Mark Buol, a former music executive and former manager of Chicago rapper Lucki, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking $1.5 million over alleged unpaid management commissions and business expenses. The complaint, filed September 8 in Manhattan and listed as Buol v. Camel Jr. in the Southern District of New York, seeks a jury trial.
The case concerns an alleged oral management arrangement that Buol says covered the period from 2021 through 2026. Buol contends that he was entitled to 15% of Lucki’s entertainment income, plus repayment of approved advances he says he personally fronted while running parts of the artist’s operation. The filing contains allegations that have not been proven in court, and the supplied material does not include a response from Lucki.
What Buol says the management deal required
At the center of the complaint is an alleged oral agreement rather than a written contract described in the supplied material. Buol says he agreed to a 15% commission on entertainment income. In plain terms, a management commission is the manager’s percentage of money earned through an artist’s business activities, which can involve touring, recordings, appearances, brand work, or other entertainment-related revenue depending on the parties’ agreement.
Buol’s account is that the 15% figure was a reduced rate. He alleges that he accepted it after Lucki agreed to add more formal financial controls, including bringing in an accountant. Buol says that did not occur. That allegation matters because the lawsuit presents the disagreement not simply as a dispute over a percentage, but as one over the operational structure that Buol says was supposed to make that percentage workable.
Oral agreements can become a major point of conflict because the parties may disagree over details such as what revenue is commissionable, when a commission is earned, what expenses count as approved advances, and whether any promised changes to the working relationship actually took place. The filing will need to establish Buol’s version of the arrangement and the money he says remains due; it is not a determination that the alleged terms are legally enforceable.
Alleged personal financing of the touring operation
Buol’s complaint says that he covered operating costs himself as the relationship progressed. He alleges he sold investments, exhausted savings and maxed out personal credit cards in the process. The largest specific touring figure cited is approximately $214,822 for Lucki’s 30-city Gemini Tour.
That number is distinct from the alleged management commission. A commission is compensation for management work under the asserted agreement. An advance, as described here, is money paid upfront with an expectation of reimbursement. The lawsuit treats those categories separately: Buol claims more than $1 million in unpaid commissions and at least $225,000 in advances that he says should be repaid.
The difference is important to understanding the $1.5 million demand. The requested amount is not presented as a single unpaid invoice from one tour. Instead, the complaint combines Buol’s allegations about management compensation with claims that he financed expenses and was not reimbursed. Whether the court ultimately views any expenditure as an approved, recoverable advance would depend on the claims and evidence developed in the case.
The alleged business-account promise
Buol says the relationship began to fracture before a Canadian tour in 2024. He alleges that he had already been paying expenses personally and told Lucki he would no longer bankroll the operation. After a hotel confrontation, Buol says he briefly left the role, then returned after Lucki allegedly promised to open a business account, deposit more than $100,000 into it and provide a company credit card.
Buol alleges those steps never happened. In practical terms, a dedicated business account and company card can separate artist-operation spending from a manager’s personal money. The filing uses the alleged missing account and card as part of a broader argument that Buol continued to take on expenses without the safeguards and funding he says had been promised.
That does not by itself resolve who was responsible for the spending. But it explains why the complaint emphasizes personal credit, savings and investments rather than only ordinary tour accounting. Buol’s claim is that he became a de facto source of short-term financing for an artist business, then did not receive the compensation or reimbursement he says was owed.
Hotel expenses and commission-routing allegations
The complaint also includes detailed allegations about hotel costs. Buol claims there was about $15,000 in hotel damage, including a shattered television at Nobu Atlanta and marijuana burns on furniture. He also alleges that a single night at the Tampa EDITION produced more than $6,000 in charges.
These claims are allegations, not established findings. Their relevance to the suit is that Buol is presenting them as examples of costs he says he was forced to absorb or finance while managing Lucki’s touring operation. The pleading’s broader theory appears to be that expenses continued to mount while the alleged systems for paying them remained absent.
Buol further alleges that Lucki directed Empire and other companies to send money that should have been used to pay his 15% commission directly to Lucki. If proved, that allegation would go directly to the complaint’s assertion that more than $1 million in management commissions remains unpaid. It also places the dispute partly in the realm of payment routing: not merely whether money was earned, but where it was sent and whether Buol was contractually entitled to a share before or after those payments reached the artist.
The complaint also describes alleged threats made after the professional relationship deteriorated. Buol says Lucki told him to stay out of his business and threatened to ensure that nobody in the industry would work with him. Those are serious allegations, but their legal weight and factual basis have not been decided by a court.
Why the case is bigger than one disputed tour bill
The reported figures show why the suit should not be reduced to a disagreement over one batch of travel expenses. Buol alleges roughly $214,822 connected to the Gemini Tour, at least $225,000 in advances, and more than $1 million in unpaid commissions. Together, those claimed amounts form the basis for the $1.5 million demand.
The lawsuit’s structure also highlights the potentially risky overlap between management and financing. A manager is generally expected to help organize an artist’s professional activity, but the complaint alleges that Buol also personally financed that activity. When the same person is claiming both compensation for management and repayment of money advanced, clear records become especially consequential. The supplied allegations repeatedly return to that central divide: what Buol says he paid, what he says was approved, and what he says he was entitled to receive.
There is no indication in the provided information that a judge has ruled on the merits, assessed the claimed sums, or found Lucki liable. A federal complaint begins a legal process; it does not establish the truth of every assertion in the filing. The request for a jury trial means Buol is asking for the dispute to be resolved by a jury if it proceeds to that stage, rather than solely through a judge’s determination.
Other disputes cited in the complaint’s wider context
The case arrives amid other reported business disputes involving Lucki. Blueprint Productions sued him in August seeking nearly $182,000 over allegedly unpaid merchandise invoices tied to his 2024 tour. Separately, Empire has accused him of breaching an exclusive distribution arrangement by releasing music through another company.
Those are separate matters, with separate claims and facts; they do not prove Buol’s allegations. Their presence does, however, underscore how touring, merchandise, distribution and management can create distinct contractual obligations around the same artist business. A merchandise vendor may be focused on invoices, a distributor on release rights, and a manager on commissions and reimbursable advances. Each dispute has to stand on its own evidence and governing agreement.
For readers following music-business litigation, the immediate issue in Buol v. Camel Jr. is straightforward even if the accounting may not be: Buol alleges that he managed Lucki under an oral deal, paid costs that should have been funded elsewhere, and was not paid more than $1 million in commissions or reimbursed for advances. Lucki’s position is not included in the available material, and the allegations remain unresolved.
The case also sits alongside other entertainment-related legal coverage, including a separate report on Boosie Badazz’s criminal and civil matters, though the cases involve different parties and unrelated claims.
