The case by Chris Fehn against Slipknot has played out as expected in the music press with allegations and some mudslinging, and few details. We are not really privy to the back story and all the context about the relationships in the band that got us to this point. We are also not legal experts at Ghost Cult, so rather than speculate and guess, we asked a lawyer, Matthew Quigley, to analyze the lawsuit filed by Fehn and his lawyers with the State of New York, and give his own take on the finer points of the case. As journalists, we are not taking a side with either party, we only mean to understand the case better and hopefully enlighten our readers on this aspect of the music business.

The Slipknot lawsuit highlights the various legal issues when starting a band, and what may or may not happen further down the line once a band is successful. Originally Slipknot formed as a partnership in Iowa, which can form by simply engaging in a business for profit, such as forming a band for example, and it can happen without an intention to form a partnership and in the absence of any formal agreement.

With the Slipknot partnership having been established prior to any of the formal legal entities, with Corey Taylor and Michael Shawn Crahan founding it prior to asking Chris Fehn to join. With Fehn joining the band, he had effectively become a partner, and under the law in Iowa and the general common law foundations for partnerships, they became bound by various duties whether they were necessarily aware of this, is another question entirely.

The allegations within the case focus on the breach of these duties relating to the use of the Slipknot IP, the copyrighted music and trademarks, which would belong equally by default to all members of the Slipknot general partnership. The registration of the companies, such as Slipknot NY, Slipknot CA and Slipknot productions, ect. that made use of the this without paying all members of the general partnership could be seen as to these duties. The first three counts of the complaint all revolve around these relationships and the breach.

This is one of the main issues that arise from forming a band in the absence of formalities and the establishment of a common law partnership on the basis of the actions of the parties involved. This leaves the actual awareness of their duties to each other within the partnership uncertain.

The fourth count deals with the relationship between Fehn and the manager of the band, and this itself has its own rights and duties with the manager having duties that he is contractually bound to in representing the interests of the partnership as a whole. This itself is arguably a separate issue from the partnership itself.

In short, the lawsuit shows the difficulties bands may run into without complete clarity as to the legal position all the members are in when it comes to ownership and the interests they hold.