Is Michael's Will Really Valid?

[ivy]

We have had problems in this forum before from people demanding "proof." Please read again the guidelines posted at the top of the forum. We speculate here. If that is not tolerable, no reason to visit here, is there? This will NOT happen again.

To correct a misunderstanding - I'm not demanding proof. It is just that Dangerous Incorporated has said this is a "fact" for some things. So I simply asked if there was some sort of document etc to base this info and classify it as a fact or was it just their feeling? I will be completely happy with " That's my opinion" answer and classifying it as a possibility rather than certainty.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

and I can't imagine that Michael would allow his name to stay on his existing will as executor. That is just common-sense!

I wonder if Mesereau ever addressed this with Michael?

To correct a misunderstanding - I'm not demanding proof. It is just that Dangerous Incorporated has said this is a "fact" for some things. So I simply asked if there was some sort of document etc to base this info and classify it as a fact or was it just their feeling? I will be completely happy with " That's my opinion" answer and classifying it as a possibility rather than certainty.

I have given plenty of evidence to back what Ive been saying (post 1), I have agreed with you when Ive been proven wrong (only one point out many mind you)[Debra Jackson 2005] and there may be speculation or two, no denying. I dont get your point or what your trying to achieve but whatever it is, it's off topic and not conducive to the topic at hand.

 

[Autumn II]

I believe that once again, we may have a problem. I'll refer you to my earlier suggestion, which is if a poster seems to be demanding proofs in a "speculation" forum, or leading the convo in circles with everyone on the defensive. . . then just ignore subsequent, similar posts. We really don't have to respond, you know?

Carry on,

Vic

 

[daisydaisy]

I don't get it about the kids and the trust and the possibility of them making a new trust excluding the kids. So, as it stands the kids only get an allowance up until they are 18, but what about the 40,40,20% split, when does this occur? After they are 18?

 

[Maria MJ]

I wonder if Mesereau ever addressed this with Michael?

I wonder why Mesereau didn't stay with Michael after the trial. He was THE one to be trusted.

 

[ivy]

I don't get it about the kids and the trust and the possibility of them making a new trust excluding the kids. So, as it stands the kids only get an allowance up until they are 18, but what about the 40,40,20% split, when does this occur? After they are 18?

Well that's just a theory/ speculation.

We don't know the details of the trust and most probably never will as it is private.

First of all a little description : "Either immediately or eventually, the beneficiaries will receive income from the trust property, or they will receive the property itself. The extent of a beneficiary's interest depends on the wording of the trust document. One beneficiary may be entitled to income (for example, interest from a bank account), whereas another may be entitled to the entirety of the trust property when he attains the age of twenty-five years. The settlor has much discretion when creating the trust, subject to some limitations imposed by law."

Now there could be 3 possibilities in regards to control
1) the children can get the total ownership/control/executor position of the trust when they turn 21 or 25
2) they can get a say in the control of the estate (such as a seat in the executor table with other executors) when they turn 21 or 25
3) the estate can be run by professional managers etc and the children get an allowance/ payment for their lifetime.

when are they going to get paid / the 40%-40%-20 split.

I guess it is safe to say that they will be getting an allowance until all the estate matters are resolved and the debt is paid - which would probably take some years. Estates cannot hand out money until they pay all the debts, resolve all creditor issues etc.

This distribution can happen as soon as the debt is paid in a format of 40-40-20% of the profit or it could happen when they are 21 or 25 years old in the format for once again 40-40-20% of profit or estate - all depending on how the trust is written.

My personal opinion (based on speculating on the current information that we have heard) is like this :
what we have heard /read
1. we have heard that Katherine gets 40% in her lifetime, after she dies her share goes back to the estate and children
2. the recent documents asking the court to allow them hire new people has a sentence saying "keeping estate profitable for generations to come".

Based on this info I'm assuming that
a) the estate is most probably set in a way to keep the principal assets in the estate ownership and that 40-40-20% distribution is for profits only - (Why? If Katherine got the full ownership of 40% after the debt is paid she could have re-willed it)
b) most probably there would be a professionally run estate (speculating here based on the generations to come sentence) with input from the children when they turn 21/25

Honestly I have never heard a will/ trust that provides for a trustee when they are minor and then leaves them out when they turn 18. Also I find it highly impossible to create a second trust and leave the main beneficiaries out. As we can see from the above definition trusts are run according to the trust laws. Now I don't know any trust laws in detail but I am sure that there isn't a law out there that allows executors to screw the actual beneficiaries and take the money for themselves. Also I believe it is possible to sue the executors if they aren't doing a good job - for example MLK's children has sued their father's estate and brother who was running the estate.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

^^If the Will is a fake, then all of that is obsolete. And the fact that only Branca knows what the trust holds is suspicious. Also if Branca sells the ATV catalogue before Prince is 21/25 (which he could do having full power and authority), then kids can't do much about that. We all have to go by is Branca's past actions which have been deceptive.

 

[funkyfish]

I apologise if my 'common sense' remark annoyed anyone, it does seem a little bitchy looking back at it lol.
I think im a little out of my depth here with all this legal talk but ill ask a couple of questions anyway.
That Transcript posted by Dangerous incorporated, It doesnt really mean that they found anything that proved Branca was up to something..only that, that is was they were looking into?
This was during the trial right? And im sure ive read that around then Branca left mj's employ HIMSELF? rather than being fired..due to leeches surrounding mj or something to that effect. Or am i mixing that up with something else?

Also, not really a question but surely there would be a shitstorm if the executors did either A anything to screw the kids over moneywise or B something shifty with the catalogue? They can't do that kinda stuff quietly right? And i'd think it was a pretty well known fact that MJ has said he was never gonna sell the catalogue...Many eyebrows will be raised if something like that happens..

 

[daisy]

Also, not really a question but surely there would be a shitstorm if the executors did either A anything to screw the kids over moneywise or B something shifty with the catalogue? They can't do that kinda stuff quietly right? And i'd think it was a pretty well known fact that MJ has said he was never gonna sell the catalogue... Many eyebrows will be raised if something like that happens..

I am almost sure that would be done with a detailed plan to carry this out with a good publicity, giving reasoning behind it, "rational" premises, plus documentation, etc etc etc

And I am almost sure many fans would take it as OK as a result of this process, convincing other fans this is based on "facts", "proof" and "document".

 

[ivy]

^^If the Will is a fake, then all of that is obsolete. And the fact that only Branca knows what the trust holds is suspicious. Also if Branca sells the ATV catalogue before Prince is 21/25 (which he could do having full power and authority), then kids can't do much about that. We all have to go by is Branca's past actions which have been deceptive.

Trusts are generally preferred by the rich and the famous due to the fact that they are private. It kinda keeps the information about the person's assets and wealth so that other unrelated parties cannot take advantage of this information. so it is designed to be private.
Edit: I think that the beneficiaries should have information about the trust , it just wont be filed with the court and made available to public like us.

some legal info follows

A Revocable Living Trust, also simply called a Living Trust, is a legal document that is created by an individual, called a Trustmaker, to hold and own the Trustmaker's assets, which are in turn invested and spent for the benefit of the Trustmaker as the Beneficiary by a Trustee. In most cases, the Trustmaker will also be the Trustee, although some wealthy individuals may choose to have an institution manage their trust property.

When The Trustmaker is Alive and Well

While the Trustmaker is alive and well, the trust agreement will have specific provisions allowing the Trustmaker to manage, invest, and spend the trust assets for his or her own benefit. Thus, the Trustmaker will go about business as usual with regard to assets that have been funded into the trust, except that the Trustmaker will sign as the "Trustee" instead of as an individual.

When The Trustmaker Dies

When the Trustmaker dies, the 'Administrative" or "Successor Trustee" will be able to step in and pay the Trustmaker's final bills, debts, and taxes. The trust agreement will then contain instructions about who will receive the balance of the trust funds after all of the bills have been paid and the Administrative Trustee will distribute the balance accordingly.

 

[funkyfish]

I am almost sure that would be done with a detailed plan to carry this out with a good publicity, giving reasoning behind it, "rational" premises, plus documentation, etc etc etc

And I am almost sure many fans would take it as OK as a result of this process, convincing other fans this is based on "facts", "proof" and "document".

See, i like proof...and i'm still mostly of the opinion that Branca is good people, But barring somesort of major Bankrupcy (which would be shifty in itself) I can't concieve anyreason whatsoever to sell the catalogue. Doesnt make any sense regarding good bussiness or repecting mj's wishes.

I guess we'll all see.

 

[daisy]

Trusts are generally preferred by the rich and the famous due to the fact that they are private. It kinda keeps the information about the person's assets and wealth so that other unrelated parties cannot take advantage of this information. so it is designed to be private.

some legal info follows

A Revocable Living Trust, also simply called a Living Trust, is a legal document that is created by an individual, called a Trustmaker, to hold and own the Trustmaker's assets, which are in turn invested and spent for the benefit of the Trustmaker as the Beneficiary by a Trustee. In most cases, the Trustmaker will also be the Trustee, although some wealthy individuals may choose to have an institution manage their trust property.

When The Trustmaker is Alive and Well

While the Trustmaker is alive and well, the trust agreement will have specific provisions allowing the Trustmaker to manage, invest, and spend the trust assets for his or her own benefit. Thus, the Trustmaker will go about business as usual with regard to assets that have been funded into the trust, except that the Trustmaker will sign as the "Trustee" instead of as an individual.

When The Trustmaker Dies

When the Trustmaker dies, the 'Administrative" or "Successor Trustee" will be able to step in and pay the Trustmaker's final bills, debts, and taxes. The trust agreement will then contain instructions about who will receive the balance of the trust funds after all of the bills have been paid and the Administrative Trustee will distribute the balance accordingly.

Thanks ivy for the info. But does it mean, basically, that the executors make decision about the distribution of funds?

 

[ivy]

Thanks ivy for the info. But does it mean, basically, that the executors make decision about the distribution of funds?

When they are in the process of paying the debts they will determine the allowance amount (with courts approval) but when the debt is paid they have to follow the instructions set on the trust.

see this part " then contain instructions about who will receive the balance of the trust funds after all of the bills have been paid and the Administrative Trustee will distribute the balance accordingly".

So if the trust says "after the debts are paid give 40% of the profits to my children" then they will simply give the 40% to children.

Edit : If the trust were set in a way that allows the executors to make the decision about how much money to give to any beneficiary most probably we would not have heard the 40-40-20% numbers. As we have heard this percentages I'm assuming that there's already set rules by Michael that who gets what and the executors will have to follow that order.

 

[daisy]

See, i like proof...and i'm still mostly of the opinion that Branca is good people, But barring somesort of major Bankrupcy (which would be shifty in itself) I can't concieve anyreason whatsoever to sell the catalogue. Doesnt make any sense regarding good bussiness or repecting mj's wishes.

I guess we'll all see.

I only wanted to say that whatever seems unreasonable now, would be pushed to another logic and line of reasoning if they would like to do it. I am not saying that they will. I truly hope they would not.

Just it is possible, IMO, that if they would like to sell the catalogue, the discussion would be put in different frames and points of relevance so that provide a reasoning and convince people why this is "better" - I'm taking this as a possibility.

When they are in the process of paying the debts they will determine the allowance amount (with courts approval) but when the debt is paid they have to follow the instructions set on the trust.

But are they 100% lgally binded to follow these orders?

 

[jrsfan]

When they are in the process of paying the debts they will determine the allowance amount (with courts approval) but when the debt is paid they have to follow the instructions set on the trust.

see this part " then contain instructions about who will receive the balance of the trust funds after all of the bills have been paid and the Administrative Trustee will distribute the balance accordingly".

So if the trust says "after the debts are paid give 40% of the profits to my children" then they will simply give the 40% to children.

Edit : If the trust were set in a way that allows the executors to make the decision about how much money to give to any beneficiary most probably we would not have heard the 40-40-20% numbers. As we have heard this percentages I'm assuming that there's already set rules by Michael that who gets what and the executors will have to follow that order.

You seem to know alot about law, are you a lawyer by chance?

 

[ivy]

But are they 100% lgally binded to follow these orders?

yes they are required to follow what is written in the trust and the trust/estate laws of California.

You seem to know alot about law, are you a lawyer by chance?

I studied law for a year but then left it to become an assistant to a manager of a rock group (worked as an independent agent for universal music but never worked at Sony ) later turned to school for business degree. So no I'm not a lawyer but I suppose I have basic and general knowledge about the subject which is honestly by no means complete or perfect.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Did Branca assist setting up the Trust? If so, we can only speculate if he has set himself up for complete control. So far only Branca knows whats in it.

 

[ivy]

Did Branca assist setting up the Trust? If so, we can only speculate if he has set himself up for complete control. So far only Branca knows whats in it.

I tend to think that the beneficiaries (Katherine and the children or their lawyers) will have a copy of the trust. It is not kept private from the beneficiaries, it is only kept private from the public.

edit : why do I say this. As far as I know it is also possible for a beneficiary to contest a trust. How can you contest a trust if you don't know what is written in it?

reportedly a lawyer who is experienced in trust/wills did it.

example: martin luther king's children sued the estate for wrongfully taking money from the estate. You can only make such claim if you know what is written in the trust as an acceptable amount of money to be taken out.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

I tend to think that the beneficiaries (Katherine and the children or their lawyers) will have a copy of the trust. It is not kept private from the beneficiaries, it is only kept private from the public.

edit : why do I say this. As far as I know it is also possible for a beneficiary to contest a trust. How can you contest a trust if you don't know what is written in it?

reportedly a lawyer who is experienced in trust/wills did it.

So perhaps Katherine who would know whats in the trust isnt happy with the set up. Perhaps she thinks others can or will be benefiting from it? Of course all speculation but you have to wonder why the family fighting against the executors so much. They should be working all for the same common goal. It doesnt appear that way at all. Its all in fighting.

 

[ivy]

So perhaps Katherine who would know whats in the trust isnt happy with the set up. Perhaps she thinks others can or will be benefiting from it? Of course all speculation but you have to wonder why the family fighting against the executors so much. They should be working all for the same common goal. It doesnt appear that way at all. Its all in fighting.

didn't katherine withdrew all her contest/objection towards the will? Joe is the only one who is contesting to the will - and not the trust. Am I correct on that?

I guess it makes sense that he can be okay with trust as it is a guideline for who gets what when and the will is the document that names the executors. If he only wants to throw out the executors then it will make sense that he will contest the will only.

I realize this could be an over simplification but for me when I think about an estate this size (with this much amount of money involved) I would expect to see some sort of fighting. For example executors are the ones who are determining/opposing an allowance for Joe. It makes all the sense in the world that he would want the executors removed if that means he can access the money easily.

 

[Datsymay]

the Will explicitely states that The children do not inhetite the estate. it explicitely states that.
They only recieve an allowance from a trust. Provided they do not challenge the will.

Foe jackson will not give up, neither should he,


A Friend of Michael Jackson's Father, Joe, Defends the Much Maligned Patriarch

OPINION
By RUTT PREMSRIRUT

July 1, 2009—

A close personal friend of Michael Jackson's embattled father has come forward to ABC News' "Good Morning America" to defend Joe Jackson against claims that the elder Jackson is exploiting his son's untimely death.
Joe Jackson has endured widespread criticism in the press in recent days for everything from alleged abuse of his sons early on in their career to self-promotion at the BET awards just days after his son's death, and for aggressively seeking to gain control of the singer's sprawling empire in the immediate aftermath of his son's death.
Jackson, who is separated from his wife, Katherine Jackson, was left out of the singer's will. On Wednesday, the Jackson family hired Ken Sunshine, a veteran New York-based public relations professional.
In a statement to ABC News authorized by Joe Jackson, Rutt Premsrirut, his close friend of many years, seeks to paint the celebrity patriarch in a decidedly different light -- as a dedicated father who has steered one of America's most famous families through decades of triumphs and tragedies.
This is a response to the negative media coverage that Mr. Joseph Jackson, father of the late Michael Joseph Jackson has been receiving recently.
To quote the late Michael Joseph Jackson in his autobiographical book "Moonwalker": "Before you judge someone, walk two full moons with them." Mr. Joseph Jackson, known to us privately as "Joe," has always been the man of steel, the go-to person during times of crisis. He deals with situations from a point of equanimity. Continuously compartmentalizing his inner emotions has become an everyday activity.
When his dear mother and father passed away, he never shed a tear. "I internalize my emotions, but they eat up on the inside over the years." This has made him very effective during times of crisis. Each time he would rise to the occasion and function at the highest levels.
When Michael Jackson collapsed at 11:30 [a.m. PT June 25], the security guard's first instinct was to call Joe in Las Vegas to find out what to do. Joe screamed into the phone, "Get yourself together and call 911, now now now !!!" That was him in action, no emotion.

In 2003, as an arrest warrant was issued for Michael, we were all curled up behind the gates of the CMX Entertainment complex in Las Vegas with no idea what to do. When Joe walked in, you would see Michael's eyes light up. He was running the show with Michael listening to every word Joe was directing. I recall the family friend, actor/comedian Eddie Griffin, saying, "You could tell, it was Papa Joe in charge! He made Michael feel so secure. He dumped the weight off his shoulders on his father Joe. As he knew that Joe was ready for war." Michael repeatedly asked Joe, "What do I do?" There was no one more capable to handle the crisis than Joe. He is like a professional billiard player; thinking two or three steps ahead.
During the trial, with everyone focused on the court proceedings, Joe went from door to door in Santa Barbara, knocking on strangers' doors introducing himself, meeting as many locals as he could. He struggled to get the community on his son's side. He had dinner with people in the community, brought signed Jackson memorabilia as gifts, and did his best to get to know them on a personal basis. He knew too well that legal court proceedings are not decided only in the court room but also in the court of public opinion. Now most PR firms would be thinking of a national or international campaign. But for this trial, the public opinion that mattered most was a very small community in Santa Barbara.
Many people questioned why Joe needed a lawyer during his son's trial. Even his family questioned his judgment and [they] were upset. It was only later that some realized the wisdom behind his actions. Not only Michael's lawyers but the whole prosecution side were under a gag order not to talk at all. Joe's lawyer was attending everything and maximizing the media outlet for Michael's interests. Joe was always willing to go to war to protect Michael and his family.
The media are disturbed that Joe once again has brought Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton into the Jackson family. To refresh the memory of the media, during the trial they were also around. Joe called it his "Plan B." Not only do they provide spiritual support and confidence but they were and are his political weight. Few remember the verbal attacks on Tom Sneddon by Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, the large community rallies they organized, or the racist stuff they dug up on Sneddon. Jesse Jackson sits on the board of Yucalpa ( A $12 billion private equity firm of Ron Burkle). He also sits on the board of Sony /ATV catalog representing Michael's interests.

Keeping his emotions inside has taken its toll on Joe. The last few years have seen him visit the hospital frequently. He began to distance himself slowly from his son's problems. He knows he is up in age. "At 80, I can only do so much".
The day Michael died, for the first time in years, he said nothing, became sad, then angry, then began leading once again. His finest hour.
The media commented negatively to the trucks going to Michael's L.A. home. Joe's reply, "If the media will pick up the $100,000-per-month rent, due next month, I will very gladly leave the stuff there." That is Joe dealing with reality.
Before getting to Don Lemon of CNN on the BET red carpet he had done several interviews and was simply looking forward to watching the show. To avoid speaking, he made sure to have along with him Michael Jackson's lawyer Londel McMillan, his longtime publicist Angel Howanksy and his longtime friend Marshall from the musical group "The Charlights." As the CNN reporter kept bringing up questions on Michael and the family, you could see Joe became uncomfortable. He began giving one-word answers, then struggled to change the subject and brought up his publicist to read a statement. As that did not work, he finally tried to push the spotlight on his friend Marshall with the record label story.
As usual the press turned it around to claim he is all business. He might be old, but if ever in a crisis there is no one better than Mr. Joseph Jackson on your side. The man of steel may never show his emotions on the outside, but neither did Napoleon during the moment of truth.
What about Joe being left out of Michael Jackson's will! Why leave a will to an 80-year-old father who will leave it further to the grand kids and you end up paying twice the inheritance tax! Michael knew Joe was a risk taker. Joe would bet the farm. He has lost millions of dollars in the past on bad investments but it is the same risk-taking of going for the jugglers that got the Jacksons where they are. Back in Gary, Ind., after discovering his kids' talents, he quit his job at the steel mill, spent his whole life savings on the best musical instruments he could buy. His wife was very upset, but he told her, "Don't worry, we are going to make it". With no other source of income, other than a few club performances, he knew he had to succeed. Many forget that Gary, Ind. is one of the poorest cities in the whole country. To raise nine black kids out of poverty to superstardom with class is worthy of respect. It was a trade with the odds against him, but it was a trade of a lifetime.

Kubler-Ross analyzed the five stages of dealing with death: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance. When asked yesterday if he wanted to go and see his son's body, he replied, "NO!!!!, I will not be able to sleep and the emotions will catch up on me. No, no, no no, no!! And he hung up the phone."
Wise men think twice and then say nothing. Those who know do not talk and those who have no idea run to the media to gain fame. When I called up to tell him about all the negative stuff in the press about the record label, he gave me a his most unique line of old, "At least they have not forgotten about us ..." and in his sadness, he laughed.

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

 

[triniti]

Wow, thanks for this article. It shows Joe in completely different light. This fragment below especially makes an impression on me.

Some rumours said Michael that night tried to come into contact with Joe, but staff prevented Michael from calling him up. It is propably only rumour.

I will be waiting what will be next step by Joe. It will give me wider view. I want to believe in his strength but he is old man, but who knows...

 

[daisy]

I think this is a very difficult thing.
It is simply easier to classify a person either as "good" or "bad" and then judge everything he or she does according to that original classification.
It takes away the burden of judging this person´s concrete actions and steps.

I think this is unforgivable what Joe did to Michael when Michael was young. I cannot really accept that. I cannot, also, understand Joe´s continuous efforts to get the money. He should ask Katherine, IMO and that should be a case between them.

However, look, IF this is true that Joe was trying to get to Michael, screaming in front of Michael´s house, if that was also true, that family was blocked by others and did not have access to Michael, then what if Joe WOULD HAVE reached Michael then? Wouldn´t that possibly have saved Michael´s life?

We will never know, but we cannot rule out this possibility. How would we THEN judge Joe? I have no idea what to think here, TBH.

 

[Maria MJ]

Joe was a ruthless man and probably still is.
For whatever reasons he is doing what he is doing,I am interested in the results. He may get access to documents that will prove Michael was murdered.
What he plans to do with them that's another story. And maybe his chance to redeem himself.
For the sake of truth and risking to sound a bit Machiavellic, I say let him dig.

 

[daisy]

Joe was a ruthless man and probably still is.
For whatever reasons he is doing what he is doing,I am interested in the results. He may get access to documents that will prove Michael was murdered.
What he plans to do with them that's another story. And maybe his chance to redeem himself.
For the sake of truth and risking to sound a bit Machiavellic, I say let him dig.

I agree with you. Only I wonder whether Katherine supports that.
In this case it would be hard for the executors to refuse.

 

[Vici]

Also there is nothing in the Will regarding the children inheriting the estate once they turn 18. Only while under guardianship do they retain an allowance. Once they're 18, they dont get any money from their father's estate.

I dont know if you have answered this in the thread (didnt look through the pages) so If you are repeting yourself.. sorry for that.

I have a question about this... The terms of the actual trust were kept confidential, and that's where the details are laid out of when the children will take over the estate, etc. So how do you know that the kids will not inherit the estate?

Ive been so confused with my thoughts of the will being fake or not, but IMO.. this
is the most crucial point regarding the discussion if the will is fake or not. If it turns out MJ didnt arrange for his kids to inherit the estat.. then yes.. I would agree its very very suspicious-

But how do we know this? And lets assume that MJ did NOT arrange for his kids to inherit his estate.. who gets it? What happens when Branca and McClain are unable to manage it etc?

 

[Datsymay]

I dont know if you have answered this in the thread (didnt look through the pages) so If you are repeting yourself.. sorry for that.

I have a question about this... The terms of the actual trust were kept confidential, and that's where the details are laid out of when the children will take over the estate, etc. So how do you know that the kids will not inherit the estate?

Ive been so confused with my thoughts of the will being fake or not, but IMO.. this
is the most crucial point regarding the discussion if the will is fake or not. If it turns out MJ didnt arrange for his kids to inherit the estat.. then yes.. I would agree its very very suspicious-

But how do we know this? And lets assume that MJ did NOT arrange for his kids to inherit his estate.. who gets it? What happens when Branca and McClain are unable to manage it etc?

The part that was shown to the public clearly stated that the children will not inherit the estate. there was no conditions added. It was very clear.

 

[Vici]

The part that was shown to the public clearly stated that the children will not inherit the estate. there was no conditions added. It was very clear.

Ok, thanks! But I always thought it only said what the kids would get for allowance etc.. and that all other stuff are sealed! Isnt it how its usually done.. that details of who and when the kids will inherit are confidential information?

Or.. whats in that confidental information then?

 

[Datsymay]

Ok, thanks! But I always thought it only said what the kids would get for allowance etc.. and that all other stuff are sealed! Isnt it how its usually done.. that details of who and when the kids will inherit are confidential information?

Or.. whats in that confidental information then?

No, the will that was made public said that he has INTENTIONALLY not inherited his children. the same language that was used for Debbie.

 

[Vici]

If Katherine was a co-executor, she can veto any decisions Branca makes that she doesnt like such as selling the ATV catalogue in Sept 2010 (which is what this is all about).

Michael claimed in 2007 that he would NEVER sell Sony/ATV. You watch what happens in Sept. It will be sold by Branca.

Just curious.. why September?

What about the reports that Branca/McClain appointed Taj to the SONY/ATV board. He is there to protect the kids interest and have a veto if Im not mistaken (if the reports are true!)