Epstein Vs Seltaeb Case Summary

Taking a break from all the craziness, Byrne tallied up the royalties and cut Epstein the first check of $9700 for his and The Beatles share of the US merchandising business. Epstein was reportedly impressed, but then ask as a matter-of-fact how much out of the amount Byrne was keeping for himself. Bryne told him "Nothing Brian, that's your 10%". Byrne then went on to talk about the immense interest he was getting from companies, one after another after another, across the USA. With every mention of a new item, Epstein realized he had made a dreadful error by accepting such a small percentage in the venture. Knowing the backlash that would be coming if this was public with the band, he decided he could never tell the four Beatles. He immediately instructed Jacobs to renegotiate the contract with all parties involved, a process that took seven months (until August 1964). This new deal raised NEMS’ share to 49% for properties using the Beatles’ image. But because of this new agreement and the discovery that some American manufacturers were making Beatle merchandise on licenses approved by NEMS directly and not through Bryne’s Seltaeb, the tenuous relationship between NEMS and Byrne grew even more fragile. “Brian Epstein getting robbed was the beginning of the

However, the Byrne/Seltaeb defendants counterclaimed that Epstein was surreptitiously issuing unauthorized Beatles merchandise licenses that violated Stramsact/Seltaeb’s exclusive rights. In May 1965, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the NEMS suit over Epstein’s refusal to sit for a deposition in the case. (Epstein had refused to travel to New York from England citing health problems, though he admitted in an affidavit he was “probably not as qualified to answer all the questions which may be put to me.”)” - Stan Soocher. "Did Litigation Kill The Beatles?." ABA