JOURNEY's JONATHAN CAIN Responds To NEAL SCHON Legal Complaint - "I Am Forced To Publicly Respond Now To Neal’s Malicious Lies And Personal Attacks On My Family"
November 22, 2022, a year ago
Journey’s Jonathan Cain and his attorneys from Alan Gutman/Gutman Law have issued statement and a motion to disqualify after Cain’s bandmate Neal Schon sued Cain for setting up an American Express card without telling Schon and that “millions of Journey funds have flowed through it.”
Schon’s attorneys also claim in the suit, which was filed in Contra Costa in the Bay Area of California that Cain hasn’t turned over financial records that allow Schon to know how much the band owes him.
Apparently - after a previous court showdown with former bass player Ross Valory - Cain and Schon set up a company that operates the band, Nomota, of which they own 50 percent each.
“As a member and manager and founder and leader of Journey,” the court papers say, “Schon has the right to access and control Nomota’s books and records. Schon must have unfettered access to Nomota’s records so he can oversee and manage Nomota/Journey.”
Cain says in statement responding to Schon suing him:
“This is a matter that should have been resolved privately, but I am forced to publicly respond now to Neal’s malicious lies and personal attacks on my family and I in an effort to garner public support for his ill-conceived lawsuit — a lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. Neal has always had access to the credit card statements; what he lacks — and what he is really seeking — is the ability to increase his spending limits. Since Neal decided to publicize what is going on, I can tell you we will present the evidence to the court that shows that Neal has been under tremendous financial pressure as a result of his excessive spending and extravagant lifestyle, which led to him running up enormous personal charges on the band’s credit card account. When efforts were made to limit his use of the card to legitimate band expenses, Neal unfortunately decided to attack me rather than trying to get his reckless spending under control. I am saddened by the situation — for Neal and for our fans — but since Neal filed a lawsuit, I suspect he will not be able to ignore the court like he has ignored the countless financial advisors and accountants he has fired over the past several years who have tried in vain to help him.”
Alan Gutman/Gutman Law statement:
“The evidence will establish that Schon’s financial crisis has nothing to do with his professed ‘unfettered access to Nomota’s records.’ Our investigation has established that Schon’s personal financial problems resulted solely from his reckless spending, including what preliminarily appears to be charging more than $1 million of improper personal expenses on the band’s corporate Nomota AMEX card. Schon’s complaint is the classic example of desperate people doing desperate things. It’s very unfortunate that Neal--and Neal alone--has created such difficulties for himself and his family through his profligate spending.”
Below is a summary from Gutman Law on the motion to disqualify:
-Miller Barondess previously represented Cain when it jointly represented Schon and Cain in the Valory case. Gutman has the First Amended Complaint as well as the retainer agreement and conflict waiver letter to establish the prior representation.
-Where a substantial relationship exists between the prior representation and the current case it is presumed the attorney received confidential information and the attorney’s disqualification is “mandatory.” Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 283.
-There is a substantial relationship between the prior and current cases because they both concern the “operating entities” for band’s business activities. The new Complaint alleges Schon and Cain are 50-50 owners, managers and members of a limited liability company “through which Journey operates” called Nomota, LLC, and even alleges, “Schon and Cain’s status as the sole members and managers of Nomota resulted from prior litigation in this Court, Neal Schon, et al. v. Ross Valory, et al., Case No C20-00407.” [Schon’s Complaint, ¶ 15.]