Metal Anarchy

Maynard James Keenan (Tool, Puscifer, etc.) is currently facing a lawsuit related to his gin venture. A former business partner named Dave Sanclement took legal action after he was allegedly relieved of his duties at the Potions distillery for reasons unrelated to work. PotionG and co-managers Tim White and Calvin Arnold were listed as defendants as well.

The following was said in the complaint:

“Plaintiff is one of four members/managers of Potions with a 22.8% interest therein. Defendants Keenan, White and Arnold are the other members/managers of Potions whose respective interests are: 31.6%, 22.8%, and 22.8%. Potions is governed by a Board comprised of the four managers named above. Pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Agreement of Potions, dated July 11, 2024 (“Potions OA”), to which the Plaintiff and all Defendants are parties, the business and affairs of the company are to be managed, operated and controlled at the direction of the Board.

At the Board’s direction, it was determined that Plaintiff would oversee, manage and guide the day-to-day operations of the venture, due to his background, qualifications, and operational expertise superior to the other founding members. Notably, the pitch deck provided to investors to solicit their investment, and all drafts thereof, confirmed the Board’s agreement for Plaintiff to manage the day-to-day affairs of the venture.

The Defendants’ representation to investors that Plaintiff would be responsible for managing the day-to-day operations was intended to attract, and did attract, money from investors, whose decision to invest money was made in reliance on this representation. The Board’s decision for Plaintiff to manage the day-to-day operations was believed to be in the best interest of the company, given his qualifications for this role relative to the other members. The promise to manage day-to-day operations was intended to induce, and was a material reason for, Plaintiff’s agreement to participate in the venture. In reliance on the agreement for Plaintiff to manage the day-to-day operations, Plaintiff invested a substantial amount of time, energy and effort getting the venture up and running.

However, notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, in or around November 2025, the Defendants conspired in bad faith to strip Plaintiff of this role, in retaliation for something wholly unrelated to the business of Potions. To be sure, on September 30 and October 10, 2025, Plaintiff lodged a series of formal complaints about Defendant Keenan related to workplace issues at his other businesses. The complaints alleged conduct by Keenan that Plaintiff believed to be illegal.

Coincidentally, one month later, in retaliation for the same, the other three members/managers of Potions, led by Keenan, took the following actions to freeze out the Plaintiff:

* Stripped him of his responsibility for daily oversight of business operations.
* Banned him from company headquarters.
* Voided his consulting contract.
* Refused him access to the company’s books and records.
* Denied him access to the company’s product.
* Denied him access to company bank accounts.
* Impaired his relationship with the company’s legal counsel, accountant, and bookkeeper.
* Directed him not to communicate with investors.
* Denied his right to cultivate local and out of market business relationships.
* Refused to communicate generally about the business.

As a result, the Plaintiff has wrongfully been deprived of the very role and
responsibility which he was promised and on which he (and all investors) relied. In addition, Article VI, Section 6.01 of the Potions OA provides: The Company shall keep adequate books and records at its place of business, setting forth a true and accurate account of all business transactions arising out of and in connection with the conduct of the Company. Any Member or its designated representative shall have the right, at any reasonable time, to have access to and inspect, copy and audit such books or records. Article VI, Section 6.01 of the Potions OA permits any member or its duly authorized representative to inspect, copy and audit the books and records of the Company.

On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff sent Potions a written request to inspect the books and records pursuant to Article VI, Section 6.01 of the Potions OA and A.R.S. 29-3410. 27. The request specifically identified the following records to be made available for inspection and copying, including:

* Legal Fees.
* Development Agreements.
* Banking Statements.
* Vendor Agreements.
* Lease Agreements, Licensing Applications or Permits.
* Consulting Agreements or Proposals.

The request also noted that “each request applies to the business matters for Potions, LLC along with all records for PotionsG, LLC that exist as a result of Potions, LLC management of PotionsG, LLC.” Potions failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff sent Potions a second written request to inspect the books and records pursuant to Article VI, Section 6.01 of the Potions OA and A.R.S. 29-3410. Potions refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s request. On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff sent Potions a third written request to inspect the books and records pursuant to Article VI, Section 6.01 of the Potions OA and A.R.S. 29-3410.

To date, however, and despite multiple requests, Potions has failed and refused to comply. As a result, Plaintiff has wrongfully been denied access to the books and records to which he is entitled under the Potions OA and A.R.S. 29-3410.”

Sanclemente is seeking access to the company’s books and accounting and punitive damages for “willful, extreme, outrageous and malicious conduct.” He also wants to have his legal fees covered.

[via Courthouse New Service]