If you're dealing with a guy who goes by the name Curren$y, you probably don't want to dick around in the monetary department. That's a lesson that will potentially be learned in court by Damon Dash, as Curren$y is suing the former Roc-A-Fella co-owner for $1.5 million in damages over some sour business dealings.
According to TMZ, Curren$y has filed a lawsuit against Dash claiming that the two made a deal to release music together in 2010. Dash did release two Curren$y albums that year, but the two allegedly couldn't come to an agreement. Then, in 2011, Curren$y signed with Warner Bros.
Despite this move, the lawsuit claims that Dash continued to release Curren$y's music against the new Warner Bros. deal, which gave them the exclusive rights to the rapper's music. In response, Curren$y is demanding $1.5 million in damages and that Dash stop profiting from Curren$y in any way.
Dash allegedly fired back, claiming that he was given permission to release the albums that he did, and that Curren$y's Warner Bros. deal went against an agreement the two had come to prior to that. A judge has yet to rule on the situation.
UPDATE: Dash's lawyer has since released the following statement:
My client's initial reaction to the lawsuit was that of surprise, particularly in light of Curren$y's numerous statements that the Muscle Car Chronicles would be released by BluRoc.
On March 15, 2012, the plaintiffs appeared in Federal Court to argue for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin my client from the continued distribution of Muscle Car Chronicles.
The plaintiffs' application was denied in open Court by Federal Judge Andrew Carter and the album was permitted to remain available through iTunes and other retailers. While the situation remains ongoing, we are hopeful that an amicable resolution can be reached.
My client wishes Curren$y the best in all of his future career endeavors. However, he has expressed a deep concern with respect to the manner in which the artist's attorney and manager have conducted themselves. He sincerely hopes that Curren$y is not being misled or pressured into making unwise decisions, such as the filing of what appears to be a potentially frivolous litigation.
According to TMZ, Curren$y has filed a lawsuit against Dash claiming that the two made a deal to release music together in 2010. Dash did release two Curren$y albums that year, but the two allegedly couldn't come to an agreement. Then, in 2011, Curren$y signed with Warner Bros.
Despite this move, the lawsuit claims that Dash continued to release Curren$y's music against the new Warner Bros. deal, which gave them the exclusive rights to the rapper's music. In response, Curren$y is demanding $1.5 million in damages and that Dash stop profiting from Curren$y in any way.
Dash allegedly fired back, claiming that he was given permission to release the albums that he did, and that Curren$y's Warner Bros. deal went against an agreement the two had come to prior to that. A judge has yet to rule on the situation.
UPDATE: Dash's lawyer has since released the following statement:
My client's initial reaction to the lawsuit was that of surprise, particularly in light of Curren$y's numerous statements that the Muscle Car Chronicles would be released by BluRoc.
On March 15, 2012, the plaintiffs appeared in Federal Court to argue for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin my client from the continued distribution of Muscle Car Chronicles.
The plaintiffs' application was denied in open Court by Federal Judge Andrew Carter and the album was permitted to remain available through iTunes and other retailers. While the situation remains ongoing, we are hopeful that an amicable resolution can be reached.
My client wishes Curren$y the best in all of his future career endeavors. However, he has expressed a deep concern with respect to the manner in which the artist's attorney and manager have conducted themselves. He sincerely hopes that Curren$y is not being misled or pressured into making unwise decisions, such as the filing of what appears to be a potentially frivolous litigation.