Priscilla Presley Finds Herself in Legal Battle Over Rights to Her Name, Image, and Likeness
Priscilla Presley, the iconic former wife of rock 'n' roll legend Elvis Presley, is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with Priscilla Presley Partners (PPP), a company claiming exclusive rights to exploit her name, image, and likeness (NIL). This battle has come to light due to PPP's lawsuit against Presley, alleging breach of contract and a failure to honor their agreement to partner with Keya Morgan, the former business manager of late comic book legend Stan Lee, who is facing multiple counts related to elder abuse.
According to court documents filed in Florida, Presley approached Brigitte Kruse, a well-known auctioneer specializing in Elvis memorabilia, in 2022 to take over the management of her business and personal affairs. This led to the formation of Priscilla Presley Partners (PPP), with Kruse becoming the manager and majority stakeholder, as well as being granted power of attorney. At the time, Presley was reportedly facing significant financial challenges, including pending bankruptcy and unpaid taxes amounting to $700,000.
One of the reasons cited for Presley's financial struggles was her prior decision to sell her rights and interest to her surname almost two decades ago to Authentic Brands Group. This limited PPP's ability to exploit her full name and allowed them to focus primarily on her first name.
The legal dispute arose after PPP claimed to have played a key role in brokering a movie adaptation deal for Presley's memoir and assisting in settling an estate dispute related to her late daughter, Lisa Marie Presley. However, PPP alleges that Presley reneged on their agreement to partner with Keya Morgan and cut off all communication with the company, violating their agreement to disclose all opportunities to exploit her NIL.
In response to the lawsuit, Marty Singer, a lawyer representing Presley, denied the allegations and accused PPP and its principals, Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko, of misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars long before the lawsuit was filed. The alleged misappropriation of funds revolves around an accusation that Kruse attempted to sell Presley's own home to herself.
The lawsuit also highlighted instances where PPP was excluded from certain events and negotiations, such as the premiere of the movie adaptation of Presley's memoir, which reportedly received a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival. PPP claims that Kruse had negotiated with director Sofia Coppola and production company A24 regarding the film adaptation but was later excluded from the premiere and not informed about the NBC production called 'Christmas at Graceland,' in which Presley participated.
As the legal battle unfolds, Kruse seeks unspecified damages and alleges that she has invested a significant amount of her own money in developing various products and intellectual properties intended to coincide with Presley's ventures.
Presley, in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, asserts that Kruse targeted her in order to become her business manager and adviser, but Presley eventually discovered alleged wrongdoing and began distancing herself from Kruse and her associate's actions.
The court is currently set to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if Presley can be sued in Florida state court. In the meantime, the legal battle continues over the rights to Priscilla Presley's name, image, and likeness, leaving both parties seeking resolution and vindication.
