Artist News Business News Labels & Publishers Legal Management & Funding

Wiz Khalifa sues former manager

By | Published on Thursday 2 June 2016

Wiz Khalifa

Wiz Khalifa is suing former manager Benjy Grinberg and his label Rostrum Records, in part to be released from his record deal. He accuses Grinberg of failing to act in his best interests when locking him into a 360° record deal with his own label, and is also citing California’s ‘seven year rule’ on personal services contracts as another reason to be set free.

Grinberg began representing the then sixteen year old rapper in 2004. Khalifa then fired him in 2014. In his lawsuit, he says that Grinberg and his company undertook “faithless fiduciaries in direct contravention of their obligations to him” and under the deal “reached for more than a decade into virtually every aspect” of his professional activity.

Khalifa’s attorney Alex Weingarten told Variety: “An artist’s most trusted advisor is his or her personal manager. Generally, nothing good comes out when the manager decides to go into business against his artist. Unfortunately, that is the case here”.

In a statement, Grinberg said that he was “very disappointed and surprised” by the lawsuit. “To witness an artist turn on you after supporting them for a number of years is very disheartening”, he continued. “This is an egregious lawsuit filled with inaccuracies, yet unfortunately people sometimes resort to these practices as a way of conducting business”.

The case has echoes of Martin Garrix’s legal battle with his former manager, in which he claimed that he had been duped into signing a deal with said manager’s own label as a teenager. That case was settled out of court, though Garrix suggested that there could be further legal action on the matter.

Meanwhile, when exactly California’s seven year rule, that limits personal services contracts to that time period, applies to music contracts, has been much debated over the years.

As well as being released from his record deal, Khalifa is seeking over $1 million in damages.



READ MORE ABOUT: | |