New Details Emerge From Chris Fehn’s Lawsuit Against Slipknot

Slipknot, by Evil Robb Photography

We now have a clearer picture of the full scope of Chris Fehn’s lawsuit against Slipknot. If you have been following the story here, Fehn alleges that the band has not paid him accurate for the over two decades he was a member of the band and that Corey Taylor and M. Shawn Crahan, in particular, are to blame. Thanks to the music site and vlog Rock Feed, we now have the actual court documents, filed with the State of New York. Officially, Fehn’s lawsuit is filed against two different versions of “Slipknot, Incorporated”, a New York and a California corporation; Knot Merch LLC, Knot Touring LLC, SK Productions, LLC; Knot Touring LLC, M. Shawn Crahan aka Clown, Corey Taylor and Robert Shore, the band’s manager, as well as Shore’s law firm, Rob Shore & Associates, Inc. Fehn is suing for two counts of “breach of fiduciary duty,” one count of “breach of implied in fact contract” and one count of “unjust enrichment.” You can read the entire document below.


Link to the official lawsuit here:

We are not lawyers at Ghost Cult, but we will try to summarize the suit here. Fehn’s suit alleges that he trusted Taylor and Crahan to represent him as a partner, and entered into a general partnership with then in 1998. This partnership retained the rights to Slipknot’s trademarks. It was a partnership at will a.k.a. it is a partnership that can be dissolved by any partner at any time without any liability.”

Fehn’s suit claims he was not informed of any of the other new companies being formed that drive revenue to the band and are controlled by Taylor and Crahan. He has apparently been operating as a subcontractor with no ownership stake of “Slipknot Inc.” for some time, which would be why he claimed to make so much less money than Taylor and Crahan. He contends that the California Slipknot, Incorporated was created in 2003 he never agreed to assign Slipknot’s trademarks to the new corporation. He was not even aware of the corporation until now.

Fehn contends that Shore and his law firm represented all of the members of the band equally, but based on the suit, Fehn is claiming that Shore acted more favorably to Taylor and Crahan than Fehn.

Fehn contends that Crahan and Taylor also did not act favorably towards their agreed upon partnership and is claiming that the dup enriched themselves out of proportion to the other members of the band. The document does not go into detail as to how they acted unfavorably towards Fehn.

He is asking for an audit of Slipknot’s finances to be made. Fehn claims he performed the services asked of him for all of these entities, but feels he was not compensated fairly. Because of this, he is also looking for damages caused by the breach, including interest.

These comments surmize Fehn’s claims in the suit but don’t take into account anything Fehn may have agreed to in the past or any other tacit legal arrangements the band has together.

We’ll keep following this story as it develops.