*Snoop Dogg’s legal case against Pabst Brewing Company will finally go before a jury in October, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
The rapper, born Calvin Broadus Jr., sued the Midwestern brewery over non-payment. The case stems from the three-year endorsement deal he signed with the company in 2011 to be a brand ambassador for their fruit-flavored malt liquor called Blast by Colt 45.
According to the lawsuit filed in June by Snoop’s lawyer Alex Weingarten, under the agreement the rapper was entitled to an up-front fee, and royalties from the sales of Blast and other Colt 45 products.
The agreement also contained a phantom equity clause, according to the suit, that meant “in the event the Colt 45 brand were sold before January 2016, Mr. Broadus would be entitled to 10 percent of the price realized by the stockholders of Pabst in connection with the sale. The only exception to this is if the Colt 45 brand were sold to a subsidiary or affiliate of Pabst, or were sold in connection with a stock purchase/exchange among existing stockholders.”
In the fall of 2014, Pabst was sold to Blue Ribbon Intermediate Holdings, a joint venture of Eugene Kashper and a private equity firm, for a reported $700 million, according to the complaint. Weingarten argues that triggered the phantom equity clause, but Snoop was never paid his share of the sale.
Pabst’s attorney Richard B. Kendall in July filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that Pabst didn’t sell anything.
“The result of the Transaction was merely that the stock ownership in Holdings (PBC’s parent company) changed hands, but the stock ownership in PBC was unaffected and PBC’s brands were unaffected,” Kendall wrote.
Wednesday Judge Malcom H. Mackey overruled the demurrer and also denied Kendall’s motion to stay or dismiss that would have allowed proceedings to move to Illinois.
“Plaintiffs have alleged all of the elements necessary to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract regarding the Consulting Agreement. Under Illinois law, the sale of an entire company necessarily includes a sale of its assets,” Mackey wrote in his tentative opinion. “Pabst takes the self-serving position that a sale of the entire Pabst company is not a sale of the Colt 45 brand family, and therefore Broadus is not owed anything.”
“We are thrilled that the Court saw through PBR’s rhetoric and followed the law,” Weingarten said. “PBR desperately wants to keep this case away from a Los Angeles jury, presumably because they know that they are going to be held accountable for their conduct.”
The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 31 in Los Angeles.
We Publish News 24/7. Don’t Miss A Story. Click HERE to SUBSCRIBE to Our Newsletter Now!
