Joel Julien

The Bur­na Boy Live con­cert pro­ceed­ed as planned last night in the face of a le­gal back and forth be­tween two sets of pro­mot­ers.

The gates for the o2Park in Ch­aguara­mas opened around 5 pm to make way for pa­trons for the show that was sched­uled to be­gin at 9 pm.

The Gram­my Award-win­ning Niger­ian artiste ar­rived in T&T on Thurs­day night for his sec­ond con­cert in T&T in a mat­ter of weeks.

On Wednes­day, Mari­ka Trim, the at­tor­ney for Cash Mon­ey Broth­er Pro­mo­tions, is­sued a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter to Twist­ed En­ter­tain­ment Bar­ba­dos, Cae­sar’s Army, SM Pro­mo­tions, Duke Con­cept and Unit­ed Tal­ent Agency over the mat­ter.

Trim threat­ened ac­tion for breach of con­tract, al­leg­ing the pro­mot­ers of last night’s event con­spired against her client, who was ini­tial­ly in a part­ner­ship with them, to stage their own event.

In re­sponse a let­ter, how­ev­er, at­tor­ney Vikash In­dar Lala said the in­for­ma­tion pro­vid­ed in the pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter, cou­pled with the threat of an in­junc­tion, was “vague, un­par­tic­u­larised and ex­treme­ly un­fair to my client in all of the cir­cum­stances.”

“My client can­not be ex­pect­ed at this stage to an­swer broad and sweep­ing al­le­ga­tions con­tained in a des­per­ate let­ter which seems to have no log­i­cal co­her­ence and adorned on­ly with an un­la­belled and un­ex­plained bun­dle of doc­u­ments,” the let­ter stat­ed.

“The al­le­ga­tions you have made are ex­treme­ly se­ri­ous, and one would have ex­pect­ed you to have prop­er­ly set out clear par­tic­u­lars and the facts and doc­u­ments up­on which you re­ly. In­stead, what we have been met with is a con­fus­ing let­ter which is re­gret­tably short of the stan­dard which is re­quired for fair Pre-Ac­tion cor­re­spon­dence.”

Lala said in the cir­cum­stances and out of an abun­dance of cau­tion, he was deny­ing all of the al­le­ga­tions made in the let­ter, in­clud­ing “those al­le­ga­tions re­lat­ed to the al­leged loss of your client’s rep­u­ta­tion and ex­pect­ed prof­its.”

Lala said the threat of lit­i­ga­tion had been wide­ly pub­li­cised and this im­pact­ed neg­a­tive­ly on the pace of tick­et sales and caused con­cern amongst all par­ties, ser­vice providers and stake­hold­ers of the con­cert.

“What is in­ter­est­ing to note is that your client had wait­ed un­til the eve of the event to send your cor­re­spon­dence, and has nev­er once in­di­cat­ed there­in when the mat­ters of which he com­plains about first came to his at­ten­tion,” Lala stat­ed.

As such, Lala said the show would go on de­spite the des­per­ate threats of an in­junc­tion.

“My client will re­sist stren­u­ous­ly any at­tempt by yours to move the Court to stop the con­cert, when all arrange­ments have been put in place. To do so will be to ex­pose my client and oth­ers to sig­nif­i­cant dam­ages and fi­nan­cial loss,” he stat­ed.