The Tini Stoessel case: when trust replaces contracts

By Erika Synowiec

Libro contable abierto con una calculadora junto a un micrófono antiguo.

The Tini Stoessel case exposes something I see very often at the firm: the trap of “we trust each other, so we don’t sign anything”. Creators or entrepreneurs who generate all the value of a business, but have no access to or control over the corporate information or the royalties.

A common problem in family structures

It is a recurring situation in the corporate and commercial world, especially in family businesses and structures: professionals or entrepreneurs who generate a project’s value but have no access to the corporate and financial information of the entity that receives that income.

When revenue is concentrated in a company where the person generating the business has no shareholding or oversight powers, the lack of protection is total. And the usual thing happens: whoever brings in the money has to look for outside contracts to get cash, while management holds on to the funds without accounting for them.

In a case like this, a thorough due diligence on the ownership of the rights to the songs is essential to clearly understand how royalties are actually distributed.

Three pillars of asset protection

  • Corporate control.
  • Mandatory accountability.
  • Ownership of the rights.

Personal trust is no substitute for legal formality. Contractual transparency is the only guarantee for preserving assets over the long term.

Advice on this topic

The firm responds to inquiries promptly.