When Pat Corcoran filed a lawsuit against his former client Chancelor Bennett (Chance the Rapper) in November 2020, the case attracted immediate attention across the global music industry. For nearly a decade, the Chance-and-Pat partnership had been celebrated as the defining model of independent artist success in the streaming era — a Grammy-winning artist who had never signed with a major label, managed by a scrappy, innovative partner who built everything from scratch.

But instead of flourishing, the pair spent as much time breaking up as they did breaking ground. Their six-year-long split was finally adjudicated earlier this month in a two-and-a-half-week jury trial in Cook County, Illinois. Corcoran claimed he was owed $3.8 million in unpaid commissions, including payments under a three-year post-termination "sunset clause" he says was part of the pair’s original 2013 oral agreement. Chance denied the sunset clause ever existed and countersued for over $1 million, alleging Corcoran had breached his fiduciary duties and leveraged the Chance brand for personal gain.

In March 2026, a Chicago jury sided with Chance on Corcoran's central claim, rejecting the $3.8 million demand. However, the jury awarded Chance just $35 on his countersuit — a symbolic figure that reflected both sides' failure to fully document their professional relationship. The outcome was technically a win for Chance, but proved tto be a financial wash for all parties involved.

Jay Scharkey, Pat Corcoran's attorney put it this way: "The message to music managers is clear: Get it in writing. The jury award of $35 speaks to how seriously the jury viewed Chance's case."

Fair enough. But there’s plenty more lessons to mine from this messy divorce. Here are six takeaways from the pair’s split. This article relied heavily on press accounts of the trial including this article from Music Business Worldwide.

The single most contested issue in this entire case was one that could have been avoided with a single signed contract. Corcoran claimed that in 2013, he and Chance agreed to a 15% net profit commission across all revenue streams, including a three-year sunset clause after termination. Chance did not dispute the 15% commission — he disputed everything else, and because nothing was in writing, those disputed details became a multi-million-dollar jury trial.

What made the situation worse was that the lack of a written contract was apparently not an isolated oversight — it was a pattern. During trial testimony, Corcoran described how Chance had never signed formal agreements with his music attorney, his business manager, his booking agency, or even his booking agent Cara Lewis. At a Lollapalooza performance in 2017, a talent buyer threatened to block Chance from taking the stage stage if he did not sign an agreement — and even then, Chance reportedly had someone else sign on his behalf.

The implication drawn by Corcoran's legal team was that Chance systematically avoided written commitments to give himself maximum flexibility while leaving his partners with no documentation of what had actually been agreed.

Every management relationship — regardless of how close the parties are personally — should have a written agreement signed before work begins.
Key terms to document in writing include the commission rate, the revenue streams it applies to, expense reimbursement provisions, and post-termination payment rights (sunset clause).

If an oral agreement has already been operating for some time, it is still worth memorializing it in writing. Even a brief signed letter of intent or email confirmation can provide critical evidence if the relationship later deteriorates.

Managers should be especially vigilant: unlike artists, managers typically have no ownership of the work product they help create. Their financial interests are entirely dependent on whatever the agreement says.

At the heart of Corcoran's claim was an alleged sunset clause — a provision entitling him to three years of post-termination commissions on all revenue streams. Sunset clauses are standard in the music management industry, but their scope and duration vary widely, and their enforceability depends entirely on whether they were clearly agreed upon.

Chance's lead attorney argued at trial that there was not a single document in seven years of working together that referenced a sunset clause. Chance himself testified that the subject never came up until Corcoran filed the lawsuit in 2020. Corcoran's position was that a three-year sunset was an industry norm that any professional would have understood to be part of the arrangement — but the jury did not accept that a norm, without documentation, constitutes a contractual obligation.

Any sunset clause should be explicitly stated in the management agreement, including its duration, the revenue streams it covers, and whether it applies to deals that were in progress at the time of termination.

Managers should not assume that industry norms are self-executing. A practice being "standard" does not make it legally binding without agreement.

Artists should understand that a sunset clause is not inherently unreasonable — it reflects the manager's legitimate interest in being compensated for work that generated income after the relationship ended. Negotiating the terms is fair; ignoring the issue is not.

The Chance-Pat relationship began when both men were in their early twenties, building something together from almost nothing. Corcoran testified that he had never wavered in his belief in Chance's talent. At one point during trial, when asked how he could claim to love someone he was suing, Corcoran responded that love can take many forms — and that he still daydreamed about the dispute being behind them and the two becoming friends again.

That emotional texture is important context for understanding why the business infrastructure around the relationship was so informal. Close personal ties can make it feel unnecessary or even awkward to insist on formal contracts. But the trial made clear that proximity and trust can also create blind spots — and that when the relationship sours, the absence of documentation transforms a personal falling-out into a legal war.

Chance's father, Kenn Bennett, who recommended Corcoran for the management role, testified: "I found Pat Corcoran. I trained Pat Corcoran. I am responsible for Pat Corcoran." That sense of personal accountability, and the personal history between the families, made the eventual legal battle all the more damaging.

Treat professional relationships with friends and family members the same as any other business relationship when it comes to documentation. Contracts protect both parties — they are not a sign of mistrust, but a tool for preventing disputes when circumstances change.

Consider involving a neutral attorney early in the management relationship to draft an agreement that both sides have reviewed independently. Recognize that personal closeness can make it harder to address problems before they escalate. If red flags emerge, address them formally and promptly.

Chance's countersuit alleged that Corcoran had leveraged the Chance brand for personal enrichment in ways that violated his duties as a manager. The most significant example involved UnitedMasters, a music distribution company founded by Steve Stoute. Chance testified that Stoute had offered him an equity stake and a role as public face of the company — a deal valued at approximately $10 million. Chance said he later learned, through a third party, that Corcoran had quietly approached UnitedMasters to request his own equity stake in the deal.

When Chance confronted Corcoran, the manager allegedly broke down in tears and admitted it, offering to "give" Chance a percentage of his own companies as a form of repair. But when the paperwork arrived, it included conditions — a $2 million investment requirement and provisions touching Chance's name, image, and likeness — that Chance found alarming. Despite this, he chose not to fire Corcoran at that point. On the stand, Chance acknowledged he probably should have.

Managers have a fiduciary duty to act in their client's best interests. Artists and their advisors should understand what that duty encompasses — and watch for warning signs that a manager may be prioritizing their own financial interests over their client's.
When a potential breach of fiduciary duty is discovered, it should be addressed formally and in writing — not patched over with verbal apologies and informal offers. A formal response creates a record and puts the manager on notice.

If a manager is dismissed in part because of a breach, the artist's legal team should document the breach carefully at the time, since recovering damages later will require evidence of actual financial harm.

One of the more revealing aspects of the trial was how much financial ambiguity had accumulated over nearly a decade of partnership. Corcoran claimed he had personally invested $1.1 million in building Chance's merchandise operation and had absorbed losses of more than $350,000 — subsidizing those losses through commissions from other clients. Chance's team argued that Corcoran had been overpaid by more than $312,000 before his termination.

The jury was unable to quantify damages on Chance's breach of contract countersuit because the financial evidence was insufficient. Corcoran's commissions on some deals had never been clearly tracked. Questions arose about vendor payments from Corcoran's other clients that had flowed through the Chance operation. What should have been straightforward accounting questions became contested factual disputes because neither side had maintained the kind of clean, transparent records that would have resolved them.

The merchandise operation was a specific flashpoint: Corcoran testified about 24,000 unfulfilled orders in 2019, while Chance's team argued that Corcoran had grown disengaged and let the business deteriorate. With no contemporaneous documentation of decision-making and financial responsibility, those competing narratives were equally difficult for a jury to evaluate.

Artists and managers should maintain clear, separate financial records for every revenue stream covered by the management agreement — recordings, touring, merchandise, endorsements, and so on.

Expense reimbursement claims should be documented in real time, not reconstructed years later for litigation purposes. Regular financial reporting between manager and artist — even in informal relationships — creates a shared record of what was received, what was paid, and what remains outstanding.

If a manager is investing their own money in the artist's operations, that arrangement should be documented separately, with clear terms for repayment or offset.

The most ironic dimension of this case was how both Chance and Pat made rejecting the structures of the traditional music industry part of their personal and professional brands. Chance proudly never signed with a major label, released mixtapes for free and insisted on controlling his own career. Corcoran was celebrated as the innovative manager who made that model work.

Yet the very informality they embraced — the handshake deals, the oral agreements, the refusal to sign contracts — is what turned their breakup into a years-long legal dispute that neither side could fully win. Chance escaped a $3.8 million judgment and walked away with a verdict that validated his complaint but awarded almost nothing. Both parties spent years in litigation that consumed resources, attention, and goodwill.

During the trial, Corcoran's testimony about Chance's broad pattern of unsigned agreements prompted the observation that this behavior might be a way of keeping commitments ambiguous. Whether or not that was the intent, the effect was the same: when the relationship ended badly, there was no clear record of what had been agreed, and a jury had to decide.

Independent artists in particular — who often operate outside the standard infrastructure of major labels and large management firms — need to be more attentive to documentation, not less. The absence of a label does not create a legal vacuum; it just means the parties themselves must supply the structure that labels typically provide.

Independent artists should invest in professional legal and business management infrastructure at the earliest feasible point — not as a concession to the corporate music world, but as a protection for the independent enterprise they are building.
The Chance-Pat model produced extraordinary results during its successful years precisely because both parties were disciplined and strategic. That discipline should extend to the business documentation that protects both parties when circumstances change.

Artists who work with family members in management or advisory roles face particular risk when informal arrangements go undocumented. Family relationships can complicate the formal confrontation of problems and the enforcement of agreements.