Amy Helm has sued to regain control of Levon Helm Studios, alleging that Brian Parillo illegally took over the company behind her father’s Woodstock concert venue and used its resources to pursue a campaign against her.

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 16 in state Supreme Court in Ulster County, seeks to remove Parillo from management, invalidate the corporate actions that put him in charge, and restore Helm as president and a director. It also challenges his authority to have the company file a federal lawsuit against her and seven other defendants in August.

The 34-page complaint opens another front in a dispute that has left the Barn, as the venue is known, with canceled concerts, competing allegations of financial misconduct, and an uncertain future. Helm is suing both individually and on behalf of the company, accusing Parillo of breaching his duties to the business and seeking unspecified damages and a full accounting of his management.

Following two performances by Laith Al-Saadi on Sept. 25 and 26, the next concert on the Barn’s schedule is Foy Vance on April 29, 2027. Ticket holders are still awaiting refunds for canceled shows.

The exhibits include emails in which a studio attorney threatened Helm’s career, records documenting the leadership changes, and a new report from Jason J. Kovacs, the court-appointed guardian ad litem for Sandra Helm in the separate estate proceeding. Kovacs questioned her decision to transfer the voting rights to her shares to Parillo.

His report also describes immediate financial pressure. Sandra, Levon Helm’s widow, told Kovacs that she lacked the money for an approximately $7,300 mortgage payment due Oct. 15 and that the studio had no revenue because its shows had been canceled. The report does not establish whether the payment was subsequently made.

Sandra Helm and her lawyers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Brian Parillo didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. His lawyer Peter Luccarelli, a partner at Brightpoint Law and managing partner of its New York office, said by phone that the firm was reviewing the filing.

“We’re reviewing the complaints and will respond at an appropriate time,” he said.

The studio’s federal lawsuit presents a sharply different account. Filed Aug. 10 in the Northern District of New York, it alleges that Amy Helm used company resources for personal expenses and her music career, engaged in improper financial transactions, infringed the “Midnight Ramble” trademark, and encouraged cancellations that harmed the business. It alleges at least $2 million in damages.

“I unilaterally deny any and all of these baseless, spurious allegations,” Helm said in a statement when that case was filed.

Her new lawsuit alleges that Parillo is spending company resources on litigation he had no lawful authority to initiate. The federal complaint challenges Helm’s conduct, while her state complaint challenges the authority of the management that brought it.

Levon Helm, the drummer and singer for The Band, hosted the Midnight Rambles at his home and recording studio on Plochmann Lane before his death in 2012. The intimate concerts became a defining part of his later career and continued after his death.

Amy and Sandra each own 40% of Levon Helm Studios, while Parillo and former manager Barbara O’Brien each own 10%, according to the new complaint. The concert business is separate from Levon’s Barn LLC, through which Amy and Sandra co-own the property.

At the center of Amy’s case is how control of that business changed hands.

In June 2025, Sandra, Parillo, and O’Brien signed a written shareholder consent removing Amy as a director and reducing the board to one member. Sandra then signed a separate document removing Amy as president and appointing herself to that position.

Documents dated May 26, 2026, replaced Sandra with Parillo as the sole director. Parillo then appointed himself president, secretary, and treasurer, with authority to manage the company and initiate litigation.

Amy’s attorneys at Boies Schiller Flexner argue that those actions were invalid because the company’s corporate documents did not authorize shareholders to act without a meeting unless all voting shareholders consented in writing. Amy did not sign the consents, and no shareholder meeting was called or held, the complaint says.

If those leadership changes were invalid, her attorneys argue, Parillo also lacked authority to have the company sue her in federal court. She is asking the state court to declare that the federal action was not authorized by the company.

The complaint separately alleges that Parillo obtained Sandra’s cooperation through undue influence, exploiting her distress over an estate proceeding in which Amy had demanded an accounting of her handling of Levon’s assets.

According to the complaint, Sandra later transferred the voting rights to her shares to Parillo while retaining their financial value. Parillo claims a similar arrangement with O’Brien, giving him a claimed 60% of the company’s voting power despite owning 10% of its shares.

Amy is asking the court to invalidate Sandra’s transfer. The complaint quotes Amy’s account of Sandra telling her that Parillo had proposed a plan to force Amy to buy back the company for $5 million. That account is an allegation, not a court finding.

The studio’s side has described the voting arrangement as protection for Sandra against pressure from Amy. In a June 5 email attached to the lawsuit, Zachary Bohlender, an attorney at Brightpoint Law, wrote that Sandra had made a “well-informed and well-advised decision” to install Parillo and had transferred her voting rights on the advice of her own attorney.

The same email contained explicit threats against Amy’s livelihood.

“What I do know is that we hold Amy’s career in our hands. We can make Amy radioactive,” Bohlender wrote to her estate attorney, copying Parillo and Amy.

He described canceling her performances at the Barn, pursuing shows booked under a disputed name, and seeking financial records from promoters.

“When there’s nothing left but the smoking ruins of Amy’s career, I hope that epigram gives her comfort,” he wrote later in the email.

Bohlender also accused Amy of misconduct and characterized conditions placed on a planned performance as an effort to create room for settlement negotiations. Amy’s complaint cites the correspondence as evidence that the company was being used to threaten her.

An earlier email, dated June 2, addressed the cancellation of her June 6 concert.

Bohlender attributed the cancellation to her failure to respond to demands and alleged efforts to cause staff members to quit. He then wrote that the studio would publicly describe it differently.

“We are officially postponing it due to a ‘family emergency’ that Amy is dealing with,” he wrote. If she gave a different explanation, in public or in private, he warned, the studio would escalate, including by suing her for trademark infringement.

Amy’s lawsuit also cites an objection from her father’s estate. On Oct. 15, a lawyer for the estate’s public administrator sent Parillo a cease-and-desist letter over the use of Levon Helm’s name, image, and likeness on social media, according to the filing. Amy’s attorneys say that use was unauthorized and left the studio open to liability.

Kovacs, the guardian ad litem appointed to represent Sandra in the estate case, is more cautious in his Oct. 12 report than Amy’s complaint is about whether Sandra was manipulated.

He wrote that Sandra took part in their conversations, said what she wanted, and weighed possible ways to settle the dispute. He did not recommend that the court find her unable to participate in the case or protect her own interests.

“A person may make choices that appear unwise or counterproductive without being unable to understand or participate in a proceeding,” he wrote. “I consider that distinction important here.”

But Kovacs had doubts about the arrangement that lets Sandra keep the financial stake in her shares while giving up the right to vote them. He wrote that he didn’t yet understand what she hoped to get out of it, or whether she fully grasped what it meant. He has not decided whether the transfer is valid, and he recommended that her reasons be looked into without pressure from anyone with a stake in the outcome.

Kovacs recommended mediation or a settlement conference covering the estate accounting, the voting rights, and the related business fights. Sandra told him she was open to revisiting a September 2025 settlement framework, with some changes.

He also flagged her request for help with the mortgage to the court, suggesting that estate funds could be used to help protect the property. He noted that he had not reviewed current account balances, the status of the loan, or its payment history.

In a separate Oct. 13 order, the court handling the estate case scheduled a Nov. 6 status conference and gave Sandra until Dec. 14 to file an interim accounting. Those deadlines apply to the estate case, not to Amy’s new lawsuit.

“In my view, continued adversarial litigation risks consuming a disproportionate share of the resources at stake,” Kovacs wrote, “while further straining the parties’ relationship and their connection to Levon Helm’s legacy.”

Noah Eckstein is the editor-in-chief of The Overlook. Send correspondence to noah@theoverlooknews.com.