Some new documents have surfaced in the ongoing legal battle between Curren$y and Dame Dash. The New Orleans rapper filed charges against Dash earlier this year, claiming that he had never officially signed to his DD172 label so its release of Pilot Talk I, Pilot Talk II and Muscle Car Chronicles had all been unauthorized.
Curren$y then claimed to have backed away from the suit in July, but new documents from Dash’s attorney suggest that the issue is still alive and well. Dash is apparently filing counter-claims against Curren$y because “unbeknownst to DASH or any other representatives of DD172/BLUROC, ‘CURREN$Y and MOUSA were consistently taking meetings with record labels and various entertainment companies,’ in an effort to secure CURREN$Y a recording contract with a major record label.”
Take a look at the full statement from Dash’s attorney below:
Mr. Dash did not initiate this legal dispute and he is extremely disappointed that the matter became public. However, after being dragged into court my client was left with no other choice but to vigorously defend his rights and reputation.
The case is still very much ongoing but the focus has shifted. On March 16, 2012, Curren$y's application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin my client from further distribution of the albums entitled Pilot Talk I and II and the Muscle Car Chronicles albums was denied by U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter. Thereafter, my client filed a third-party complaint suing Curren$y’s representatives Nova Perry and Moussa Hamdan and Warner Brothers Records for tortuous interference. My client is also pursuing several counter-claims against Curren$y, whom we allege breached his partnership with DD172 by signing an exclusive '360' deal with Warner Brothers.
It is our position that Warner Brothers and Curren$y's representatives were aware of the fact that Curren$y had a business relationship with DD172 when they caused him to sign to an exclusive '360' record deal with Warner Brothers, and thus they were further aware that any purported exclusive deal with Curren$y would interfere with DD172's rights. We are further claiming that Curren$y's defection from DD172 caused my client to suffer damages in excess of $5,000,000 to his business and reputation.