In the countersuit, West, who changed his name to Ye, stated that he was “sleep-deprived, stressed, anxious, and under duress” when he hired St. John amid his divorce with reality star Kim Kardashian.
American rapper Kanye West countersued his former business manager who alleged the rapper failed to pay him a $300,000-per-month retainer fee.
West claimed he signed the contract during his sleep-deprived meltdown, according to a Mail Online report.
The embattled rapper argued that he is not liable for paying the 18-month worth of fees — totalling $5.4million — to Thomas St. John, head of the TSJ international accounting firm, because he was sleep-deprived when he signed a contract without the help of a lawyer in March 2022, TMZ reported.
West’s former business manager only worked with the rapper for three months despite an clause in the signed contract that required him to be paid for 18 months — until November 2023.
St. John stated in a $4.5million lawsuit filed in October that when he confronted West about the unpaid retainer fee, the rapper grew “heated and aggressive” and began cursing at him, Mail Online reports.
In the countersuit, West, who changed his name to Ye, stated that he was “sleep-deprived, stressed, anxious, and under duress” when he hired St. John amid his divorce with reality star Kim Kardashian.
He prayed the judge to axe the contract and require St. John to pay up the $900,000 paycheque he received.
He, however, missed in the overlooked contract that he agreed to pay his businessman ex-manager for a year and a half without the option of termination.
St. John’s lawsuit in October read: “He screamed at Mr. St. John and made clear he no longer wanted to work with (St. John.)
“When confronted by the 18-month commitment that had just been made, Mr. West stated words to the effect of ‘The 18-month term was bulls***’ and ‘You’re insane for even thinking I would stick to it.”’
Mail Online reports that court documents obtained noted that St. John secured an 18-month contract with West as “assurance that Defendants would not simply walk away from the business relationship.”