g.avant
Snoop Dogg has just mover one step closer to finally going to trial in his dispute with Pabst Brewing Co.
California judge Malcolm H. Mackey declined to drop the lawsuit filed by the west coast legend in 2015, over claims that Pabst breached agreements that were reached in an endorsement deal.
In 2011 Snoop signed on to be the face of Blast Colt 45, a fruity flavored spinoff of the classic malt beverage.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the contract for the endorsement included a phantom equity clause that entitled the rapper to a 10-percent portion of the profits, if the company was sold before January 2016.
In 2014 the brewer’s grandparent company Pabst Corporate Holdings sold all of its stock in Pabst Holdings Inc., which is the sole owner of Pabst Brewing, the originators of the Blast Colt 45 brand.
The conflict arises in whether the sale triggered the phantom equity clause in Snoop’s contract.
“Pabst is trying to pull a fast one and argue that even though they sold this company for close to $700 million, they didn’t really sell the company,” Snoop’s attorney Alex Weingarten told The Hollywood Reporter.
“It is preposterous and just like the Judge saw through this nonsense today, we are confident that a jury will agree at our upcoming trial.”
Via The Hollywood Reporter:
In 2011, Snoop signed on to be the face of Blast by Colt 45, a brightly colored, fruity spinoff of the classic malt beverage. In addition to standard fees and royalties, his contract contained a phantom equity clause that entitled him to a portion of the profits if the brand was sold before January 2016.
In 2014, the brewer’s grandparent company, Pabst Corporate Holdings, sold to a third party all of its stock in Pabst Holdings Inc., which is the sole shareholder of Pabst Brewing. The dispute centers on whether that sale triggered the phantom equity clause.
Snoop’s attorney Alex Weingarten says the case is “lousy with evidence” that Snoop was shorted, and says even the company’s former owner, billionaire C. Dean Metropoulos, admitted in a deposition that the sale would have triggered the clause.
Pabst argues that the sale merely transferred control of the brand, not ownership, and that isn’t covered by Snoop’s deal.
“That transaction did not result in the sale of ‘the Blast by Colt 45 brand or the entire Colt 45 brand family,'” writes Pabst attorney Robert Dugdale in the motion for summary judgment. “PBC owns these brands in their entirety to this day.”
In his opposition to the motion, Weingarten called that argument “nonsense” and said it’s further evidence that the company “structured the sale of Pabst in an effort to intentionally frustrate Plaintiffs’ rights through a sham alter ego holding company structure.”
During the Monday hearing, Dugdale argued it “would have been ridiculous” to specifically structure a complex nine-figure deal just to avoid paying Snoop his equity.
Mackey nearly dismissed Snoop’s claim for conversion, which the judge described as a “nice way of saying theft,” but ultimately decided to allow the claims to proceed.
Trial is currently set for October.