimony from four fact witnesses, one expert, and more than 170 documentary exhibits.1 The central factual 1 The witnesses in order of appearance were: Cynthia Katz, Sherrese Clarke, Kristen Wilson, -1- dispute concerns which party holds the superior interest in—and thus the right to own and receive—music royalty assets. II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS The Court has examined all exhibits submitted by the parties and considered the testimony of all witnesses. During trial, the Court applied the Delaware Rules of Evidence to the testimony and the exhibits presented. Consistent with the Court’s knowledge of those rules and the specific rulings the Court articulated during both pretrial and trial proceedings, the Court has relied only on the evidence allowed under those rules and rulings in reaching its verdict. As this was a bench trial, the Court is the sole finder of fact.2 In turn, the Court has made its own assessment of each witness’s credibility and reconciled, to the best of its ability, any inconsistencies in the testimony and documentary evidence.3 The Court then reviewed and applied the same instructions that it would give a jury in these circumstances.4 Elliot Hayes, and Harold Thompson. This decision cites to: trial exhibits (by “JX” “CX” “DX” or “PX” number); the trial transcrip