Chance the Rapper Wins Lingering Legal Fight With Ex-Manager: ‘Owed Him Loyalty’

After winning a March trial against his former manager, Chance the Rapper secured a decisive legal victory forcing Pat Corcoran to forfeit compensation exceeding $1.5 million. A Chicago judge issued a ruling resolving the outstanding breach of fiduciary duty claim, shifting responsibility exclusively to the court rather than leaving it to the jury’s discretion.

In a comprehensive 28‑page judgment obtained by Rolling Stone, Cook County Circuit Court Judge James E. Hanlon Jr. mandated that Corcoran surrender vendor‑paid commissions and relinquish his 15 percent management fee tied to merchandising agreements. The judgment, grounded in evidence from the jury trial and subsequent proceedings held in May, covers a period when Corcoran accumulated more than $10 million by steering the rapper’s recording, touring, and merchandise enterprises.< /p>

While the decree does not specify the exact sum Corcoran must reimburse, it acknowledged trial exhibits will guide the monetary calculation. Corcoran’s representatives indicated the rapper faces potential liability for up to $1.5 million in management retainer payments, alongside untrusted sources from merchandise distributors.< /p>

Editor’s picks

The judge added that the misconduct causing tangible harm was centered on the merchandise division, where Corcoran’s company operated on both sides of Beatrice’s expenditures over an extended timeframe. Some unrelated external ventures may have appeared disloyal, yet the court determined they were pursuits permissible because those deals lay outside the fiduciary zone requiring his stewardship.< /p>

Trending Stories

“The court found no grounds for Chance’s demand exceeding $10 million in damages,” a representative for Corcoran told Rolling Stone. “We are pleased the tribunal concurred that Pat broke trust through years of valuable work which Bennett embraced and capitalized upon—effort we maintain was not self‑dealing. It is now Chances responsibility to demonstrate actual harm within the narrow merchandising boundaries set forth in the order.”

Source link