Motley Crue Lawsuit: Parties State Their Cases

Last week Mars filed a lawsuit against former bandmates Nikki Sixx, Tommy Lee and Vince Neil, after claiming that the band is intentionally cutting him off financially and trying to fully remove him from the band. After announcing his retirement, last October, due to his decades long battle with ankylosing spondylitis.

The biggest debate is over Mars’ status in the band. His position is that he retired from touring only, while the band maintains that since touring is almost their only source of income, it represents complete retirement.

Representatives on each side of the Motley Crue dispute stated their parties’ cases amongst speculation that the upcoming legal battle will be decided over a 2008 amendment to the band agreement.

According to the amendment, “In the event that any shareholder no longer renders services in MC then no amount of purported value shall be attributable to the Trademarks at the time of resignation, but all such trademarks shall continue to be the exclusive property of the corporation. In the event that any shareholder resigns from performing and/or rendering services in MC … he shall not be permitted to continue to use the trademarks for any purpose whatever. … Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no event shall any resigning shareholder be entitled to receive any monies attributable to live performances.”

This amendment was created, after both Lee and Neil had left the band only to return later.  The amendment addressed the question of whether Lee and Neil were entitled to income during their absence. Allen Kovac, who is representing Motley Crue, said that Mars was one of those that voted against the Lee and Neil from having any entitlement.

Kovac said, Mars was offered 5% of the income from Motley Crue’s 2023 dates, even though the amendment states that he should not receive anything. Even when Mars rejected it, the band upped the offer to 7.5%. “What Mick’s asking for is an equal share, 25%, but there’s a guy named John 5 in the band,” Kovac noted. “Mick resigned from touring, and John 5’s getting paid. So, who’s gonna pay John 5? None of this makes sense.”

He argued that the offer to Mars was worth a healthy cut of the estimated $100-110 million income expected over the year. “What’s 7 and a half percent of that? He says it’s an insult. And you’ve got me quoting that the other two guys got zero when they were out of the band. So where’s the insult?” he explained. “I think Mick is part of the 1%. Please put that on the record. … Let’s say it was 7 and a half percent of $110 million. Could you live on that, even if you have tens of millions already?”

Mars’ attorney, Edwin F. McPherson, argued that the situations involving Lee and Neil were different. “Vince was thrown out of the band, and Tommy left for other endeavors,” he said. “This was a long time ago. They did not leave after 41 years, and they did not simply retire from touring, particularly because of a debilitating disease. … This scenario that you discuss would allow Sixx to get rid of everyone, and he would be the last man standing, owning everything. That is not how corporate law works, and that is not even how normal bands work, especially [regarding] a band founder.”