Opinion and Order
Judge Aida M. Delgado Colon vs Judge José A. Fusté

Judge Delgado case parties: Curet Heirs vs ACEMLA-LAMCO
Judge Fusté case parties:
    a. Venegas heirs vs ACEMLA-LAMCO
    b. Venegas heirs vs Peermusic


    a. Illegally appropriated all the songs composed by Guillermo venegas Lloveras.
    b. Licensed all the songs to several radio stations.
    c. Copyright registered some 80 songs.
    d. Illegally and retroactively licensed the song Genesis to Banco Popular in exchange for about $60,000.
    e. Licensed the song "Desde que te marchaste" and collected its royalties, estimated to be over $350,000 at the time.
    e. Destroyed the ability of Venegas heirs, to do business with all the Venegas songs because it was it was preempted in the marketplace by ACEMLA-LAMCO, who illegally claimed it was the only owner and claimed that the Venegas heirs could not license the Venegas songs.

    a.Illeegally licensed the song Genesis to Banco Popular in exchange.
    b. Illegally licensed the song Genesis to BMG.
    c. Illegally licensed the song Genesis to thousands of radio stations and venues       through ASCAP.
    d. Violated the contracts which assigned some 20 songs by not reporting and not paying any royalties during many years.


    d. Violated the contracts which assigned many songs by not reporting and not paying proper royalties during many years.
    b.  Illegally licensed 4 songs to others.


Judge Fusté (Opinion and Order here):
    a. $16,000 against ACEMLA-LAMCO. This is part of the money that was paid to ACEMLA-LAMCO by Banco Popular. This money can no longer be claimed (alleges Banco Popular) against Banco Popular (in another parallel case) by the Venegas heirs, so in reality nothing was received from ACEMLA-LAMCO.
    b. $5,000 from Peermusic.
    c. Assignment contracts were not rescinded.
    d. Widow of Venegas has rights in some 8 (renewal period) songs that the Puerto Rico courts had decided otherwise because, per (wrongly) Fusté, the Puerto Rico courts had not decided the ownership of songs in renewal period as alleged by ACEMLA-LAMCO (who had no right to interfere or make a claim on the matter).

Judge Delgado (Opinion and Order here):
    a. Song assignment contracts were rescinded.
    b. $130,000 against ACEMLA-LAMCO.
    b. ACEMLA-LAMCO: Its accounting is useless and is not trustful.
    c. Mr. Bernard’s (ACEMLA-LAMCO president) testimony "is totally unreliable".


Both Venegas parties and Curet parties had the same lawyers, Hoglund and Pamias.
See here why none of Fustés' decision in Venegas cases was overturned on appeal.