Jump to content

Settlements Reached In Lawsuits Between AXL ROSE And Former Manager


bumblecool

Recommended Posts

According to the Beverly Hills Courier, GUNS N' ROSES frontman Axl Roseand his former manager have settled their lawsuits concerning commissions and concert touring.

"They were settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties," said attorney Howard King on behalf of the singer's ex-manager, Irving Azoff.

Although the terms weren't divulged, lawyers for Rose filed papers after a preliminary accord was reached stating that the final accord would involve "a comprehensive touring agreement in which GUNS N' ROSES would perform at various...venues."

Rose was sued by Front Line Management in March 2010 for nearly $2 million dollars in unpaid commissions, according to the Associated Press. The company filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles, claiming that Rose owed the company $1.9 million, or 15 percent of the more than $12 million that Rose had earned from performances in Europe, Canada and South America, based on an oral agreement.

Rose responded by filing a countersuit that claimed Azoff tried to bully Rose into doing a reunion tour with the original GUNS lineup. According to The Pulse of Radio, Rose claimed in his suit that Azoff did everything he could to sabotage the current version of GUNS after Rose said no to the reunion idea last year, alleging that Azoff tried "devising and implementing a secret plan to set up Rose and the band for failure so that Rose would have no choice but to reunite with the original GUNS N' ROSES members."

Rose's suit added, "Upon realizing that he couldn't bully Rose and accomplish his scheme, Azoff resigned and abandoned GUNS N' ROSES on the eve of a major tour, filing suit for commissions he didn't earn and had no right to receive."

The claim also added that Azoff, in his own lawsuit, deliberately used Rose's real name, William Bailey, because it "carries significant emotional damage from Rose's childhood."

In October 2010, Azoff filed an official answer to Rose's charges by asserting 14 affirmative defenses to Rose's claims he breached fiduciary duty, committed constructive fraud and breached a contract. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Azoff states in his response that Rose claims "are barred by statute of limitations; there was a waiver; There was an accord and satisfaction; that Rose consented to Azoff's actions; that Rose failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage; and that any harm that came to Rose was due to the singer's own negligence, fraud or misconduct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

Although the terms weren't divulged, lawyers for Rose filed papers after a preliminary accord was reached stating that the final accord would involve "a comprehensive touring agreement in which GUNS N' ROSES would perform at various...venues."

I interpret this as Axl's legal team using their position of strength to secure a Guns N' Roses US tour?

Edited by NewGNRnOldGNR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

This is the greatest evidence against Axl allegedly being money concerned; being in a position to manoeuvre a US tour suggests there was a capacity there to pursue a significant fortune (and yet Axl opted instead to advantage Guns N' Roses).

Edited by NewGNRnOldGNR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the greatest evidence against Axl allegedly being money concerned; being in a position to manoeuvre an US tour suggests there was a capacity there to pursue a significant fortune (and yet Axl opted instead to advantage Guns N' Roses).

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, but to me having a stipulation about a touring agreement in the settlement terms says that, yes, the lawsuit was creating an obstacle to touring and that Axl wanted that resolved in order to be able to tour the US. Otherwise, there would be no motivation to have that stipulation expressed.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

My point is Axl's legal team must have been engaging from a position of considerable strength given this significant concession of a US tour.

Edited by NewGNRnOldGNR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

My point is Axl's legal team must have been engaging from a position of considerable strength given this significant concession of a US tour.

I agree. If Azoff's case was open and shut and Axl had no case, then why would Azoff have to make any concession considering it is clear Axl has no desire to do a reunion?

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

The reality that team Axl gained this significant concession of a US tour indicates there was a capacity to pursue further (this in turn disputes the notion Axl uses the legal system as a prolongment tactic as in this instance he's actually settled to advantage the agenda of Guns N' Roses as opposed to continuing with the considerable possibility of bolstering his personal fortune).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's actually settled to advantage the agenda of Guns N' Roses

This sounds like it was written by someone in the KGB..

Is it remotely possible Axl settled to, uh... avoid having to pay out of his own pocket?! He agreed to play these shows and Azoff is collecting a percentage of the profits. This is the same settlement Axl agreed to when he was fighting Clear Channel after the 2002 tour debacle. Merck Mercuriadis, a longtime former manager, revealed that Axl only toured in 2006 because he needed the funds to cover the Clear Channel suit and finish recording Chinese Democracy. What's the point of getting sued, wrestling in court for months, only to settle? Is that how you would "further the agenda" of your band? This isn't some Jedi holistic mission, my young padawan. It's just an effective way to ensure his bank account doesn't take a massive hit.

Azoff won, because he's ultimately getting paid. And Axl, who absolutely despises him, must perform these shows so that he gets paid..

Who's your daddy, Axl? Who's your daddy?

-Kickingthehabit

Edited by Kickingthehabit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

Is it remotely possible Axl settled to, uh... avoid having to pay out of his own pocket?!

The concept of settlements doesn't provide mechanisms (ie a US tour) in order to pay an obligatory fee - the reality is this settlement is a total Axl victory (GN'R has secured a priceless tour of an otherwise very tricky locality and Azoff has been left to swallow his corporate pride).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewGNRnOldGNR

There's simply no way Azoff (if in the position of categorical strength - which he clearly wasn't) would have contemplated giving Axl a lifeline (in the form of a US tour) - why would he have any element of empathy for a man who allegedly foiled his masterplan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it remotely possible Axl settled to, uh... avoid having to pay out of his own pocket?!

The concept of settlements doesn't provide mechanisms (ie a US tour) in order to pay an obligatory fee

Exactly. I don't see how people can think this a "court-ordered" or "mandatory" tour :rolleyes:

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it remotely possible Axl settled to, uh... avoid having to pay out of his own pocket?!

The concept of settlements doesn't provide mechanisms (ie a US tour) in order to pay an obligatory fee

Exactly. I don't see how people can think this a "court-ordered" or "mandatory" tour :rolleyes:

Ali

Some people here even see a GNR victory in a negative light,its not a court ordered penalty nor an obligation,it is a winning situation over a poisonous dwarf who has a monopoly with Ticketbastard and live nation,along with front line management. This is good news for GNR,and the US fans.

Winning!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615

I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed :thumbsup:

Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOL

Edited by ITW 2012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615

I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed :thumbsup:

Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOL

No. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615

I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed :thumbsup:

Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOL

No. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.

Ali

Whatever, Ali. It's time to move on by putting out CD II. Another half baked US Tour in support of CD is the last thing this band should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615

I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed :thumbsup:

Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOL

No. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.

Ali

Whatever, Ali. It's time to move on by putting out CD II. Another half baked US Tour in support of CD is the last thing this band should do.

Who said when the next tour was going to be? They may very well wait until the next record is out.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615

I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed :thumbsup:

Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOL

No. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.

Ali

Whatever, Ali. It's time to move on by putting out CD II. Another half baked US Tour in support of CD is the last thing this band should do.

Judging from the caliber of your posts,you seem to be the one who is half baked-not GNR. Why are you having such difficulty grasping simple concepts? No US tour is announced as of yet,and any such shows are not court ordered to pay off any perceived debt,why put a negative slant on good news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...