The messy history of pioneering New Jersey hip-hop trio Fugees has just gotten messier. In the wake of a string of canceled reunion tours and Pras Michel’s conviction for money laundering, Pras has filed a lawsuit against Lauryn Hill, accusing his bandmate of fraud. According to Billboard, Pras’ lawyers filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court, alleging that Hill used his legal trouble and resultant expenses to get him to sign onto the reunion tour, which was eventually canceled due to “gross mismanagement” by Hill’s touring company.
Pras says that Hill lied about how much she would be paid in comparison to her bandmates, secretly taking 40 percent of revenue from the gross before paying the one-third split between the three Fugees. Meanwhile, that revenue was much less than expected due to “bloated” production costs and its abrupt, premature end — which Pras blames on Hill’s company taking too long to negotiate splits with Live Nation, the tour sponsor. He says she also told Live Nation Pras and Wyclef Jean had agreed to extend the tour in order to garner a $1 million advance, which she kept for herself. She also turned down $5 million from Coachella because No Doubt would have received higher booking, denying Pras the opportunity to pay off his legal fees.
As such, the lawsuit demands full accounting of the tour, and specifically alleges breach of contract on Hill’s part and fraud in both her inducing Michel to sign onto the tour and how she paid out from the revenue.
“Hill’s ploy to appear to be Michel’s supposed savior was actually a devious attempt to make a big score for herself by generating millions of dollars from a Fugees tour,” his lawyers write. “In the process, it did not matter to Hill if she took full advantage of Michel’s vulnerability – her friend and creative partner of over 30 years. In fact, she counted on exploiting that vulnerability to carry out her scheme.”
Update: Lauryn Hill issued a statement through her publicist, addressing the allegations in Pras’ lawsuit. You can read it in full below.
Some clarity and facts need to be presented. I’ve been silent and pushing through because I understood that Pras was under duress because of his legal battles and that this was perhaps affecting his judgment, state of mind and character.
Fact #1: This baseless lawsuit by Pras is full of false claims and unwarranted attacks. It notably omits that he was advanced overpayment for the last tour and has failed to repay substantial loans extended by myself as an act of goodwill. Last year’s tour was put together to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the album The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. It was being planned whether the Fugees were involved or not.
Fact #2: The tour was expanded to incorporate the Fugees because I found out that Pras was in trouble and would need money to aid his legal defense.
Fact #3: Pras was given a $3M advance for the tour, which he said he required to pay his legal fees. Wyclef and Myself deferred our full advances to make sure he had what he needed and was able to go. I covered most of the tour expenses, as the majority of the tour advance had gone to Pras. An agreement was put in place to secure the repayment of the money he was advanced. Pras has not paid back the money he was advanced, and is currently in breach of this agreement.
Fact #4: Because my tour, band, production, and set up were already happening, the Fugees set utilized this same production. I absorbed most of the expenses myself, produced the show, put together the entire set (with Wyclef’s participation for the Fugees and Wyclef’s set). Pras basically just had to show up and perform.
Fact #5: As of the last tour Pras thanked me for ‘saving his life’. (I have the receipts.)
Fact #6: I am not in the business of kicking anyone, especially when they’re down, which is why I haven’t responded to date. It is absolutely disheartening to see Pras in this position, my band mate and someone I considered a friend but this leads us to Fact #7, which probably should have been Fact #1…
Fact #7: I was not in Pras’ life when he decided to make the unfortunate decision that lead to his current legal troubles. I did not advise that he make that decision and therefore am in no way responsible for his decision and its consequences though I have taken it upon myself to help. Despite his attacks, I am still compassionate and hope things work out for him.
