Latest on MJJC

Katherine Jackson Can Challenge Administrators

Oceangirl said:
MJ did not give her 40% of his estate, she is beneficiary of 40% of the PROFITS of his estate , he did not leave any assets to katie . did you heard about the judge's response to katie lawyer about mj's memorabilia he told him "STOP ACTING LIKE SHE OWNS IT SHE DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING" not word for word but that's what he said . she will not inherit any assets , her share of the PROFITS goes back to mj's kids once she die and at some time in the future when they reach a certain age they will inherit their father's estate . or 80% of it .
Click to expand...
The meaning of beneficiary is a person named to recieve income or inheritance from a will that make her a heir of the 40 percent of the estate: meaning of inheritance" permanent" or valuable possession or blessing esp. one recieved by gift or without purchase, by her being the heir of the 40 percent she owns 40 percent the estate she is a permanet heir given to her by michael jackson her son. the will says the estate go's to the michael jackson family trust in that trust katherine receive 40% of the estate the children recieve 40% of the estate 20% of the estate goes to charity. the lawyers are there only carry out michael wishes.
 
who told you that ? she does not inherit anything , she receives 40% of the PROFITS as long as she is alive , that what the will says , she is beneficiary of 40% of the PROFITS again AS LONG AS SHE IS ALIVE .she does not inherit any assets at all, she gets cash and the amount will be determined by the executors and the judge since there are liabilities against the estate like taxes and loans .
 
no the money goes back to the kids when she passes. mj didn't leave his kids ONLY 40% of his estate. it's to help his mother, whom she can in turn help while alive, until she's no longer onthis earth. then it passes to thekids. hopefully by that time they will all be of age and they can help their family if they so choose
 
Oceangirl said:
the executors gets 3% on all the deals .
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response!
So if I understand this right, if randy, or another family member will be appointed as executor, he gets part of those 3%, that means 30.000 if 1.000.000 is brought in by the estate, 300.000 for 10 mil, and so on...
The estate is and will be generating much more than that, as we have seen... so, in my opinion, that might be a reason. This could be another source of income for the family, if after his mother's death, the others don't get anything.
 
celine said:
I have a question about the executors. I just read an article that says that both John Branca and John McClain are the executive producers of TII.

Wouldn't this create a conflict of interests?


http://mtvpress.com/2009VMA/release...r_from_michael_jacksons_this_is_it_during_20/
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. Yes, I think it could constitute a conflict of interest. They will be paid for their roles as executive producers. Don't know if in a salary, or a share of the profits, or what. Steering the estate toward something in which they profit (in addition to what they get as a percentage of the estate's profits), would seem to be not really ethical, if not an outright conflict of interest under the law.
 
Victoria83 said:
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. Yes, I think it could constitute a conflict of interest. They will be paid for their roles as executive producers. Don't know if in a salary, or a share of the profits, or what. Steering the estate toward something in which they profit (in addition to what they get as a percentage of the estate's profits), would seem to be not really ethical, if not an outright conflict of interest under the law.
Click to expand...

And you think the judge would allow it if it was not legal?
the estate is intangible, it cannot produce its own movie. The representatives of the estate can and do make decisions FOR the estate.

there is no conflict of interest.
 
Memefan said:
And you think the judge would allow it if it was not legal?
the estate is intangible, it cannot produce its own movie. The representatives of the estate can and do make decisions FOR the estate.

there is no conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if a judge would allow it. But then, I tend to have a lot of suspicion about "the system," after researching the trial so closely. Thank God he was acquitted. . . but. . . . .

The executors surely do make decisions for the estate. In this case, the decision was to hire. . themselves!
 
celine said:
I have a question about the executors. I just read an article that says that both John Branca and John McClain are the executive producers of TII.

Wouldn't this create a conflict of interests?


http://mtvpress.com/2009VMA/release...r_from_michael_jacksons_this_is_it_during_20/
Click to expand...


I don't think that this is a conflict of interest. If you remember the court summaries that TMZ did, when they were discussing the movie deal the executors wanted to make sure that the "movie only portrays MJ in a positive light". I guess that they are listed as executive producers so that they can have a say in what footage is included and/ or kept out of the movie.
 
Popescu said:
Thank you for your response!
So if I understand this right, if randy, or another family member will be appointed as executor, he gets part of those 3%, that means 30.000 if 1.000.000 is brought in by the estate, 300.000 for 10 mil, and so on...
The estate is and will be generating much more than that, as we have seen... so, in my opinion, that might be a reason. This could be another source of income for the family, if after his mother's death, the others don't get anything.
Click to expand...
sure of course y not BUT if that very family membermesses up and squanderes money, tries to do projects taht are unsavory...what then?

family should not get involved by being at the table. mj did NOT want that. that's y he had a damn no-contest clause. to prevent this mess....it's rowe and joe who are confusing katherine.
 
Soso Deaf said:
sure of course y not BUT if that very family membermesses up and squanderes money, tries to do projects taht are unsavory...what then?

family should not get involved by being at the table. mj did NOT want that. that's y he had a damn no-contest clause. to prevent this mess....it's rowe and joe who are confusing katherine.
Click to expand...

I don't want to believe that.

she just lost a son who was constantly harassed by these very same men, weeks before his death; still she cannot stand up to them.

She is a beneficiary of the estate, but the estate will end up in Michael's kids hands, once the trust is dissolved. She should think of that when letting Joe & Rowe pestering get to her.

MJ never wanted his family in charge of his business...and for very good reason.

Katherine can challenge these two men all she wants, but I am sure their long history with MJ will prevail.
 
ivy said:
I don't think that this is a conflict of interest. If you remember the court summaries that TMZ did, when they were discussing the movie deal the executors wanted to make sure that the "movie only portrays MJ in a positive light". I guess that they are listed as executive producers so that they can have a say in what footage is included and/ or kept out of the movie.
Click to expand...

I reacted the same way where it stated the laywers as being the executive producers. I guess that explains it.
 
i really don't wanna believe that all the Jacksons except Janet are broke. they sold almost 100 million records . they must have had so much money, how did they broke?
 
just cuz u sell millions of records don't mean u a millionaire. i'd say tito has themost after jan and toy.....

just listen to left eye's explanation of how themoney gets broken down. they made hella million and after it was all said and done, took home less than 300k

now....when mj did projects, he was the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, correct? now he's gone, he left two men to take over for him, correct? they are now taking mj's place as executive producers. makes sense.

and if mj wanted his family in on his finances, he would've put them on there...he didn't so they shouldn't mess w/ it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top