TL;DR
Get audio and creator gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Amy Helm has countersued Brian Parillo and Levon Helm Studios, disputing the actions he says gave him control of the company. Her complaint alleges that corporate procedures were not followed and that Parillo improperly obtained voting authority from her stepmother, Sandra Helm. The allegations are disputed, and a court-appointed guardian has raised questions about Sandra Helm’s understanding of the voting transfer without ruling on its validity.
Amy Helm has countersued Brian Parillo and Levon Helm Studios, challenging the corporate actions he says gave him control of the Woodstock venue and alleging that voting rights were improperly obtained from her stepmother, Sandra Helm. The dispute puts the governance of the studio founded by the late Band drummer Levon Helm at issue, alongside ongoing questions about Sandra Helm’s understanding of a transfer of voting authority.
According to the complaint, Parillo claims voting assignments from Sandra Helm and Barbara O’Brien, another shareholder, that give him 60% of the company’s voting power, although he owns 10% of its shares. Amy Helm alleges that he used those assignments and a series of shareholder and board documents to remove her from leadership roles and install himself as the company’s president, secretary and treasurer. She says the steps were invalid because the company’s governing documents and state law required unanimous written consent for actions taken without a meeting.
The complaint describes several actions involving Sandra Helm’s signature. It alleges that a shareholder consent was used last year to remove Amy Helm as a director, followed by a document purporting to remove her as president. In May, according to the filing, another consent purported to remove Sandra Helm as sole director and replace her with Parillo. Amy Helm’s attorneys say Parillo then signed a board consent naming himself to three officer roles and asserting that no one else could act for the company.
Amy Helm also alleges that Parillo withheld financial records from stakeholders and used studio resources in connection with federal litigation. Her lawsuit further accuses him of using Levon Helm’s name, image and likeness without authorization from his estate. Parillo denies the allegations, according to the report by Stereogum, which cited the Times Union for details of the dispute. The available reporting does not include Parillo’s full response to each allegation in the countersuit.
Control of the Woodstock Studio
The dispute could determine who has authority to run Levon Helm Studios, make company decisions and control access to its property. The venue has faced cancellations by artists supporting Amy Helm, and the source report says it has struggled to issue refunds to concertgoers whose shows were canceled. A prolonged fight over leadership may affect performances, staff and audiences, though the extent of any future disruption has not been established.
The case also concerns the division between ownership and voting power. Amy Helm says Parillo’s claimed authority depends on voting assignments from shareholders whose shares he does not own. If the assignments or corporate actions are challenged successfully, the company’s leadership structure could change; the court has not yet determined whether they are valid.
studio monitor speakers for home studio
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
After Levon Helm died in 2012, his daughter Amy Helm and his widow, Sandra Helm, each received 40% control of the studio, according to the report. Parillo and Barbara O’Brien, described as friends of Levon Helm, each received 10%. The current dispute centers on whether later documents gave Parillo voting authority beyond his own shareholding and whether those documents were properly executed.
The conflict has unfolded alongside a separate estate proceeding concerning Sandra Helm. In July, Ulster County Surrogate’s Court appointed a guardian ad litem for her and described her as “a person under disability,” directing the guardian to report on her ability to take part in the case. That appointment did not itself decide whether she could participate or whether the voting assignment was legally effective.
The studio dispute has also affected a scheduled performance. The report says Amy Helm was due to play The Barn, the studio’s venue, on June 6, but Parillo allegedly changed the locks and later canceled the show, citing a family emergency. The account of the lock change, communications and cancellation comes from the allegations described in the report, not a court finding.
“Parillo denies the allegations.”
— Brian Parillo
audio interface for music recording
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Validity of the Voting Transfers
No court ruling described in the available report establishes whether Parillo’s claimed voting assignments are valid or whether the corporate actions removing Amy Helm from her roles complied with the company’s rules and state law. The guardian ad litem also did not independently decide the validity or effect of Sandra Helm’s voting transfer.
The guardian reported that Sandra Helm’s reasons for transferring her voting rights and her understanding of the consequences needed further exploration. He expressed concern that she retained the economic interest in her shares while transferring the vote, but did not recommend that she be found unable to participate in the estate proceeding. It is not clear from the report whether she has since received the explanation the guardian proposed.
Other disputed matters include the alleged withholding of financial records, use of studio resources, threats concerning Amy Helm’s music career, the cancellation of the June performance and use of Levon Helm’s name and likeness. The available reporting does not establish findings on those claims or provide a complete account of the parties’ positions on each issue.
professional microphone for vocals
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The next developments are likely to come through the company litigation and the estate proceeding, including any court review of the voting assignments and the documents used to change the studio’s leadership. The guardian ad litem’s report may inform the estate case, but it does not resolve the company-control dispute.
The source material does not give a date for a hearing or a decision on the countersuit. Until a court rules or the parties reach an agreement, the extent of Parillo’s authority, the status of the challenged corporate actions and the studio’s plans for performances remain unsettled.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is Amy Helm challenging in her countersuit?
She challenges Brian Parillo’s claimed control of Levon Helm Studios, alleging that voting assignments and corporate documents used to remove her from leadership roles were improper or invalid.
How much of the studio does Parillo own?
The report says Parillo owns 10% of the shares but claims voting assignments from Sandra Helm and Barbara O’Brien give him 60% of the company’s voting power. Whether those assignments are valid has not been determined in the reported proceedings.
What has the guardian ad litem said about Sandra Helm?
The guardian said he did not understand why Sandra Helm transferred her voting rights or whether she fully understood the consequences. He raised concerns for further exploration but did not rule on the transfer’s validity or recommend that she be found unable to participate in the estate case.
Has a court decided who controls Levon Helm Studios?
The source material reports no final court decision on the studio’s control, the voting assignments or the validity of the corporate actions Amy Helm challenges.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
