Producer Ishmael Sadiq Montague, who works as ISM, has filed a federal lawsuit against Sony Music seeking at least $1,247,500, plus punitive damages on fraud claims and other relief. The case concerns royalty accounting and a later attempt to redirect payments connected to Chris Brown’s 2016 song “Party,” which also features Usher and Gucci Mane.

Sony is the only defendant named in the suit. Chris Brown is not being sued. The complaint was filed in New York federal court on October 16 and presents a dispute with several distinct moving parts: the royalty percentage ISM says he should have received, the handling of an interest he says he sold to Xposure Music Holdings, and language in a form Sony allegedly wanted signed before changing the payment recipient.

The royalty-rate allegation at the center of the case

ISM alleges that his agreement with Chris Brown Entertainment entitled him to a 1.5% royalty for his producer contribution to “Party.” That share was, the complaint says, his portion after a split with fellow producer A1.

The lawsuit claims Sony accounted to ISM at a 0.75% rate instead. Put simply, the producer alleges the label used half of the contractual percentage he says applied to his interest. A review of his records in July allegedly identified the discrepancy, and ISM says he raised the issue with Sony in August. The review reportedly found that he had received roughly half of the royalties he believed were due for the most recent accounting period.

For more context, explore Cooper Flagg’s $8.04M Debut Patch Auto Is Headed to PrizePicks’ Digital Repack Chase.

A royalty is a payment tied to the exploitation of a creative work or recording. In this dispute, the key point is not merely whether money was paid, but whether the correct contractual percentage was used to calculate ISM’s share. Two parties can agree that statements and payments exist while still sharply disagreeing over the rate that should have been applied.

That distinction matters because an accounting statement can show activity without resolving whether its underlying calculation is correct. The complaint’s position is that the issue is a rate error, rather than an absence of accounting altogether.

Conflicting account information alleged in the complaint

One of the lawsuit’s more pointed allegations concerns what Sony representatives allegedly told ISM’s team about the existence of an account for his share. The complaint says that on July 24, staff indicated there was no account. Four days later, according to the filing, Sony confirmed that it was accounting for the Chris Brown track.

ISM points to years of Sony royalty statements as support for his claim that an account had existed. The apparent contradiction is relevant to the complaint because it is used to support allegations surrounding the handling of the payment-recipient change and the negotiations that followed.

At this stage, these are allegations set out by ISM in a civil complaint, not findings by a court. Sony’s in-house counsel is said in the filing to have denied liability on October 15 and characterized the issue as fully resolved. The lawsuit nevertheless contends that ISM preserved his claims and is seeking judicial relief.

The separate fight over who receives the checks

The suit does not limit its demand to any alleged royalty underpayment. ISM says he sold royalty interests to Xposure Music Holdings in June. Under that deal, the complaint says Sony was expected to send payments to the buyer beginning September 1.

That type of arrangement is commonly described as an assignment or sale of a royalty interest: the person who previously received proceeds transfers some right to receive them to another entity. The complaint says Sony delayed processing the change of payee for six weeks. ISM alleges that the delay interfered with the transaction and caused losses beyond the amount of any royalty-rate shortfall.

The difference between a royalty owner and a payee is important here. A payee is the party designated to receive a payment. Changing a payee does not necessarily settle every question about ownership, the amount owed, or the accuracy of prior statements. But the designation can be financially consequential when royalty interests have been sold or transferred, because timely payments may be an expected element of the deal between seller and buyer.

ISM’s filing frames the requested compensation as a measure of the asserted harm from Sony’s conduct and the concessions it allegedly sought, rather than simply a mathematical request for unpaid royalties. That is why the amount sought is not presented solely as a calculation of the claimed 0.75% versus 1.5% difference.

Why audit language became a major issue

The complaint says Sony asked ISM to execute a form that included language stating that the new payee would not have the right to audit Sony or its affiliates. ISM alleges Sony personnel represented the terms as non-negotiable. Yet the filing further claims that a version of the form without the disputed audit restrictions had already existed in Sony’s records.

An audit right is the contractual ability to inspect or examine a company’s relevant books and records, subject to the agreement’s terms. In royalty disputes, audit provisions can be especially significant because they provide a mechanism to test whether reported earnings, deductions, royalty rates and payment calculations match the governing deal.

The lawsuit’s position is not simply that a form was requested. It is that the audit-related clause was used during negotiations over the payee change, despite the alleged availability of a different version. ISM says the circumstances placed pressure on him to accept Sony’s terms while the transfer of payment rights remained unresolved.

According to the complaint, ISM signed the form Sony provided on August 29. He maintains that the executed document included no release, waiver or acknowledgment that an account did not exist. In practical legal terms, a release generally means an agreement to give up specified claims. A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right. ISM’s lawsuit argues that neither occurred through the signed form.

That claim will likely be central if the case advances: not just what each side discussed before the form was signed, but what the final language actually says and what legal effect it has. The complaint says ISM did not surrender the ability to pursue his allegations by signing it.

What ISM is asking the court to do

ISM seeks at least $1,247,500 in damages, along with punitive damages on the complaint’s fraud counts. He is also asking for an audit and for payment of any unpaid amounts the audit identifies.

An ordered audit would not itself decide every claim in the case. It could, however, be a route to reviewing relevant financial records and identifying whether amounts remain unpaid under the applicable royalty arrangement. The court would still need to address the parties’ competing positions on the rate, the payment-transfer process, the disputed form language and the claimed damages.

The case also illustrates why royalty disputes can expand beyond a single line item on a statement. A claimed rate discrepancy may trigger questions about historical accounting. A sale of royalty interests can introduce timing and payment-recipient issues. And a proposed form can become contentious when it appears to affect future access to records or the ability to challenge calculations.

For creators and rights holders, the practical takeaway is not that every payment-recipient change necessarily produces a legal conflict. Rather, it is that the governing documents, the exact payee instructions, prior statements and the final signed language can all carry real weight when money rights change hands. Documentation is particularly important where an accounting dispute and a transfer transaction are happening at nearly the same time.

There is no reported court ruling on the merits in the material available here. Sony’s reported position, as recounted in the complaint, is that it denies liability and considers the matter resolved; ISM disputes that characterization and is pursuing his claims in federal court. Readers tracking the business side of entertainment can find related coverage of the dispute here.