chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

Litigation Journal

Winter 2024 | Litigation Road

“The Long and Winding Road”: Litigating the Beatles’ Partnership Dissolution

Christopher William Patton


  • One less-explored cause of the Beatles’ split is the contractual morass left in the wake of manager Brian Epstein’s death.
  • Problematic contracts—and the shaky business empire they spawned—exacerbated the Beatles’ growing interpersonal disharmony.
  • Seemingly small strategic choices in litigation, such as a creative reframing of bad facts, can often mean the difference between victory and defeat.
“The Long and Winding Road”: Litigating the Beatles’ Partnership Dissolution
Daniel_Kay via Getty Images

Jump to:

Since the breakup of the Beatles in the early seventies, fans and historians alike have offered countless theories on the cause of the band’s demise. These theories—some of which have now achieved near mythological status—are often as reductive as they are pervasive: Was it Yoko Ono’s oppressive presence at recording sessions? Was it John Lennon’s drug use? Was it Paul McCartney’s micromanagement of the band’s songcraft? Was it George Harrison’s anger at his compositions being left off albums? Was it the unexpected death of their longtime manager Brian Epstein in 1967? Or was it a combination of these and a dozen other factors?

One less-explored cause of the Beatles’ split is the contractual morass left in the wake of Epstein’s death. Problematic contracts—and the shaky business empire they spawned—not only exacerbated the Beatles’ growing interpersonal disharmony but also attracted the eye of Allen Klein, an opportunistic and sharp-elbowed New York accountant famous for his ability to shake loose unpaid royalties from record companies. Against McCartney’s loud objection, Lennon, Harrison, and Ringo Starr appointed Klein to replace Epstein in 1969. While Klein’s appointment did, in fact, help steady the Beatles’ shaky finances, his grating manner and open hostility toward McCartney unexpectedly created an opening for McCartney to challenge the band’s 1967 restrictive partnership agreement. In 1971, McCartney sued his bandmates, seeking to dissolve the agreement, pursue his solo career unencumbered, and rid himself of Klein for good. Although McCartney’s lawsuit was both a legal long shot and a potential public relations disaster, his gamble paid off through a combination of his counsel’s deft litigation tactics and major strategic blunders by the opposition. This article aims to remind litigators that seemingly small strategic choices in litigation, such as a creative reframing of bad facts, can often mean the difference between victory and defeat.

The Beatles’ Finances Didn’t Reflect Their Success

By 1967, the Beatles were a worldwide phenomenon. In just five years, they had released 16 number-one hits and sold millions of records. Breaking through their youthful mop-top image, the Beatles were now at their creative peak, having just recorded their masterpiece concept album, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. But the band members saw that their financial situation did not exactly match the world-conquering scope of their musical success. The discrepancy, in part, stemmed from their initial management agreement with Epstein, signed when the Beatles were barely out of their teens and still hungry for fame. This 1962 management contract granted Epstein 25 percent of the band’s income. Around that same time, the Beatles agreed to a recording contract with EMI Records that paid the group just one penny for every record sold.

Finally, in January 1967—just a few months before his death—Epstein reached a deal with EMI that would significantly increase the group’s royalty rate. But the deal also committed the Beatles to EMI through 1976, regardless of whether the band members recorded collectively or individually. Together with this new EMI contract, the Beatles consolidated virtually all their financial interests into a single entity: Apple Corps Ltd. They had high ambitions for their new company. Apple Corps held subsidiaries covering wide-ranging business lines, including Apple Records, Apple Music, Apple Films, Apple Publishing, Apple Electronics, Apple Tailoring, and even Apple Retail. At a press conference in early 1968, Lennon proclaimed that the purpose of Apple was “to see if we can’t get artistic freedom within a business structure, and to see if we can create nice things and sell them without charging three times our cost.”

Despite these high expectations, Apple Corps only served to further enmesh the Beatles’ creative output and financial fortunes. The revised partnership agreement required the band members to share equally in all income received from any source (except songwriting royalties) for 10 years, including income from the individual members’ future solo projects. In part to avoid draconian individual tax rates of over 85 percent, each Beatle also became an employee of Apple Corps and received 5 percent of the company’s profits, with the company retaining an 80 percent share. The agreement also required that “proper books of accounts shall be kept” and that those books be summarized in annual accounting statements.

Throughout 1968, the Beatles clung to their ambitious capitalist vision, pouring millions into their new business ventures. For example, the Beatles hired Alex Mardas, a Greek “inventor” and friend of Lennon, to run Apple Electronics. “Magic Alex,” as Lennon christened him, had won the band’s trust with a charismatic embrace of dubious technology. Among other ideas, he sold the Beatles on new ideas for inventions such as “wallpaper speakers,” “electric paint,” and a mystical 72-track recording studio. And while Magic Alex certainly succeeded in making millions of dollars disappear, he never delivered on any of his promised inventions. By early 1969, as expenses began to pile up, the Beatles’ faith in their capitalist utopia evaporated. Once again, they began to worry about their financial footing. In a press interview at the time, Lennon could not mask his dismay at the state of their business ventures: “We can’t let Apple go on like it is. . . . It didn’t work because we aren’t practical, and we weren’t quick enough to realize that we need a businessman’s brain to run the whole thing. . . . [I]f it carries on like this all of us will be broke in the next six months.”

Allen Klein Senses Opportunity

Across the Atlantic in New York, Allen Klein read Lennon’s interview. Mumbling to himself, “I got ’em,” Klein saw a clear path to fulfill his dream of managing the biggest band in the world. Klein’s introduction to the music business began in 1960 when, as a young accountant, he was tasked with auditing record companies’ royalty statements. Absorbing how those companies exploited artists through his close reading of contracts, Klein developed a reputation as a prickly but effective negotiator. By the late sixties, Klein was managing a growing roster of artists that included, among others, the Animals and the Rolling Stones. But Klein’s management had a dark side. He was not above ensuring that his interests came first. For example, although he had arm-wrestled Decca into a major increase of the Rolling Stones’ royalty rate, the band later discovered that, around this same time, Klein had quietly acquired both their master tapes and their publishing rights.

Just eight days after reading Lennon’s public lament about Apple’s failures, Klein scheduled a dinner meeting with John and Yoko. Klein arrived at this January 1969 meeting prepared, having studied the public details of everything from Lennon’s business affairs to his food preferences. When the meeting ended at 3 a.m., Lennon had retained Klein to work with Apple’s accountants to examine the company’s financial stability. Harrison and Starr quickly fell in line and, within a few days, insisted that Klein be appointed the Beatles’ manager. Having been warned about Klein by his soon-to-be father-in-law—New York lawyer Lee Eastman—McCartney remained immovable, insisting that Klein was “nothing more than a trained New York crook” and refusing to even countenance the idea of Klein managing the Beatles.

That April, Klein proposed a contract to the group appointing himself “exclusive business manager” in exchange for 20 percent of the group’s pre-tax income. With only minimal pushback on either the exorbitant compensation or the broad contractual language, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr quickly signed the agreement with Klein. McCartney, by contrast, contested both Klein’s percentage and the ambiguous contract, but he was outvoted 3-to-1 at the board meeting where the agreement was ratified. Klein immediately got to work. He quickly halted Apple’s overspending by firing the hangers-on who had made their way onto Apple’s payroll. He also dove headlong into renegotiating the EMI contract, successfully extracting a 25 percent wholesale royalty rate in September 1969, which was, at the time, the highest royalty rate ever granted any artist.

Klein’s efforts to increase the Beatles’ cash flow notwithstanding, the Beatles’ fraying musical partnership had reached a breaking point in September 1969 when Lennon announced that he “wanted a divorce” from the Beatles to exclusively pursue solo projects with Yoko Ono. Although the remaining members were not ready to quit the group, Lennon’s position was firm. However, the band knew it had to tread carefully when it came to acknowledging the breakup publicly because not only had they just released their album Abbey Road that September, they also planned to release the long-delayed Let It Be in early 1970. More importantly, Klein had only just convinced EMI to increase the group’s royalty rate, and if EMI had known the band had secretly broken up, it would likely have scuttled the deal. So, for the rest of 1969 and well into 1970, the band members lived in a netherworld in which each now single-mindedly pursued solo projects, yet still publicly proclaimed that the Beatles would continue as a group. At the same time, each member knew that the profits from each individual’s solo work would be divided equally among his former band members through 1976. Worse still, McCartney knew some of those profits would go to Klein, a manager he wanted nothing to do with.

McCartney Sues to Dissolve Partnership

McCartney was right to remain suspicious about Klein. Despite his success with cost cutting and the EMI negotiation, it was later revealed that Klein employed several accounting maneuvers to inflate his Apple commissions. Most concerning to McCartney, however, was Klein’s attempt to block the release of his solo album in early 1970. Claiming that McCartney’s album would dilute sales of Let It Be—which was to be released the following month—Klein employed the Apple machinery to try to block its release. In an April 1970 press statement targeted solely at McCartney, Klein insisted that “[a]ny individual Beatle cannot offer his services, appear alone, or with any other person in any branch of the entertainment industry . . . without the consent of Apple and the other Beatles.” Ultimately, Harrison and Starr stepped in and allowed McCartney’s solo album to be released as planned, but Klein’s attempt to intervene sent the parties spiraling toward litigation.

For McCartney, the situation was intolerable. He had hoped to resolve the dispute by having the four Beatles simply agree to dissolve Apple and go their separate ways. But the other three continued to believe in Apple’s value as a way to manage their collective and individual business interests. Their belief was bolstered by Klein’s incessant whispering about the potentially catastrophic tax consequences of dissolution. It thus became clear to McCartney that his only way out of Apple was to sue. McCartney agonized over the decision, later admitting that it was “one of the most difficult things in my life. All summer long in Scotland I was fighting with myself as to whether I should do anything like that. It was murderous. I had a knot in my stomach all summer.” Legal questions aside, the lawsuit was also a huge public relations risk for McCartney. Although Lennon had privately insisted that he wanted a “divorce” back in September 1969, by filing this lawsuit McCartney would become the target of the disappointed fans’ ire as the Beatle who chose to end it all.

McCartney’s decision to sue his former bandmates was also fraught with legal risk. Lee Eastman gave his son-in-law a frank analysis of his chances: “This is going to be a dirty battle and you’re probably going to lose.” On Eastman’s recommendation, McCartney hired David Hirst, QC, to begin preparing the lawsuit. Hirst was an accomplished barrister but had done little commercial trial work, having instead earned his reputation as a libel lawyer. Perhaps it was against this backdrop of experience that Hirst advised McCartney on a very specific approach. Hirst agreed with Eastman that, on its face, the dispute appeared to be simply one of a minority board member unhappy with the majority decision to employ Klein as the company’s manager. Hirst recognized, however, that the band’s agreement with EMI complicated matters: The contract with EMI mirrored the partnership’s structure and thus required all payments from either collective or individual recordings to be paid only to Apple. For that reason, while Hirst decided that the case had to focus on Klein, in a stroke of genius, he advised against suing Klein personally, to deprive him of the ability to fully counter McCartney’s accusations.

Thus, on December 31, 1970, Paul McCartney sued John Lennon, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey (Ringo Starr) in the London High Court’s Chancery Division, seeking “a declaration that the partnership business . . . be dissolved.” McCartney also sought a declaration removing Klein as the group’s manager and appointing a receiver to oversee the Beatles’ business dealings. The court held a preliminary hearing in January 1971 and evidentiary hearings in February. All four former Beatles submitted sworn testimony, but only McCartney attended in person.

As planned, Hirst opened with an attack on Klein, calling him “a man of bad commercial reputation” that McCartney “never either accepted . . . or trusted, and on evidence [McCartney’s] attitude has been fully justified.” Hirst then walked the court through Klein’s interference with McCartney’s solo record, as well as the allegations that Klein had claimed excess commissions. Hirst then ended his opening by gleefully highlighting a new development—just three weeks earlier in New York, Klein had been convicted of 10 counts of tax fraud. Hirst did not hesitate to link that conviction for fraudulent tax filings as far back as the 1950s to Klein’s present role with the Beatles, arguing that “Klein has demonstrated towards the United States Federal authorities a willful failure to account comparable to that demonstrated towards the partners in the Beatles.” In his sole nod to the agreement’s language, Hirst’s opening emphasized that, despite the partnership agreement referring to them as a “group of performers,” the Beatles no longer recorded or performed as a group.

The Hearings Begin

The evidentiary hearing in February opened with McCartney’s testimony. Hirst walked the court through the Beatles’ history beginning with Brian Epstein’s 1967 death, always holding close to two key factual points: (1) Klein’s interference and (2) the Beatles’ decision to break up. In response, the three defendant band members offered sworn testimony that was read into the record by their counsel, Morris Finer. Instead of discussing the more pertinent facts of the partnership agreement’s language that permitted a majority to appoint a manager (exactly how Klein was appointed) or whether the company was actually solvent (which it was), their first misstep was to defend Klein and minimize McCartney’s complaints as commonplace business disagreements. Lennon, for example, defended Klein as someone who “get[s] results” and who “[s]o far as I know . . . has not taken any commission to which he was not entitled.” He also testified that “of necessity we developed a pattern for sorting out differences by doing what any three of us decided. It sometimes took a long time and sometimes there was deadlock, and nothing was done, but generally that was the rule we followed and, until recent events, it worked quite well.” Harrison and Starr offered similar testimony, claiming that, despite significant prior disagreements, the Beatles were always able to work through those differences. Tellingly, none of the three defendants even addressed the obvious fact undermining their defense—that the Beatles had stopped performing as a group and, therefore, the partnership was, in effect although not in name, already dissolved.

The defense’s second misstep was to let Klein become directly involved in the proceeding. Midway through the trial, Klein could no longer keep quiet. He convinced the defendants to allow their counsel to read his 46-page affidavit into the record. This testimony began defensively and only got worse from there. Addressing his recent tax conviction over several detailed pages, Klein quibbled that the conviction was irrelevant because the failure to file tax returns related to conduct that was over a decade old and the taxes have now been paid. Klein also argued that the failure was not his fault, but rather an employee oversight. Klein then explained how, when he had arrived in London in early 1969, Apple’s “financial position was perilous.” But instead of emphasizing his cost-cutting efforts or the renegotiated EMI deal, Klein spent the bulk of his testimony trying to settle scores by throwing mud at McCartney and Eastman. What’s worse, like the defendants’ testimony, Klein’s testimony also did not acknowledge that the Beatles no longer intended to perform together as a group.

Court Rules for McCartney

On March 12, 1971, the High Court ruled in McCartney’s favor on all counts, agreeing that a receiver should be appointed to manage the Beatles’ assets until the parties could legally dissolve the partnership. In his written opinion, Justice Stamp emphasized two key facts supporting his decision. First, it was his view that Klein “had made grossly excessive claims for commissions and has received commission grossly in excess of that specified.” He therefore concluded that “Defendants are prepared, in conjunction with or at the instance of Mr. Klein, to make the most important decisions without regard to the interests of the Plaintiff.” Justice Stamp then went out of his way to note that Klein’s testimony “read to me like the irresponsible patter of a second-rate salesman.”

The second fact underlying Justice Stamp’s decision was that “[e]ach of the Beatles had made and is making recordings otherwise than as a group of four referred to in the partnership deed.” This “odd situation” was inherently untenable because, in his view, each ex-Beatle was either contributing varying artistic efforts to the partnership only for those efforts to be managed by Klein and then distributed equally, or the partners’ solo work was not partnership property, which meant the partners were now competing against one another. Accordingly, he found that because “the financial situation is confused, uncertain and confusing,” “[a] receiver is, in my judgment, needed not merely to secure the assets, but so that there may be a firm hand to manage the business fairly as between the partners and to produce order.” He named as receiver a well-regarded London accountant, James Douglas Spooner. Although the defendants appealed, by April 1971, they relented, explaining to the court that “it is in the common interest to proceed to explore as a matter of urgency a means whereby [McCartney] may disengage himself from the partnership by agreement.” After lengthy negotiations—during which a receiver oversaw the company’s affairs—and after multiple subsequent (and equally contentious) lawsuits brought between Lennon, Harrison, and Starr against Klein, the Beatles’ partnership was officially dissolved in 1975.

With more than 50 years of hindsight, it’s clear that McCartney’s lawyers’ initial analysis of the case’s strength still holds true: McCartney had to overcome significant obstacles to win this lawsuit. Perhaps the biggest of these obstacles was the clear contractual language in both the EMI contract and the 1967 partnership agreement that conceded there would come a time when the individual Beatles would record solo albums but nevertheless still provided a mechanism for distributing profits from those albums. The other big obstacle was that, for all his flaws, Klein had clearly helped the Beatles exit their dire financial situation and put them on a path to extraordinary wealth, something the band could not have done on its own.

Perhaps Justice Stamp was disinclined to believe Klein—whose mere existence seemed to play to classic American stereotypes—no matter what the defense did. But Hirst’s intense focus on Klein as the “villain” succeeded in distracting the court from both this problematic contractual language and Klein’s financial wins on the group’s behalf. The defense, by contrast, only reinforced Klein’s past misdeeds by quibbling about minor details and ignoring what mattered to the case: the partnership agreement and the company’s solvency. What’s more, by not acknowledging the Beatles’ breakup openly, the defense lost major credibility with Justice Stamp. At its core, this case is more than just an interesting historical footnote to the Beatles’ breakup. It is a stark reminder to modern trial lawyers that seemingly small strategic choices—and especially those related to how one presents a case—can matter a great deal to the outcome.