[ATTACH=CONFIG]11905[/ATTACH]
The legal battle between Zenimax and Oculus is just the gift that keeps on giving. Now, John Carmack is suing Zenimax for $22 million.

Carmack says that the amount, which is actually in excess of $22.5 million, is the remainder of what he was owed from Zenimax's acquisition of id Software back in 2009. He says that Zenimax didn't pay it because of "sour grapes" over the ongoing legal disputes between them and Oculus.
(...)Mr. Carmack’s right to receive that money ripens no later than June 23, 2017, the eighth anniversary of id Software’s sale to ZeniMax. It is the final payment due to Mr. Carmack for the sale of id Software, the world-famous video game studio he founded and led for more than 20 years.

But ZeniMax clearly doesn’t want to pay. And while Mr. Carmack awaits ZeniMax’s seemingly inevitable refusal to honor its obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price, ZeniMax is already in breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and Convertible Promissory Note. Pursuant to those contracts, Mr. Carmack has the absolute right “to convert all or any portion of the Unpaid Principal Balance solely into shares of ZeniMax’s Common Stock . . . .” All of those shares are subject to a $45 per share put option that will mature no later than June 23, 2017.

When ZeniMax bought id Software in 2009, it agreed to pay a total of $150 million for that purchase. Now that the final installment of that bill is coming due, ZeniMax is simply refusing to pay. But sour grapes is not an affirmative defense to breach of contract. This Court should enter judgment against ZeniMax for all the money that it agreed to pay Mr. Carmack for the sale of his former company.(...)

On March 2, 2017, ZeniMax’s general counsel responded to Mr. Carmack’s conversion notice and sale offer. By that letter, ZeniMax made it clear that the company would not voluntarily comply on a timely basis with the conversion notice. The content and tone of the letter also made it clear that ZeniMax was unlikely to comply with its obligations under the shareholders’ agreement by either buying the offered shares or notifying the other shareholders of their right to purchase them.

The full lawsuit can be read here.