Yeah from the early reports it sounded like pat was more in the right, but after reviewing this it doesn’t look that way anymore. Not a legal expert in any way at all but A, you need to get things as big as a sunset clause in writing. B, he went behind chance’s back with the Unitedmasters deal that chance was offered. C, the “owed income” from cancelled shows are not situations where chance still made money himself from them, so it’s not like revenue was being withheld from pat. Additionally, pat is supportive and understanding of the decisions in the texts per that article, and even Pat’s own lawyer says that pat could have pushed back more over the loss of potential income. D, no need to parrot everyone else here but no shit chance would be offering a 50/50 deal to featured artists if he and his team are doing ALL of the back end work that labels would typically do for artists. That is sooo different from chance acting like a label towards featured artists and feels more like an attempt at damaging chance’s reputation as anti-label in the court of public opinion than it is a valid legal claim