List of Axl Rose lawsuits from L.A. Superior Court

[wasted]

He was still getting sued in 2004? Do these suits block a release in anyway?

[snooze72]

THis was an issue when Axl blocked the use of old GNR material from being used in movies..that could have been a payday to the old group. Black Hawk Down wanted to use Welcome to the Jungle and was blocked by Axls veto of using it.. Just as he attempted to block Greatest Hits and Live Era this forced the lawsuit to settle that question. When SCOM was used in Big Daddy it wasnt the studio version of AFD but a NewGNR version..thus completely removing the revenue stream to Duff and Slash. Some have speculated that is why Axl went through the time and the expense to have GNR1999-2006 re record AFD.. to remove all due considerations to Slash and Duff.

Some see it as spiteful and petty on Axls part because he would have benifited as well. By controlling the old material..he in essence controls the revenue streams that are paid out to the old memebers of a completely different organization than the new GNR.

Haven`t read this whole thread, but this wasn't about money, and Slash and Duff kept 3/4 of their financial stake at least. Film rights are synchronization rights, they go to the songwriters and publishers. That's where the money is. The film company would have also had to have paid a licencing fee to the label to use the original master recording. I imagine Interscope also owned the new band's version, they paid the studio time, it would have been shared with the players or gone to service the debt. It was more about the control and what Axl was doing with it. He was out to erase the old GNR and they weren`t going to let that happen.

[Padme]

Forgive me everyone but I´m very confused. The day Slash and Duff signed the infamous document about the GN´R name meant they no longer have rights except royalties for AFD, Lies and UYI.

If some movie production wants an old band GN´R song they have to deal with Axl. If Axl doesn´t want that song in that movie he has the right to refuse. And nobody can say anything. However there is another twist. Axl left the band in 1995. Slash and Duff were still members. But I don´t know in what kind of contract situation. So I don´t understand who has the rights to anything.

[ITG]

This thread's a trip down memory lane. The scope of the contact Axl signed was that he got to use the name and that Slash & Duff would no longer use it. That was it. At the end of the day that didn't mean he controlled GN'R outright. In fact, Axl would have had to give up consideration in order to obtain rights to the name. Allegedly he gave up control of how the assets of the original GN'R would be used IIRC. You can't just give away assets for free in a contract otherwise it wouldn't be a legal contract. Axl can't compete against the original Guns N' Roses because allegedly that partnership for what it is still persists. Axl in his mind must have had delusions of grandeur when it came to how much he actually controlled, and finally Slash and Duff wised up and put a stop to the silliness.

[Lim666]

it appears that Axl left the old band "partnership" end of 1995 just to re-form a new one. he could do so because he tricked out the name before. with the new partnership he could set up his power rules making Duff/Slash employes.

[Padme]

So he basically fucked over his old friends and bandmates with legal tricks... Nice guy!

[CoolRanchDressing]

So he basically fucked over his old friends and bandmates with legal tricks... Nice guy!

I'll bet beta told him to

[Lim666]

how many lawsuit documents are available? did anyone follow that and could post a list please?
what happened exactly with the April 29, 2004 Duff/Slash vs. Axl lawsuit? the .pdf had some interesting insights, but what came out of that?

[ITG]

I was the OP a long time ago. Nice to see you again old friend. Probably a good time to peace out again. It costs money to search for the documents online in CA's database. Unless you have a law office in CA with a subscription its pretty much a waste of time and money (imagine if you had to pay money every time you searched on Google and it would time out and all the links sucked). I think I made a post with a transcript of some time ago but here it is again. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if there is a better way like TMZ does it. I was also Maximum on here and made the prediction Activision would defeat Rose.

The 2005 lawsuit was about many things, and in ended with

"Order of Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE ENTIRE ACTION (SEE MINUTES DATED: 5/22/06)"

I've heard many times over that lawsuits never make it to trial because it is too costly there is always an agreement made behind closed doors. I'm pretty sure both sides came to some sort of legal settlement and understanding.

Here is timeline from the database.

Case Summary

Case Number: SC081543

SAUL HUDSON ET. AL. VS. W. AXL ROSE

Filing Date: 04/29/2004

Case Type: Contract - Tortious Interference (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Dismissed - Other 05/22/2006

Future Hearings

None

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP - Defendant

DUFF - Pltf's AKA

GREENBURG GLUSKER - Former Attorney for Defendant

HUDSON SAUL - Plaintiff

JOHNSON & MISKEL - Attorney for Plaintiff

KATTEN MUCHIN & ROSENMAN - Former Attorney for Plaintiff

MCKAGAN MICHAEL - Plaintiff

MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP - Attorney for Plaintiff

ROSE PROSKAUER - Former Attorney for Defendant

ROSE W. AXL - Defendant

SLASH - Pltf's AKA

WEITZMAN HOWARD - Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

07/12/2005

06/25/2007 Miscellaneous-Other (NTC TO BKKPR ISSUED ON 6/25/07 TO TRANSFER $150.00 JURY FEES DEPOSIT ED ON 4/21/06 REC#SM474108015 TO JURY SRVC. )

Filed by Clerk

05/22/2006 Order of Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE ENTIRE ACTION (SEE MINUTES DATED: 5/22/06) NOTICE IS WAIVED.)

Filed by Court

05/10/2006 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/01/2006 Miscellaneous-Other (VERIFICATION RE: PLAINTIFF HUDSON'S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/01/2006 Miscellaneous-Other (VERIFICATION RE: FIRST SET OF REQ FOR ADMISSIONS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/10/2006 Notice of Ruling (RE: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPL. FOR A 120 DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE & PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/10/2006 Proof of Service

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Ex-Parte Application (unopposed ex parte application for a 120-day continuance of trial date and pre-trial deadlines, memo of points & authorities & declaration of Marc E. Mayer in support)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Order (granting ex parte application *signed by Judge Collins)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Substitution of Attorney (former legal rep: Zia F. Modabber new rep: Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, attorney: Lucia Coyoca for Plaintiff Saul Hudson pka SLASH )

Filed by Former Attorney for Plaintiff

12/21/2005 Amended Proof of Service

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/20/2005 Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER SHORTENING NTC PERIOD FOR MSJ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/19/2005 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/19/2005 Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF ATTY'S MTN FOR RELIEF AS COUNSEL )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/14/2005 Stipulation and Order (SHORTENING NOTICE PERIOD FOR MSJ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/20/2005 Declaration (OF PATRICIA A. MILLETT IN OPPOSITION TO OSC RE: FAILURE TO APPEAR )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

10/18/2005 Reply To Motion (consolidated reply;Mot. to Compel Verified Further Responses to 1st inspection Demand; Mot. to Compel further responses to 2nd Inspection Demand; Mot. to Compel Bravado International comply .....)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/18/2005 Response (responses to evidentiary object- ions to the declaration of Joel R. Weiner in support of plff Saul Hudson P/K/A SLASH'S Motion to provide verified further responses & suppl. Decl.of Weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/12/2005 Declaration (OF PATRICIA A. MILLETT IN SUPPORT THEREOF (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS) FILED CONCURRERENTLY HEREWITH )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

10/12/2005 Objection Document Filed (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF PLFF S.H. P/K/A SLASH'S NTC MOT. TO COMPEL;DECLARATION OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOT. TO COMPEL ETC...................)

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/28/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/20/2005 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/20/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/20/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE T/D AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

09/20/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/15/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/07/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MTN TO COMPEL DEFT. W. AXL ROSE TO: PROVIDE FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FIRST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 14, 31, 48.)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (SUPPLEMENTAL DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MTN TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Motion to Compel (DEFT W. AXL ROSE TO PROVIDE VERIFIED FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 14,31, 48 & 49, W/OUT OJECTIONS; PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; & PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG; MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

08/30/2005 Motion to Compel (DEFT W. AXL ROSE TO: PROVIDE VERIFIED FURTHER RESPONSES TO 2ND INSPECTION DEMAND, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS; PROVIDE DOCUMENTS & PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG; DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Motion to Compel (BRAVO INTL' GROUP TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT ETC... MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOEL R. WEINER )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL DEFT. AXL ROSE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO 2ND INSPECTION DEMAND ETC........ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL BRAVADO TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT DEMAND )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

07/18/2005 Stipulation and Order (RE: CONTINUING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO COMPEL )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

07/14/2005 Notice (OF OSC RE: SANCTIONS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

TOP 07/12/2005

07/12/2005 Reply To Motion (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH COURT DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR RELATED RELIEF; DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

07/05/2005 Opposition (to hudson's motion to compel; declaration of hayes f. michel )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

06/24/2005 Motion to Compel (COMPLIANCE W/COURT DISCOVERY ORDER REMOVING REDACTION & ATTY'S EYES ONLY RESTRICTIONS; & IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFT. W. AXL ROSE; MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;DECL.OF JOEL E. WEINER)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

05/06/2005 Ntc of Change of Firm Name & Addr

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

04/01/2005 Notice of Ruling

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/29/2005 Reply To Motion (SLASH'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTNS TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PROD. & FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS & INTERROGATORIES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/28/2005 Proof of Service

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO MTN COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGS., 96,97, & 98; )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF MTN COMPEL FURHTER RESPONSE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGS., NOS. 96 97, & 98 )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO MTN COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 13,14,31, 48 & 49; DECL. OF HAYES F. MICHEL )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL FURHTER RESPONSE TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 13,14,31,48 & 49 )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/24/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO APPROVE STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IN LIGHT OF UPCOMING MEDIATION )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/24/2005 Order (SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IN LIGHT OF UPCOMING MEDIATION IS SIGNED AND FILED )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/24/2005 Notice (OF ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLFF'S MTN TO COMPEL DISCOVERY )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

03/23/2005 Proof of Service (DEPOSITION SUBPOENA )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Statement - General ((separate) in support of mtn to compel furhter responses to first set of specially prepared interrogatories #'s 96, 97 & 98 )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Statement - General ((separate) in support of mtn compel deft W. Axl Rose to provide further responses to 1st inspection )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Motion to Compel (deft W. Axl Rose to provide further responses to 1st set of specially prepared interrogs; req. for monetary sanctions amount $2,700 against deft;memo of points & authorities;decl. of J. R.weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Motion to Compel (deft W. Axl Rose to provied further responses; req. for monetary sanctions of $2,700 against deft; memo of points and authorities; decl. of Joel R. Weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Proof of Service (DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/23/2005 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF TRIAL )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/18/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

02/18/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/18/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; DECL. OF ZIA F. MODABBER AND HAYES F. MICHEL )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

11/15/2004 Order-Case Management (AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE )

Filed by Court

09/27/2004 Statement-Case Management

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

08/16/2004 Declaration (OF HAYES F. MICHEL RE OSC )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

08/12/2004 Notice (OF CMC AND OSC RE: SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/28/2004 Notice (ORIGINAL NOTICE & ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

06/28/2004 Ntc and Acknowledgement of Receipt

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/25/2004 Answer to Cross-Complaint

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/25/2004 Answer to Cross-Complaint

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

05/26/2004 Cross-complaint filed

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

05/26/2004 Answer to Complaint Filed

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

04/29/2004 Complaint Filed

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

TOP 07/12/2005

Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

05/22/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Order to Show Cause (*regarding: dismissal) - OSC held & case dismissed

05/16/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Final Status Conference (and Jury Trial (5-7 days)) - Trial Date Vacated

05/04/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Final Status Conference (and OSC re: defendant's failure toappear at the hearing date of7/12/05*Jury Trial: 5/16/06) - Continued

01/09/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Granted

10/25/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Submitted

10/25/2005 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ruling on Submitted Issues (NO CSR) - Motion Granted in Part

09/29/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) (NO CSR) - Completed

09/20/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application (NO CSR) - Motion Granted

09/15/2005 in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) (NO CSR) - Completed

07/21/2005 at 08:35 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (Compliance with Court DiscoveryOrder; Request for SanctionsNO CSR) - Off-Calendar-Request-Moving Party

07/19/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (Compliance with Court DiscoveryOrder; Request for SanctionsNO CSR) - Continued by Stipulation

07/12/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Conference-Post Mediation Status (TRIAL DATE: November 8, 2005 andFINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE ISOCTOBER 26, 2005CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Status Conference Held

03/30/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Motion Denied

03/24/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Granted

02/18/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application (NO CSR) - Motion Granted

11/15/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Conference-Case Management - STC held, Med ordered, trial set

10/04/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Order to Show Cause (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCECSR: K. CALL, #5714) - OSC Discharged

08/11/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Initial Status Conference ( and OSC for failure to file proof of service) - Status Conference Held

Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Go Slash!

[Lim666]

Don't recall your recent nickname? but hi! and thanks!!
so we dont know about all the things behind the GN'R doors but it appears Axl has more than 50% to say when it comes to old Guns business, meaning.....if Slash & Duff would want to do smth. with the back catalogy Axl's veto rights (unfortunately) have more percents.
but i'm not sure how it'd work the other way, if Axl really would want to release smth. like the longest show as Blu-Ray (Inglewood'91) but Slash/Duff would be against it...could he still do it? i guess not. that being said Slash/Duff surely would like that one to be released, too.

[snooze72]

Some court case stuff...

“This case arises from the cynical attempt by Saul Hudson and Michael McKagan to cast aside respect for devoted and sophisticated fans and strip mine the legacy of one of the most important bands in rock and roll history solely to make more money,” read the opening salvo of Rose’s counter complaint filed just one month after the legal action brought by his former bandmates in the spring of 2004. “Once part of a musical group whose blistering songs and aggressive, unapologetic style captured the essence of a true rock band,” continued the suit, “the former Guns N’ Roses members have sued Axl Rose because he prevented them from licensing their songs to movie classics such as Just Married … and Death to Smoochy.”

It called the original lawsuit “another in a long line of public relations stunts by Hudson to resuscitate his career by disparaging Rose,” and went on to accuse McKagan and Hudson of taking a “lust for money to a new low,” and of launching the “frivolous” action to “call attention to their ‘make believe’ Guns N’ Roses.”

“This naked greed exposes their utter contempt for Guns N’ Roses’ music and its fans and helps explain why the original GN’R could no longer function.”

The main gist of Rose’s action was that the band had entered into a contract calling for unanimous decisions giving each member veto rights regarding the licensing of Guns N’ Roses music, and that Rose had been exercising this right since 1999 without interference. “During the period, thousands of requests for Guns N’ Roses licenses have been received, and for each of these, Hudson and McKagan recognized that Rose had an agreed upon veto right.” The suit contended the duo’s new position was contrary to their previous actions. It also argued that Rose still had rights under the “original Guns N’ Roses” partnership in spite of his resignation.

In typical Rose style, the documents filed in the case refers to his version of the original band’s demise: “Try as he may to revise Guns N’ Roses history… Hudson cannot escape the fact that it was he a) who announced publicly that he was leaving GN’R, b) who refused to cooperate in replacing band members to replace the individuals that he maneuvered out of GN’R, and c) who refused to work with the bad to create songs for a new GN’R album.”

[dalsh327]

how many lawsuit documents are available? did anyone follow that and could post a list please?

what happened exactly with the April 29, 2004 Duff/Slash vs. Axl lawsuit? the .pdf had some interesting insights, but what came out of that?

You'd have to find someone in SoCal to go to the courts to pull the records.. and pay for it. Most of it's hard copy and not digitized. My post had been a dead link but archive.org pulled through.

[alfierose]

Who was Axl accusing Slash of maneuvering out? Izzy? Gilby? Paul?

[snooze72]

Who was Axl accusing Slash of maneuvering out? Izzy? Gilby? Paul?

Yeah, in Axl`s mind Slash probably manoeuvred Izzy out of the band. Adler too. (Axl was the last to sign off on that one). Zakk Wylde may also be part of this reference, Slash didn`t move that forward at all. Gilby was buddied up with Slash, so I doubt he`d be part of it. Axl complained that he brought in Huge because Slash never brought anybody else to the table so he definitely wasn`t part of the reference.

[wfuckinga]

lol this band is a mess

[GN'R Lies]

Slash and Duffs argument (in the PDF) is based on a contract and the rights and responsibilities within that contract. It focuses on a legal foundation.

Axl's argument (quoted by snooze72) doesn't respond to the issues legally. Instead it swerves around the issues and talks about Slash's "greed", that he left the band on his own accord and it's his fault there was no new album. ALL IRRELEVANT.

Does anyone know the outcome? (Apologies if I've missed it).

[SoulMonster]

Slash and Duffs argument (in the PDF) is based on a contract and the rights and responsibilities within that contract. It focuses on a legal foundation.

But unfortunately the contract itself and Axl's letter (Exhibit A and B) are missing. It would have been interesting to get the reason for dismissal Considering that Axl keeps on refusing old GN'R songs to be used in movies and stuff (?) it is likely that he has the rights to do so. And as for anyone still not understanding why Axl despises Slash so much, read the pdf

[Padme]

Slash and Duffs argument (in the PDF) is based on a contract and the rights and responsibilities within that contract. It focuses on a legal foundation.

But unfortunately the contract itself and Axl's letter (Exhibit A and B) are missing. It would have been interesting to get the reason for dismissal Considering that Axl keeps on refusing old GN'R songs to be used in movies and stuff (?) it is likely that he has the rights to do so. And as for anyone still not understanding why Axl despises Slash so much, read the pdf

Axl keeps refusing because he wants a new version of whatever song performed by the new band. That´s the reason why we didn´t have WTTJ in Black Hawk Down. The one I´d like to know the story is how YCBM ended up in Terminator 4

[snooze72]

The outcome escapes me at the moment, I haven't looked at the PDF but pretty sure Slash and Duff went into it mostly looking for compensation. And pretty sure they all have licensing veto power re: the songs. When Axl took the steps to control of the name -- the contract stated that everybody who left the partnership would no longer have rights to use the name, but the clause excluded Axl -- the band didn't figure out until years later they should have contested that clause or been compensated for it. It was too late to contest it, so they wanted cash.

Around that time Sanctuary was in the picture throwing money around like water, so I imagine yet even more money changed hands settling the case. Its all fuzzy, although it was on my radar at the time. I may have even popped by the courthouse. (Was the Duff/Slash case in Santa Monica?) Not sure I ever heard the outcome though, other than they settled.

So many cases to keep track of. There was the suit against Geffen (which they lost) re: Live Era, and then the publishing suit where Sanctuary set Axl up with another publisher and he pocketed $100,000 or something without sharing.

There was a lot of other business weirdness I'd love to know more about. Sanctuary set up a huge merchandising deal that really paid a huge advance and I don't think anything ever came of it. The big expensive Japanese Las Vegas DVD production also was never released, that must have been another payout. I'd like to track down Merck or look at the public company docs from Sanctuary for an estimate on how much Axl cost them. Although I'm pretty sure Sanctuary's strategy was always to spend a ton on money on smoke and mirrors 'assets' like the Axl deals, rake in the investor cash and split. Which is pretty much what happened.

[ITG]

Slash and Duffs argument (in the PDF) is based on a contract and the rights and responsibilities within that contract. It focuses on a legal foundation.

But unfortunately the contract itself and Axl's letter (Exhibit A and B) are missing. It would have been interesting to get the reason for dismissal Considering that Axl keeps on refusing old GN'R songs to be used in movies and stuff (?) it is likely that he has the rights to do so. And as for anyone still not understanding why Axl despises Slash so much, read the pdf

The case was dismissed without prejudice. Look up what that means. The PDF only demonstrates why Slash, Duff and the fans should hate Axl. I dug up these documents and links. You're just making up suppositions to support your side of the fence.

[SoulMonster]

Slash and Duffs argument (in the PDF) is based on a contract and the rights and responsibilities within that contract. It focuses on a legal foundation.

But unfortunately the contract itself and Axl's letter (Exhibit A and B) are missing. It would have been interesting to get the reason for dismissal Considering that Axl keeps on refusing old GN'R songs to be used in movies and stuff (?) it is likely that he has the rights to do so. And as for anyone still not understanding why Axl despises Slash so much, read the pdf

The case was dismissed without prejudice. Look up what that means. The PDF only demonstrates why Slash, Duff and the fans should hate Axl. I dug up these documents and links. You're just making up suppositions to support your side of the fence.

It means that no decision was made by court. The fact that Axl still, presumably, blocks the usage of GN'R songs in commercial and movies suggest that Slash and Duff also failed to mitigate the case in their favour outside of court.

I see no reason in the .pdf to "hate" Axl. I might dislike him more than I already do if I were to see Exhibit A and B. But as it is now, all we have is a one side of the argument with no evidence that Slash and Duff's allegations are correct (Exhibit A and B are missing). And the fact that the judge dismissed the case suggests that they didn't have much of a case after all.

You did really good in digging up these documents and links.

What suppositions have I made up?

[snooze72]

When they settle out of court, the case is dismissed.

[SoulMonster]

When they settle out of court, the case is dismissed.

Yes, but was this case really settled out of court or was it dismissed because of other reasons? If it was dismissed because it was settled out of court, then, as I wrote, Slash and Duff failed to settle it in their favour (as per the court papers) because Axl still, presumably, keeps blocking the use of GN'R songs in movies and commercials.

[GN'R Lies]

The contract is missing? Who's running this circus!??!

[Guest Len B'stard]

He should call his next album How To Make Friends And Influence People.