As previously reported, Chris Fehn was kicked out of Slipknot after suing Corey Taylor and M. Shawn “Clown” Crahan for allegedly operating and making money on Slipknot affiliated businesses behind his back. Now, in a new affidavit and memorandum written in an effort to get Fehn’s lawsuit dismissed, the band’s business manager Robert Shore, who was also named in the suit, has disputed the percussionist’s claims, basically saying he was just a hired gun.
Shore said the following in the document [via Blabbermouth]:
“Fehn performed with SLIPKNOT and received a fee for doing so. He is not a shareholder, owner or member of any business entity he names as a defendant in this action.”
He went on to say Crahan and Taylor are the “founding members” and that the “remaining defendants are entities through which the band’s business is or was conducted.”
Shore also added the following about the quality of his own work:
“I have been involved in the music management business for decades and have operated RSA [Rob Shore & Associates, Inc.] since 2008. RSA clientele receive optimal business management services whenever and wherever needed, and I am confident in stating that each of RSA’s clients, including the SLIPKNOT entities, has received precisely such service.”
“Neither RSA nor I have ever been sued by a client, for any reason, including those similar to the outrageous allegations contained in this case.”
The following was also said in the memorandum:
“[Fehn’s lawsuit] alleges that [SLIPKNOT] was organized as a ‘partnership at will’ under the law of the State of Iowa, and, while Fehn was not a founder, that he and Crahan and Taylor are its current members. The complaint does not assert a claim on behalf of the partnership. Although vague on the point, the complaint appears to base the existence of a fiduciary duty [and, therefore, Fehn’s right to an accounting] on the existence of the alleged de facto partnership. Thus, as a necessary predicate to the relief he seeks against RSA and Shore, Fehn must properly plead the existence of a form of partnership in which he has an interest. He fails to do so.”
The memorandum added:
“A partnership does not exist merely because a pleading characterizes a business association as such, but, rather, turns on various factors including: (1) the sharing of profits and losses of an enterprise; (2) joint control and management of the business; (3) capital contribution by each party of property, financial resources, effort, skill or knowledge. Mere receipt of a share of profits is not dispositive. All elements of a partnership relationship must be present for such a relationship to exist.
“Even a cursory review of the Fehn’s complaint reveals the complete absence of necessary allegations. Among other defects, the complaint alleges no facts concerning the circumstances under which the de facto partnership was created, the nature of each alleged partner’s interest, Fehn’s contribution, the purpose of the partnership or whether Fehn, by entering into this alleged business arrangement, undertook to share losses. The complaint must, therefore, be dismissed.”
You can find a video report from Rock Feed regarding all this below: