The band’s lawyers challenge several legal claims while leaving the disputed buyout and other contractual questions to be addressed later.
Mastodon have asked a judge to dismiss parts of the lawsuit from Brent Hinds’ estate. Their lawyers argue that several claims lack a legal basis, while leaving the dispute over his business interests unresolved.
Billboard’s Rachel Scharf obtained the band’s 2 November filing, which seeks to narrow the case. Their lawyers argue that any additional money owed for Hinds’ interests should fall under a contractual dispute. They challenge the estate’s use of several other legal claims to pursue it.
The underlying disagreement predates Hinds’ death. As BLUNT reported in September, the estate says he died before the valuation and separation of his business interests were complete. It alleged that a US$80,000 buyout cheque arrived without an explanation of the valuation. The estate had not cashed it.
The estate also linked Hinds’ likeness on Marrow Deep to its claimed entitlement to merchandising revenue. Its position was that his departure from the performing lineup had not resolved his business interests.
Mastodon’s new memorandum challenges the legal basis of parts of that case. Rolling Stone AU/NZ’s Kory Grow reports that the lawyers contest personal liability for the individual members. They also argue that a proposed buyout did not create a binding obligation and that the parties had not agreed a purchase price.
The lawyers challenge claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, including the allegation that they wrongfully took Hinds’ ownership interests. They also dispute the legal basis of the estate’s claim concerning his likeness on the album artwork.
Those arguments do not settle what the estate is owed. Billboard reports that Mastodon expressly leaves remaining factual and contractual disputes for later. Neither report identifies a ruling granting the requested partial dismissal.
MORE IN News
