Grammy nominated artist Kem is currently involved in a legal battle with his former manager Toya Hankins in a dispute centred on the often contentious issue of sunset clause payments, which are commissions managers often receive even once they have stopped managing an artist.
Hankins sued Kem, real name Kim Lamont Owens, in 2022, claiming she was still due commission payments on his income despite stopping managing the artist in 2016. That lawsuit, Owens says in a new legal filing, is a “bad faith and misguided attempt” by Hankins “to squeeze management commissions from Owens long after the parties’ managerial relationship ended”.
The dispute hinges on whether a 2003 written agreement between Owens and Hankins is still in force or whether it was replaced by an oral agreement in 2005. It’s therefore a legal battle that highlights how important it is not only for artists and managers to have written management agreements in place, but also that any subsequent changes to the deal are also clearly documented.
The original written 2003 management agreement between Owens and Hankins did include a sunset clause, stating that - if they stopped working together - the manager would still receive a 10% commission on revenues she helped secure for one year, and then 7.5% for a second year.
That 2003 agreement initially ran for two years, but would automatically renew unless either party terminated the deal in writing. Owens claims that he did in fact terminate the original agreement in writing in 2005. However, he and Hankins then continued to work together for another decade under a separate oral agreement that didn’t include a sunset clause or any obligation to terminate in writing.
Hankins counters that, although the 2003 agreement was terminated in writing in 2005, that termination was later rescinded and therefore the original 2003 agreement - complete with sunset clause - remained in force.
In addition, when Owens and Hankins ultimately stopped working together in 2016, the 2003 deal, which was still in force, was not terminated in writing. Which means that agreement remains in force today and Hawkins should still be getting her original commission of 20%, rather than a lower sunset commission.
However, there was previously a disagreement about whether or not the 2003 agreement was still in force when Owens and Hankins parted company in 2016, not least because Hankins wanted to enforce the sunset clause.
That resulted in a written back and forth between lawyers representing both sides that ran into 2017. Owens claims that that correspondence actually constituted a written termination of his management relationship with Hankins.
To that end, Owens argues that - regardless of whichever agreement is relied upon - Hankins is still not due any commissions on any of his income since 30 May 2019.
The artist still reckons that his relationship with Hankins was governed by the 2005 oral agreement, meaning no sunset clause payments are due at all. However, even under the terms of the 2003 deal, the commissions due under the sunset clause would have expired in 2019 if, as Owens insists, his lawyer terminated Hankins deal in writing in 2017
It’s on that basis that Owens wants a summary judgement stopping his ex-manager from claiming any commissions after May 2019.