This past September saw word break that Mastodon were being sued by the estate of their late vocalist/guitarist Brent Hinds. Among the claims made in that complaint were disputes regarding the accounting of Hinds‘ business interests in the band, which are said to have referred to the handling of Hinds 25% ownership interest. Other issues included unauthorized usage of Hinds‘ likeness on the “Marrow Deep” album cover, and more, and whether or not the estate were entitled to compensation.
While Hinds was ejected from the band early on in 2025, the matters of the stakes he held in the group’s various business interests were still being hammered out at the time of his August 20th, 2025 passing in a motorcycle accident. This past July, the band would later publicly address the decision to part ways with Hinds, citing his alleged issues with substance abuse and waning involvement in the band behind the scenes.
While the estate’s complaint alleges that Mastodon made an $80,000 offer to the estate to buy out Hinds‘ interests, the estate are said to have refused that offer, instead seeking a full accounting of the matter before making a decision. While the band’s camp went on to describe the suit as “meritless” in a public statement, the estate argued otherwise. Both of their statements were shared this past September.
Per a new report filed by Rolling Stone, Billy Hinds, father of Brent, was revealed to have filed that complaint on behalf of his late son’s estate. Furthermore, in a new memorandum filed this past Monday, November 02nd, the band set out to have a partial dismissal of that complaint.
The band’s camp disputed a variety of the claims made in the suit, including denying they owe compensation to the estate for the “Marrow Deep” cover art. They also argue that the individual band members should be viewed as liable since the band operates as a limited liable company.
Further disputes in the memorandum put forth that the band were not obligated to buyout Hinds‘ interests, while also stating that estate is not in the position to set a price for what the value of a potential buyout offer could be. The band also disputed a claim that they had wrongfully assumed Hinds‘ business interest in the band for themselves, offering:
“While the Estate alleges that [Mastodon] purported to redeem those interests and refused to recognize its rights, there is no allegation that [Mastodon] seized, transferred, or withheld any stock certificates or other documents embodying Hinds’s interests.”
