Kanye West and EMI have been in a tense legal battle over the past few months. Ye sued the company on claims that they’re “laboring” him after he signed a “lopsided” contract while recording College Dropout. Kanye said the contract forbids him from retiring as a songwriter, recording artist and producer, claiming they’ve repeatedly re-upped on the contract which is illegal in the state of California. EMI filed a countersuit against Ye. They accused the rapper of breaching his contract after filing a lawsuit. A clause in the contract states that gives New York the right to handle such issues. Since then, they’ve been quietly negotiating, according to The Hollywood Reporter.


Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images

At first, Kanye and EMI requested to push back the deadlines for filing. There were talks of a settlement with the attorneys for both parties telling the judge they were “optimistic” everyone would resolve the issues with proposals exchanged as well as more time to clarify information regarding Kanye’s contractual obligations. Unfortunately, neither party has come to an agreement and the case began once again on Thursday. EMI apparently brought up that they’re considering filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. They didn’t specify what it entails but it could be anything from stopping him from going through with his California lawsuit to stopping him from recording new music.

Essentially, EMI’s claims that Kanye West can’t escape the New York clause of his contract with them while Ye argues they shouldn’t be able to dodge California law and public policy over his contractual obligations.

“Even if Mr. West’s publishing contracts with EMI were not unfair (they are), even if their terms valued Mr. West’s contributions in line with the enormous global success he has achieved (they do not), and even if EMI had not underpaid Mr. West what they owe him (they have), he would be entitled to his freedom,” reads Kanye’s motion to dismiss EMI’s complaint. “EMI now asks this Court to ratify EMI’s unlawful conduct by adjudicating a matter over which the Court lacks jurisdiction to circumvent the very policy protections EMI has violated and keep Mr. West bound to the contract indefinitely.”

[Via]