Lindsey Buckingham's complaint against FM - Filed 10/9/18 in Los Angeles - document

[rhiannondontgo]

Originally Posted by jwd

I'm not a legal expert by any means, but oral agreements are legitimate. If indeed the court can determine there was such an agreement, it will stand up in a court of law. There doesn't have to be a written contract.

Has anybody here ever heard of them having this rule before? The band has been legally a partnership since 76 apparently, yet there’s been many times that certain members hated something but had to go through with it anyway. If it was an equal partnership and one member could put a stop to any band decision, i’m positive Stevie wouldn’t just have objected to the name Tusk but also would’ve put a stop to putting the dog on the cover (which irritated her endlessly according to band insiders). She also says she was 110% against putting I Don’t Want To Know on Rumours and dramatially claims she “had to record it with a gun to her head”. And again she was apparently very against them performing the song Come on tour.
Stevie, as much as I love her, is one of the most stubborn, petty, controlling artists I know of. If she had the power to put a stop to any of these things that she hated due to an “equal partnership ruled by unanimous voting”, there’s no way she wouldn’t have used that power to get her way time and time again.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo

Has anybody here ever heard of them having this rule before? The band has been legally a partnership since 76 apparently, yet there’s been many times that certain members hated something but had to go through with it anyway. If it was an equal partnership and one member could put a stop to any band decision, i’m positive Stevie wouldn’t just have objected to the name Tusk but also would’ve put a stop to putting the dog on the cover (which irritated her endlessly according to band insiders). She also says she was 110% against putting I Don’t Want To Know on Rumours and dramatially claims she “had to record it with a gun to her head”. And again she was apparently very against them performing the song Come on tour.
Stevie, as much as I love her, is one of the most stubborn, petty, controlling artists I know of. If she had the power to put a stop to any of these things that she hated due to an “equal partnership ruled by unanimous voting”, there’s no way she wouldn’t have used that power to get her way time and time again.

I think some things are more important than others. Deciding what goes on an album cover or which song to be included on an album can be reached by consensus or a majority rules decision. When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

[rhiannondontgo]

Originally Posted by jwd

I think some things are more important than others. Deciding what goes on an album cover or which song to be included on an album can be reached by consensus or a majority rules decision. When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

I agree that Stevie’s concessions are quite minimal and not that big of a deal, but I think they have a good defense when it comes to him claiming that all band decisions have to be agreed upon unanimously. It doesn’t seem like it’s that ironclad if he has no written contract showing that this agreement existed and FM has an arsenal of examples of times certain partners opposed something that ultimately continued due to a “majority rules” school of voting.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by rhiannondontgo

I agree that Stevie’s concessions are quite minimal and not that big of a deal, but I think they have a good defense when it comes to him claiming that all band decisions have to be agreed upon unanimously. It doesn’t seem like it’s that ironclad if he has no written contract showing that this agreement existed and FM has an arsenal of examples of times certain partners opposed something that ultimately continued due to a “majority rules” school of voting.

I think that there would be something to substantiate that those big decisions were to be reached by unanimous vote. Testimony from the other band members perhaps or other examples in the bands' history to prove it. Here come the judge!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by jwd

When you're talking about dismissing a member of the band or touring conditions, that's a whole other ballgame.

Is it even possible to have unanimous consent when terminating an equal partner?

[jwd]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Is it even possible to have unanimous consent when terminating an equal partner?

No! Unless partner votes himself/herself out. You'd have to prove him "unfit", for lack of a better word, to be a member of the partnership. A serious offense detrimental to the partnership's continuation. That's where it's going to get ugly.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by jwd

No! Unless partner votes himself/herself out. You'd have to prove him "unfit", for lack of a better word, to be a member of the partnership. A serious offense detrimental to the partnership's continuation. That's where it's going to get ugly.

Fleetwood Mac is owned by Mick Fleetwood and John McVie. All the others are technically contracted employees.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Fleetwood Mac is owned by Mick Fleetwood and John McVie. All the others are technically contracted employees.

They own the name, but it was an equal partnership. Stevie and Lindsey were made equal partners in 1976.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Fleetwood Mac is owned by Mick Fleetwood and John McVie. All the others are technically contracted employees.

Per the complaint filed by Lindsey:

During both of Buckingham's tenures with Fleetwood Mac, the Band operated as a partnership in which each of the Partners had the right to veto any major decision considered by the Partnership. During their respective tenures with the Band, the Partners always shared equally in all economic opportunities undertaken by the Partnership and owned equal shares of the entities formed to enter into specific agreements on behalf of the Partnership.

Since Buckingham and Nicks joined the band in 1975, no Partner has been involuntarily dismissed from the Partnership. In fact under the California's Uniform Partnership Act of 1994 (the "Uniform Partnership Act"), absent a written partnership agreement, no Partner in Fleetwood Mac may be terminated from the Partnership without cause.