Executive Overview
The high-octane world of global electronic dance music (EDM) is currently playing host to a high-stakes cross-border legal battle between one of the genre’s most dominant rising stars and her former representation. Techno DJ, producer, and label head Sara Landry is locked in multi-jurisdictional litigation spanning both sides of the Atlantic against her ex-management firm, the UK-based The Night Department.
What began as an informal, collaborative partnership during the nascent stages of Landry’s international ascent has fractured into a bitter dispute featuring simultaneous lawsuits in the London courts and a trademark infringement action filed in New York. At the heart of the litigation lies a fundamental disagreement over equity, operational control, and revenue splits regarding Landry’s personal imprint, Hekate Records. However, the legal filings have also attracted widespread industry attention due to their more colorful allegations—including a disputed, late-night public urination incident involving a member of Landry’s management team backstage at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.
This multifaceted legal confrontation serves as a sobering cautionary tale for the modern independent music ecosystem. As electronic artists increasingly bypass legacy major labels to build vertically integrated enterprises—owning their masters, running independent imprints, and leveraging digital distribution networks—the legal infrastructure governing the artist-manager relationship has frequently failed to keep pace. The Landry-Night Department dispute underscores the perilous legal ambiguities that arise when informal handshakes, unwritten provisional agreements, and 50/50 profit-sharing models outlive their usefulness, ultimately resulting in expensive, protracted litigation in multiple legal systems.
Detailed Chronology of a Fractured Partnership
To understand how a powerhouse artist-management pairing disintegrated into transatlantic litigation, it is necessary to examine the timeline of the relationship between Sara Landry and The Night Department, led by co-founder Matthew Verovkins.
2020: The Genesis of an Informal Alliance
The business relationship between Landry—an American-born, Amsterdam-based hard techno powerhouse known for her relentless BPMs and visceral aesthetic—and The Night Department commenced in 2020. At this crucial juncture in Landry’s career, the management firm stepped in to help guide her professional trajectory. Concurrently, Landry launched her independent record label, Hekate Records, designed to serve as a primary vehicle for her own music and a platform for emerging hard techno talent.
Because the relationship began during a period of rapid development and relative informality, both parties operated without a fully executed, comprehensive written contract governing every facet of their collaboration. Instead, an unwritten, provisional arrangement was struck regarding Hekate Records: The Night Department would assist in running, administering, and scaling the label under a 50/50 revenue-sharing model. Both sides entered the arrangement with mutual ambitions, but crucially, without precise legal definitions of what a "50/50 arrangement" actually entailed in terms of long-term asset ownership.
2023–2024: Formalizing the Relationship and the Impending Crash
As Landry’s global profile skyrocketed—catalyzed by viral social media presence, high-profile festival bookings, and relentless touring—the necessity to formalize their business structure became paramount.
In 2023, the parties finally executed a formal management services agreement. However, the complex issue of Hekate Records and the management firm’s stake in the label remained uncodified until 2024, when provisional contract drafts regarding the label were finally circulated. It was during these formalization talks that the underlying fracture lines in the partnership widened into an unbridgeable chasm.
According to Landry’s legal disclosures, she was initially assured in 2020 that she would retain "full control" over Hekate Records in exchange for the management firm’s operational assistance. However, a profound semantic and legal misunderstanding emerged:
- The Artist’s Perspective: Landry operated under the assumption that "full control" equated to full ownership of the corporate entity, the master recordings, and all associated copyrights produced under the Hekate banner.
- The Management’s Perspective: The Night Department maintained that the 50/50 arrangement meant they were entitled not merely to 50% of the label’s ongoing streaming and operational revenues, but also to a permanent 50% equity ownership stake in the label’s underlying copyrights and master asset portfolio.
When The Night Department attempted to legally formalize this 50% copyright and equity claim in 2024, negotiations collapsed. Recognizing an irreconcilable conflict of interest and fundamental divergence regarding the ownership of her life’s work, Landry terminated her relationship with The Night Department, abruptly sacking the firm.
August 2025: The Litigation Escalates
Following her dismissal, The Night Department accepted the termination but swiftly moved to protect its financial interests. In August, the management firm initiated legal proceedings against Landry in the High Court of Justice in London, alleging that the DJ had breached her management contract and seeking substantial damages for uncollected future commissions and lost revenue streams that would have been due under the unexpired term of the agreement.
Rather than capitulating, Landry fought back aggressively, filing robust counterclaims in the London courts. Simultaneously, she initiated a separate, highly strategic trademark infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, bringing the battle directly to the American legal system.
The Core Legal Issues and Controversial Allegations
The legal battle is defined by two distinct fronts: the UK proceedings focusing on contractual breach and copyright equity, and the New York proceedings centering on trademark exploitation, brand goodwill, and, somewhat bizarrely, festival-ground etiquette.
The Copyright and Revenue Battle (London Courts)
The core financial dispute before the London courts hinges upon the interpretation of the 2020 oral and provisional agreements regarding Hekate Records. Under English contract law, courts will examine the contemporaneous conduct of the parties, written communications, and industry norms when explicit integration clauses or signed writings are absent.
The Night Department’s lawsuit asserts that its extensive labor in launching, distributing, and administering Hekate Records—tasks that far exceed the standard duties of a traditional artist manager—justified a 50% proprietary stake in both the income and the underlying intellectual property. Landry’s defense counters that any attempt to claim half of her master recordings constitutes an unconscionable overreach, arguing that management services do not inherently grant co-ownership of an artist’s foundational publishing and master assets unless explicitly and unambiguously assigned in writing.
Trademark Exploitation and Brand Goodwill (New York Courts)
In her New York lawsuit, Landry—who has incorporated her business entities in the United States and secured formal federal trademark registrations for her brand and Hekate Records through the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)—has taken aim at her former managers’ post-termination conduct.
Landry alleges that following her termination of the firm, The Night Department continued to exploit her personal brand name and the Hekate Records trademark without authorization. Specifically, the lawsuit takes issue with the firm’s ongoing use of digital distribution networks (such as digital aggregator Believe) to route and monetize Landry’s catalog, as well as the management company’s promotional materials, which continue to prominently feature its historic affiliation with the DJ to attract new roster talent.
The "Coachella Piss" Incident: A Battle Over Reputational Harm
Perhaps the most sensational and widely discussed element of the New York pleadings involves an extraordinary dispute over an alleged act of public urination committed by Landry’s day-to-day manager, Harry Glaisher, during the 2025 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.
According to Landry’s New York complaint, The Night Department and its representatives "failed to act as professional music managers in public," thereby severely damaging the "goodwill and reputation" of both the management agency and the artist herself. The filing specifically details that during Landry’s performance run at Coachella in 2025, Harry Glaisher publicly urinated within the festival grounds. The spectacle, the lawsuit claims, was witnessed by multiple festival-goers and resulted in a Coachella security guard explicitly threatening to confiscate Glaisher’s official festival wristband.
Landry’s legal team argues that this alleged gross misconduct became an open secret within the hyper-connected electronic music industry, directly tying the unprofessional behavior to Landry’s personal brand and eroding the commercial value of her registered trademarks.
Conversely, The Night Department anticipated and attempted to neutralize this allegation in its earlier London filings. The management firm countered that the incident:
"…happened entirely out of public view, on a private supply road where no public access was granted, with no more than two or three people present."
The Night Department contends that Glaisher’s discreet, private relief "did not cause any, or any appreciable, embarrassment, shame or harm to the defendant or to her reputation, brand, goodwill or businesses." The inclusion of this surreal episode in cross-continent legal pleadings highlights the deep personal animosity and scorched-earth tactics characterizing the legal strategies of both legal teams.
Supporting Context, Industry Metrics, and Structural Shifts
To fully appreciate the gravity of the Landry-Vervokins dispute, one must analyze the shifting economic models governing contemporary artist management.
The Rise of the 360-Degree Label-Management Hybrid
Historically, artist managers operated under a straightforward economic model: they secured booking, recording, and publishing opportunities for their clients, collecting a standard 20% commission on the artist’s gross earnings from entertainment-related income.
However, the democratization of music production and the proliferation of independent digital distribution platforms (such as DistroKid, TuneCore, and Believe) have revolutionized the industry. Artists today routinely bypass traditional major label gatekeepers, establishing their own independent imprints. Running an independent record label, however, requires immense labor:
- Coordinating global digital and physical distribution.
- Managing publicity, social media campaigns, and playlist pitching.
- Handling manufacturing, merchandise logistics, and sync licensing.
- Overseeing legal compliance, mechanical licensing, and royalty accounting.
Because these operational burdens extend far beyond standard career management—acting more akin to a boutique record label administration deal—industry standards have increasingly accommodated enhanced compensation structures. It is now common for managers who actively build and operate an artist’s independent label to negotiate a 50/50 profit-and-loss split on the label’s recording income, distinct from the standard 20% touring and performance commission.
The Perils of the "Handshake Deal"
The central takeaway for legal scholars and industry veterans alike is the catastrophic danger of operating without fully executed, written contracts—particularly when equity and intellectual property are on the line.
| Dimension | Standard Management Deal | Label-Management Hybrid Deal |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Scope | Career guidance, tour booking oversight, publishing alignment. | Full label operations, distribution management, asset scaling. |
| Standard Commission | 15% to 20% of gross artist earnings. | Up to 50% of label net revenues (profits). |
| IP Ownership | None (Artist retains 100% of masters/publishing). | Contentious (Often ambiguous regarding equity in masters). |
| Contractual Need | Essential, but frequently informalized. | Critical: Requires explicit IP assignment clauses. |
As music attorney surveys consistently show, informal understandings established during an artist’s early, cash-strapped growth phase inevitably collapse the moment the artist achieves high-net-worth commercial viability. When millions of streams and valuable master catalogs are suddenly at stake, verbal agreements regarding "control" versus "ownership" invariably lead to expensive litigation.
Official Statements and Industry Reactions
While neither Sara Landry nor Matthew Verovkins of The Night Department have issued informal public statements outside of their respective court filings—preferring to let their legal teams manage the narrative—industry insiders have been quick to weigh in on the implications of the lawsuit.
Prominent electronic music managers and entertainment attorneys have noted that the case shines an uncomfortable spotlight on the informalities plaguing underground dance music management. While major pop and hip-hop acts routinely deploy teams of transactional attorneys and meticulous management agreements from day one, the underground electronic scene has historically prided itself on a DIY ethos built on trust and handshakes.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the Coachella public urination allegation has sparked widespread mockery and debate across electronic music forums and industry groups, illustrating how modern legal pleadings frequently double as public relations battlegrounds designed to damage an opposing party’s public standing.
Future Outlook and Strategic Implications
As the litigation moves forward in both the London High Court and the New York Federal Court, several critical questions remain unanswered:
- The Fate of Hekate Records’ Masters: Will the London courts find that The Night Department’s operational contributions entitled them to a 50% equity stake in Hekate’s master catalog, or will the judge rule that unwritten label-management splits convey revenue rights only, leaving the underlying copyrights entirely in Landry’s hands?
- The Viability of the Trademark Claims: Legal analysts remain skeptical of Landry’s New York trademark infringement claims, noting that a former manager utilizing historical associations and distributing legacy catalog tracks under existing distribution agreements rarely constitutes actionable trademark infringement unless clear post-termination bad faith and consumer confusion can be robustly demonstrated.
- The Cultural Fallout: Regardless of the judicial outcomes, the dispute marks a permanent rupture between Landry and her former key handlers. For Landry, the litigation represents a costly battle to secure absolute, unencumbered sovereignty over her artistic output as she cements her status as a global techno icon. For the broader management community, the case stands as a permanent reminder: get everything in writing, clearly define asset ownership before launching a label, and ensure that professional decorum—even backstage at dusty festival grounds—remains strictly upheld.
