Chance Wins Legal Battle Over Merchandise Profits as Drakeo’s Estate Settles Death Case

Chance the Rapper performs at Red Rocks Amphitheatre in Colorado on May 2, 2017. A Chicago judge ruled Tuesday that his former manager breached his fiduciary duties in connection with the rapper's merchandise business. (Photo by Julio Enriquez, CC BY 2.0; cropped for display)

A Chicago judge has ordered Chance the Rapper's former manager to surrender undisclosed merchandise commissions, while the estate of slain Los Angeles rapper Drakeo the Ruler has reached a settlement with festival organizers and security companies sued over his 2021 death.

A Chicago judge has ordered Chance the Rapper's former manager to surrender undisclosed merchandise commissions, while the estate of slain Los Angeles rapper Drakeo the Ruler has reached a settlement with festival organizers and security companies sued over his 2021 death.

The unrelated cases mark significant developments in two long-running hip-hop legal battles. Neither has produced a publicly established final payout: The amount Chance's former manager must forfeit remains under review, and the terms of Drakeo's estate settlement have not been disclosed.

Chance wins ruling over merchandise profits

Chance the Rapper has won another round in his nearly six-year legal fight with Patrick "Pat the Manager" Corcoran, the former friend who helped guide his rise from Chicago's independent rap scene to Grammy-winning success.

Cook County Circuit Judge James E. Hanlon Jr. ruled Tuesday that Corcoran breached his fiduciary duties by collecting undisclosed commissions from merchandise vendors while also receiving management fees tied to the same business.

Hanlon ordered Corcoran to surrender those commissions, forfeit the 15% management compensation associated with the affected merchandise transactions and transfer the ChanceRaps.com domain to the rapper by Oct. 28.

Chance's representatives estimate the forfeited management fees could total as much as $1.5 million, in addition to the vendor payments. The figure is not a final court award.

The parties have until Nov. 30 to agree on an amount. If they cannot, the judge will decide.

The ruling follows a March jury verdict that rejected Corcoran's demand for $3.8 million in unpaid commissions and royalties. The jury also found in Chance's favor on portions of his countersuit, awarding him $35.

The two worked together from 2012 until their relationship collapsed in 2020, building one of hip-hop's most prominent independent success stories without a traditional written management agreement.

Their dispute eventually turned on what Corcoran was owed after his dismissal and whether he had put his own business interests ahead of the artist's.

The latest ruling was not an across-the-board victory for Chance.

Hanlon rejected his attempts to recover compensation connected to several outside ventures, including the Ramova Theatre and UnitedMasters. The judge also declined to award punitive damages or strip Corcoran of all the compensation he earned during the relationship.

Corcoran's attorneys welcomed those limits, arguing that the court recognized the value of his work and rejected the rapper's broader financial demands.

Chance, whose legal name is Chancelor Bennett, said he was grateful to be nearing the end of the dispute and hoped to eventually share his account of what happened.

Drakeo's estate settles festival death lawsuit

In Los Angeles, a separate legal fight over the killing of Drakeo the Ruler has reached a conditional settlement nearly five years after the rapper was fatally stabbed backstage at a music festival.

A notice filed Oct. 9 in Los Angeles Superior Court confirms that Drakeo's estate, administered by his mother, Darrylene Corniel, reached an agreement with Live Nation and several other companies involved in the Once Upon a Time in L.A. festival.

The settlement resolves the estate's claims, subject to specified conditions being completed within 45 days. No financial terms have been disclosed.

Drakeo, born Darrell Wayne Caldwell Jr., was 28 when he was attacked backstage on Dec. 18, 2021, shortly before he was scheduled to perform.

His estate accused the festival promoters and security contractors of failing to maintain a secure backstage area and allowing a group of attackers to reach the rapper and his entourage.

The defendants disputed the negligence allegations. The settlement does not constitute a court finding that they were responsible for his death.

The agreement also does not end all the civil litigation arising from the attack.

Claims involving Drakeo's younger brother, rapper Ralfy the Plug, and others who were backstage remain scheduled for trial Nov. 30.

The criminal investigation remains unresolved. No one has been charged with Drakeo's killing.

The estate's agreement settles a major part of the civil case, but it does not establish who killed the rapper or whether the remaining plaintiffs will prevail against the festival organizers.

Drakeo the Ruler's "Talk to Me," featuring Drake, appeared on his 2021 album The Truth Hurts. (Drakeo the Ruler/YouTube)

Man Convicted in Tupac Shakur’s Murder Gets 40 Years to Life, Three Decades After Killing

Duane “Keffe D” Davis is shown in a Sept. 29, 2023, police booking photograph. Davis was sentenced Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, to 40 years to life in prison for orchestrating the 1996 murder of rapper Tupac Shakur. (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)

Duane “Keffe D” Davis spent years publicly describing his role in the 1996 killing of Tupac Shakur. On Tuesday, the former gang leader was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison for orchestrating the murder, bringing a measure of justice to the rapper's family more than three decades after the fatal shooting.

Clark County District Judge Carli Kierny imposed the sentence in Las Vegas, six weeks after a jury convicted Davis of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon.

Davis, 63, was the only person ever charged in the killing, one of hip-hop's most enduring unsolved crimes until his arrest in September 2023.

Duane “Keffe D” Davis appears in court in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, for sentencing in the 1996 murder of Tupac Shakur. Davis was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison. (Video: Courtroom Insider/YouTube)

Shakur's family addressed the court before sentencing, recalling a brother whose life had been cut short at 25.

His younger sister, Sekyiwa “Set” Shakur, described their mother's belief that Tupac could change the world.

“He believed her,” she told the court. “He went out in the world to do that. And I believe he would have done it.”

Their brother Maurice “Mopreme” Shakur spoke about everything Tupac never experienced, including the opportunity to have children and watch his nieces and nephews grow up.

For the family, the punishment followed 30 years of living with the consequences of a killing that became part of hip-hop history even as their personal loss remained unresolved.

Kierny rejected Davis' argument that he had left his violent past behind.

“You don't get to take a man from his family,” the judge told him. “The world never forgot about him.”

Davis will receive credit for time served since his arrest. His attorney, Michael Sanft, said he plans to appeal the conviction.

When offered an opportunity to speak, Davis did not apologize. Instead, he asked about recovering personal belongings seized by police, including photographs.

TUPAC SHAKUR MURDER CASE

30 years to a sentence

Sept. 7, 1996
Tupac Shakur is shot in Las Vegas. He dies six days later.

Sept. 29, 2023
Duane Davis is arrested and charged in the killing.

Aug. 31, 2026
A jury convicts Davis of first-degree murder.

Oct. 13, 2026
Davis is sentenced to 40 years to life.

Sources: Clark County court records and AP and Reuters reporting.

The prosecution had built much of its case around Davis' own accounts of the shooting, including interviews, statements to investigators and his 2019 memoir, “Compton Street Legend.”

Prosecutors argued that Davis organized a retaliatory attack after Shakur and members of his entourage assaulted Davis' nephew, Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson, at the MGM Grand following a Mike Tyson boxing match on Sept. 7, 1996.

Hours later, Shakur was riding in a BMW driven by Death Row Records co-founder Marion “Suge” Knight when a white Cadillac pulled alongside the car near the Las Vegas Strip.

Someone inside the Cadillac opened fire.

Shakur was struck multiple times. Knight survived with a minor injury, but Shakur died six days later, on Sept. 13.

Davis acknowledged being inside the Cadillac and described passing a gun toward the back seat, where the shots were fired. Prosecutors said he supplied the weapon and directed the retaliation, making him criminally responsible for the murder even though he was not accused of pulling the trigger.

His attorneys maintained that his public accounts had been exaggerated or fabricated for publicity and financial gain. They also challenged the absence of physical evidence connecting Davis to the shooting.

The jury rejected that defense after a trial that revisited gang rivalries, the East Coast-West Coast rap feud and a murder investigation that remained dormant for years.

The identity of the person who fired the fatal shots has never been conclusively established in court. Anderson, whom Davis identified as the gunman, died in 1998. The other alleged occupants of the Cadillac are also dead.

For millions of listeners, Shakur remains the artist behind “Dear Mama,” “Keep Ya Head Up,” “California Love” and “Changes,” records that helped establish his voice as one of the most influential in rap.

For his family, he was a son and brother whose future disappeared on a Las Vegas street.

Davis' sentence establishes the punishment for his role in that killing. His planned appeal means the legal proceedings may continue.

But Tuesday's hearing marked a consequence his own public accounts of the murder helped bring about: After nearly three decades without a prosecution, the only man convicted in Tupac Shakur's death now faces at least 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.

Court Sides With Top Dawg Entertainment in Fight Over Accusers’ Identities

The Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles houses California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which ruled Thursday in favor of Top Dawg Entertainment on a doxing claim. (Coolcaesar/Wikimedia Commons)

Top Dawg Entertainment won a significant legal victory Thursday when a California appeals court ruled that the record label could publicly identify two women who had sued its executives for alleged sexual misconduct, despite their decision to file the case anonymously.

The ruling removes a doxing claim against the influential hip-hop and R&B label but leaves the women's underlying allegations of sexual assault, harassment and unpaid work unresolved.

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of California's 2nd District Court of Appeal found that TDE's decision to name the women in a February 2025 press release was protected under state law. The women had filed their lawsuit as Jane Doe and Jane Roe but had never asked a judge for permission to keep their identities confidential.

That omission proved decisive.

PRIMARY SOURCE | CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment

Second Appellate District, Division Two
Decided Oct. 8, 2026 | Case B347645

The appeals court directed the trial court to strike the doxing claim. The underlying sexual misconduct allegations were not decided.

Read the full 12-page court ruling (PDF)

Source: Judicial Branch of California.

The court said TDE's response to the lawsuit was protected by California's anti-SLAPP law, which guards certain speech and petitioning activities against litigation. It also found that the disclosure of the women's names qualified for protection under the state's fair report privilege, which covers accurate reporting about judicial proceedings.

"TDE violated no court order or rule when it disclosed Plaintiffs' names," Justice Anne Richardson wrote for the panel.

The decision reverses a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who had refused to dismiss the doxing claim in June 2025.

TDE, the label that helped launch Kendrick Lamar's career and established SZA as a major R&B star, has been fighting the lawsuit since December 2024.

One plaintiff alleges that Brandon Tiffith sexually battered her and that fellow executive Anthony Tiffith Jr. sexually harassed her while she provided services to the company between 2019 and 2024. She also alleges she was not paid for her work.

The second woman alleges that David Harrell, identified in court documents as a TDE employee, sexually assaulted and harassed her while she lived in a company-owned home in 2020 and 2021.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The dispute over the women's identities began after their attorneys publicized the lawsuit on Jan. 31, 2025, using the pseudonyms from their complaint.

TDE responded the following day with a statement that identified both women by name, rejected their allegations as fabricated and described the lawsuit as a shakedown. The company also claimed the women, through their attorneys, had demanded $48 million and disputed that either had been an employee.

Four days later, the women amended their complaint to accuse the label of doxing them.

The trial judge initially sided with the women, reasoning that TDE did not need to reveal their identities to defend itself publicly.

The appeals court disagreed.

What the court decided — and what it didn't

DECIDED

The disclosure of the women's names was legally protected in these circumstances. The doxing claim must be stricken.

NOT DECIDED

Whether the allegations of sexual assault, harassment and unpaid work are true. Those claims remain unresolved.

Source: California Court of Appeal, B347645, Oct. 8, 2026.

The judges emphasized that the women could have sought court authorization to proceed anonymously and might have had substantial grounds for such a request. But without that protection, the court found, their use of pseudonyms did not prevent TDE from accurately identifying who had filed the lawsuit.

The ruling does not establish that defendants are always free to identify anonymous plaintiffs. It turns on the absence of a court order, a pending request for anonymity or another applicable legal protection in this case.

Nor did the panel determine whether the original allegations were true.

Instead, it directed the trial court to grant TDE's motion to strike the doxing claim and awarded the defendants their costs on appeal.

The broader lawsuit remains unresolved, with the women still pursuing allegations stemming from their experiences with the label and people associated with it.