Re: The Who Group 2002

[John Hughes <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lela, re

> I expect John Hughes will check in on this shortly with a more 
> detailed explanation.

You may expect Lela but you may be disappointed:-)

> I think this is the old business entity.  If I recall what John said 
> about it, The Who has never been gone.  This is their actual business 
> name, and they've been listed on uh--what was it?  The UK business
> registry?--as a company all this time.  

Correct. In Britain we have businesses which are known as limited
liability companies, where the liability (risk of loss if the company
folds) of the owners of the business (the shareholders) is limited to
the value of their shareholding in the company.

This is a fairly sensible arrangement - at least for the shareholders -
and The Who Group Limited has indeed been in existence since 1979. This
may be significant as prior to Keith's death I don't think there was a
specific British legal entity for the Who as a band.

> Although Pete may have wanted to get rid of The Who, he was actually 
> stuck with it because it distributed the royalties.

See above; I think it was formed as much to protect the interests of the
surviving band members as it was to distribute royalties. 

> It's great to see a copyright that includes all the members of The 
> Who.  I hope we see more of that.

I imagine you will, but I doubt Zak is a shareholder in The Who Group
Limited. I'm not sure, but I suspect that Kenny was a shareholder in the
Who Group Ltd originally and that may have been a cause for friction on
Roger's behalf.

Cheers,

John