Is the band working under the 1992 partnership?

So the legal partnership of Axl/Slash/Duff as partners and legal members of the band was drawn up and signed in October 1992. Axl left this partnership effective 12/31/1995 and presumably started a new Guns N’ Roses legal corporation/partnership. From what I understand, despite his exit the 1992 partnership didn’t cease however, Axl was no longer a member of *that* Guns N’ Roses

Are there any indications as to whether this partnership agreement was put back into operation when Slash and Duff rejoined?

Or did they join the post 1995 Guns N’ Roses legal entity in much the same manner as a “new member” might’ve?

man, what a mess

Do we actually know Axl left the 1992 partnership and not just threatened to leave?

Soulmonster wrote:Do we actually know Axl left the 1992 partnership and not just threatened to leave?

According to Slash and Duff’s 2004 lawsuit the implication was he quit the partnership effective December 31st 1995, which is how he got the rights to the name. He also used the word “quit”, saying he quit, in one of his MyGNR chats back during 2008-09

It's quite complicated and we don't have all the information.

Based on the information we do have (from quotes and publicly available court and business documents):

1) Regarding the old (1992) partnership:

- Axl sent his resignation letter that would be effective on 12/31/1995. However, as I said in the other thread, after negotiations there was a "trial"/transitional period at least until Slash quit the band (and possibly until Duff quit). So it doesn't seem that Axl's new entity/"partnership" was effective yet. And, as far as the record label was concerned, Slash and Duff stopped being part of GN'R in May 1998, when the new recording agreement was signed. Black Frog (Axl's entity) was also founded in that year (1998), so that's most likely when "NuGnR" started as an entity.

- The 1992 partnership owned certain companies/corporations (in which the three partners were shareholders) and assets. After Slash and Duff left, the companies for touring etc. were dissolved/liquidated, except one: Guns N' Roses Music, Inc. (the publishing company that controlled the rights to the back catalogue) remained active, and the partnership remained active through it, as all three partners were still shareholders. In their 2004 lawsuit against Axl, Slash and Duff claimed that Axl had no voting or veto rights, since he had resigned from the partnership (the lawsuit was basically because they wanted to license songs to be used in movies and Axl vetoed them). From the little we know about the content of Axl's response and counter-suit (unfortunately we don't have the documents), Axl claimed that he still had rights to the old partnership despite his resignation letter. That lawsuit was eventually dismissed, seemingly without either side winning - and, as far as we know, nothing changed after that as still all three of them needed to sign off for songs to be used, and they also blocked each other's video releases. So, even if Axl resigned from the partnership, he still had his share in the copyright of the back catalogue.

- The trademarks remained registered to the 1992 partnership, although Axl owned the name (during the NuGnR era, Axl renewed them as "partner" on behalf of the 1992 partnership).

2) Regarding the current status:

The information is even less. What we do know from a 2019 court document (GN'R Vs. brewery lawsuit) is that the current GN'R business entity is a partnership of Axl, Slash and Duff, so it doesn't seem they joined as "new members". And, of course, they still jointly own the back catalogue of the classic band. But it's unknown what other arrangements/agreements may have been in place. For example, whether in the contracts with Live Nation for the "reunion tour" Slash and Duff signed as part of GN'R or as their own entities (since in the 2016 tour programs they appeared to have their own separate management). And now GN'R appear to have their own record label and a new publishing company, which, most likely, the three of them co-own.