I think this may have lost me because it has little basis in legal fact (at least in the United States). Big business will absolutely shut you down from discussing fine details of operations, but Richie would be able to say simply "I wasn't high". Again, if it is untrue Jon and David are being slanderous and Richie does have the legal right to defend himself without needing to touch on the details.

Of course, it also ignores the fact Richie can also have the world's best entertainment lawyers at his beck and call.

Do you really believe Richie could not say his additction was not the reason and not break the legal framework? I happen to know he could (at least in US law) if dealing with slander.

Just to expand this a little. I think any slander accusation would be easily defendable, even if Richie's addictions did not cause his departure. That said, we are also working on the assumption that Richie once signed an agreement that stipulated he could not discuss anything about the band if he left the organization. Additionally, such a contract would also state that the organization could simultaneously say what they want about him without reproach. If this is the contract Richie signed, he needs to learn to read or get a better agent.

Again, such a contract would not prevent him simply correcting a wrong.