HATEBREED Fires Back At CHRIS BEATTIE Over His Lawsuit Against Them

Hatebreed have formally responded to founding bassist Chris Beattie‘s lawsuit, blasting his claims as legally baseless and framing the dispute as nothing more than a “garden variety band break-up case.”

Beattie, who was dismissed from Hatebreed last November, first filed suit in July at Connecticut Superior Court in New Haven. In his complaint, he insisted that he was the “driving force behind [Hatebreed‘s] sound and identity until his sudden and baseless expulsion” and accused frontman Jamey Jasta (real name James Shanahan) of displaying “increasingly erratic” behavior leading up to his dismissal, “culminating in a unilateral decision to cut Beattie off from his career, fans, touring, and substantial expected revenue.”

On September 25, Hatebreed and Jasta filed a motion to strike parts of Beattie‘s lawsuit. According to a report by Billboard, the motion dismissed Beattie as “a disgruntled former band member” who “erroneously asserts a right to remain a permanent member” of Hatebreed “in perpetuity despite the fact that the underlying relationship between the parties was terminable at-will.”

The motion also revealed that Beattie, Jasta, and drummer Matthew Byrne had signed a band merchandise agreement back in 2015, giving the three 25% of merchandise revenue each, while two other members received 12.5%. But Hatebreed‘s legal team stressed that Beattie “wholly fails to allege that any agreement was concluded with Hatebreed, or Hatebreed‘s members, or that [Beattie] has an ownership interest in the Band’s name.”

According to the filing: “[Beattie] claims [Jasta] and [Beattie] maintained an ‘implied agreement’ from the Band’s inception that [Beattie] would be an ‘equal co-owner’ and share in the Band’s profits, royalties and rights. [Beattie‘s] complaint is devoid of any allegation Hatebreed maintained an agreement with [Beattie] concerning his status with the Band or his entitlement to Band revenues. Without a written agreement with a term, [Beattie‘s] relationship with the Band was terminable at-will.”

Beattie also alleged that his firing stemmed from a false harassment claim made by a Live Nation security guard ahead of a November 2024 show at the Toyota Oakdale Theater in Connecticut. His complaint stated: “These allegations were patently untrue. Beattie never harassed any Live Nation employee and more likely, she mistook him for someone else.”

Hatebreed countered that even if the incident was referenced during his dismissal, it wasn’t grounds for legal action: “[Beattie] merely alleges [Hatebreed and Jasta] ‘abruptly terminated’ [Beattie] from his role in the Band ‘based on unsupported and false allegations’ connected to the Live Nation incident which resulted in his ’emotional distress.’ Even if the Live Nation incident was ‘cited’ as a ‘false narrative’ for his termination, [Beattie‘s] allegations do not amount to a cognizable claim because the incident merely preceded his termination — it was not connected with the termination process itself.”

At the heart of Beattie‘s claims are accusations that Hatebreed withheld money and shut him out of financial transparency. His lawsuit argued that he “contributed significant labor, musical talent, recording and management duties, promotion, and financial resources, without which Hatebreed would not and could not have achieved its current level of recognition and profitability.”

He claimed that the band operated with an “implied agreement and understanding that Shanahan and Beattie were equal co-owners in the band and entitled to their designated share of profits, royalties, and intellectual property rights,” and that he often had “no insight into how the money” from merchandise sales was managed.

Beattie said that “despite his repeated requests in 2023 and 2024, [he] never received any financial information confirming that the portion of the proceeds he received constituted 25% of sales as promised.”

Beattie has argued that his dismissal has had a “significant negative impact on his career, reputation, and health and well-being.” His lawsuit also accuses Hatebreed of continuing “to sell merchandise using Beattie‘s likeness in its online store” and claims that “Hatebreed and Shanahan also continue to promote the band using Beattie‘s likeness.”

Hatebreed, meanwhile, maintain that Beattie‘s case boils down to nothing more than a former member trying to claim rights he doesn’t legally hold. Their filing dismisses his arguments as an attempt to rewrite the terms of his exit: “[Beattie‘s] unjust enrichment claim is insufficiently pled because [Beattie] fails to allege he is entitled to Band revenue in perpetuity after termination based simply on his prior contributions to the Band.”