Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson Executors Want 10%

marc_vivien said:
katherine withraw her objections in November and sided with the executors against Joe
Click to expand...


You and those like you have alot to learn about The Jacksons, no sense in casting Pearls before Swines Anymore. HemLock You still The One ! ! !
 
princessleia said:
Go back and read the document again. It says on bottom of page 6:

"13. The Special Administrators propose that they be compensated for their services in operating the MJJ Business in a total amount equal to 10% of the gross entertainment industry-related income recieved by the Estate, including its entities, but excluding the following income: (1) the receipts of Mijac and Sony/ATV,to the extent designated for servicing the existing, or substitute, loans; (2) non-entertainment related investment income; and (3) the receipts from Sony Pictures in connection with the motion Picture "This is It", to the extent applied to satisfy the debt owed to AEG."

They are only asking to exclude the income that goes toward paying off the debts. So if this arrangement is to stay in place for "generations to come", after the debts are paid off, which according to the original plans would happen around 2011/2012, the Mijac and Sony/ATV income will be included under this arrangement.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that in order for them to make the millions they ask for, the catalogs need to remain WITH the Estate?
I do wonder about Branca, is he going to make more money in the long run if the SONY/ATV 50% share stays with the estate or if it's sold to SONY?
 
Maria MJ said:
Does that mean that in order for them to make the millions they ask for, the catalogs need to remain WITH the Estate?
I do wonder about Branca, is he going to make more money in the long run if the SONY/ATV 50% share stays with the estate or if it's sold to SONY?
Click to expand...
The executors make more money if the assets stay within the estate and develop, Katherine would make more money if they'd sell the assets off as she would be able to get her 40% directly then not just an allowance. The best interest of the kids would be for the assets to stay with the estate and develop, as they are long term beneficiaries as opposed to Katherine.
 
marc_vivien said:
katherine withraw her objections in November and sided with the executors against Joe
Click to expand...

She did withdraw her objections to the executors but she did want Joe to get an allowance is my understanding.
 
Last edited:
blueocean said:
My understanding he did work for that firm, if not how do you know? if it is true all these things are going to be brought up in court, joe is a fighter he will keep going till a judge will listen
Click to expand...

Branca is an entertainment lawyer, not an accountant.

And, the judge already ruled that Joe has no legal standing on the estate's matters ; he's not an heir.
 
The executors are doing more than a "normal" executor would. They should be compensated accordingly...the judge WILL decide what is fair.

People stating 5% is too much (or too little?) don't know what they are talking about. A judge will make the final decision. The executors have a right to request fair compensation, as they see fit. These are not poor individual, they all have long & successful careers in the music business. Joe, not so much according to Michael. His ventures usually end up costing MJ money to cover Joseph's & Katherine's mistakes.
 
joe is a fighter he will keep going till a judge will listen
Click to expand...

yeah ask lil Mike , joe's fist was a nightmare , sadly he only used it on his wife and lil kids
 
blueocean said:
Im not speaking of that judge a different judge that will take a look at what joe and oxman are saying, and will take a look at there documents. another judge may listen.
Click to expand...


he don't have any legal standing with ou without that judge.
In California, you have a standing if you are mentioned in the will (recent or former) or if you are an deshinrited heir (i.e. if a will don't exist).


Only Katherine or the kids have a standing to challenge the will or the executors
 
blueocean said:
Im not speaking of that judge a different judge that will take a look at what joe and oxman are saying, and will take a look at there documents. another judge may listen.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that it is not possible to take a case to multiple judges and hope to get a different decision from one of them. The legal system does not work that way. What happens is you file a lawsuit which goes to a judge and the judge makes a decision - in this case the judge oversees the MJ estate made a rulling that Joe has no legal standing in his objection to the will and/or executors. The only possibility that they have is that in a certain time period they can file for an appeal - basically asking for a higher court to look over the decision. And what they do is that examine to make sure that the judge that made the decision based on right legal standards.

And as mentioned above Joe does not have a standing according to California law.

blueocean said:
My understanding he did work for that firm, if not how do you know? if it is true all these things are going to be brought up in court, joe is a fighter he will keep going till a judge will listen
Click to expand...

Well your understanding is WRONG. Once again the firm that Michael sued was a accounting firm that was hired by Randy. Branca is an entertainment lawyer whose job consisting on making entertainment business deals such as acquiring the ATV catalog, selling making of thriller to TV station and negotiating Michael's royalties from his music from Sony. His job never included balancing Michael's checkbook, paying taxes etc because he is not an accountant.
 
Last edited:
Just adding to the general knowledge here. Attorneys tend to work in NETWORKS of reciprocity. An entertainment lawyer may rely on the specialty of a tax lawyer for tax-related things, or an inheritance lawyer, in terms of a will. It's a little like having a primary physician who sends one to a specialist for certain things, but that one physician remains primary. That Branca may not do tax or inheritance law doesn't mean he was not primary at certain times.

Joe has no legal standing to get an allowance, since he was not mentioned in the will. It would seem that his recourse would be to appeal to Katherine, if she was supplying his support via Michael's money while Michael was alive. And it's true, one cannot "judge hop." That's not the way the law works. If he is denied by one judge, he can file an appeal which may or may not be heard.

The other thing Joe could do would be to appeal the validity of the will. I can't see how this would help him, though, because the prior will was almost identical, with the same executors. He would have to prove BOTH wills invalid and that there was an even more recent will. Not sure how he could do that, though.

One thing I wonder about is, did Michael have a safe or fire-proof box in his house? Most people do that, if they have significant assets. It's usual to retain a copy of one's own will, and have the other with the attorney. So I'm wondering if a safe or "safe-box" was found in Michael's house? Especially if he had expensive jewelry, that would be the usual thing to do. If there was an even more recent will, that's where it would be. But then, the house was not secured and we will likely never know. Joe will have to go with the existing will. I don't think he has any legal ground to stand on, whatsoever.
 
Joe can not challenge the will because :



Who Can Contest a Will? Having Enough Legal Standing to Challege a Will


http://wills.about.com/od/fiveessentialdocuments/tp/whocanfileawillcontest.htm

By Julie Garber, About.com Guide

See More About:

A lawsuit that is brought to challenge the validity of a Last Will and Testament, referred to as a will contest, can only be filed by a limited number of people and entities involved in the Testator's life. In legal terms this is referred to as "standing," or the requirement that a party involved in a lawsuit will be personally affected by the outcome of the case. So who has standing to file a will contest?


Disinherited heirs at law.


In general, any person who would be entitled to receive a share of the Testator's estate, but for the existence of the Testator's will (meaning the Testator's "heirs at law"), should have sufficient standing to challenge the Testator's will. For example, if the decedent is survived by three children but only two are provided for in the Testator's will, then the third child should have legal standing to file a will contest. But some words of caution - if the Testator had an older will that also cut out the third child, then the third child will have to knock out the older will and any wills prior to that where the third child is cut out in order to get to the point where the Testator is deemed to have died "intestate," or without a will.


Beneficiaries and fiduciaries named in a prior will.


Any person or entity, such as a charity, named in an older will signed by the Testator that has been cut out of, or whose share has been reduced, in the Testator's later will that is being offered or has already been admitted to probate should have sufficient standing to challenge the later will. But the same words of caution mentioned above also apply to these beneficiaries. In addition, any person or entity, such as a bank or a trust company, named as a fiduciary in the Testator's prior will that has been replaced in the Testator's most recent will should have adequate standing to challenge the later will.


Who can't file a will contest?


The bottom line is that not everyone involved in the Testator's life will have the appropriate legal standing to challenge the validity of the Testator's Last Will and Testament. So even if you suspect that a loved one's or friend's will is invalid, if you weren't named as a beneficiary in an older will or you're not an heir at law, then you won't have any legal standing to file a will contest.

If you're still not sure about your legal rights with regard to challenging the probate of a loved one's will, then you should consult with an estate lawyer to determine if you have the appropriate legal standing to file a will contest.

In conclusion,


Standing to contest the validity of a will is limited to two classes of persons:
  1. Those who are named on the face of the will (i.e. any beneficiary);
  2. Those who would inherit from the testator if the will was invalid
 
Last edited:
princessleia said:
Go back and read the document again. It says on bottom of page 6:

"13. The Special Administrators propose that they be compensated for their services in operating the MJJ Business in a total amount equal to 10% of the gross entertainment industry-related income recieved by the Estate, including its entities, but excluding the following income: (1) the receipts of Mijac and Sony/ATV,to the extent designated for servicing the existing, or substitute, loans; (2) non-entertainment related investment income; and (3) the receipts from Sony Pictures in connection with the motion Picture "This is It", to the extent applied to satisfy the debt owed to AEG."

They are only asking to exclude the income that goes toward paying off the debts. So if this arrangement is to stay in place for "generations to come", after the debts are paid off, which according to the original plans would happen around 2011/2012, the Mijac and Sony/ATV income will be included under this arrangement.
Click to expand...



Princessleia,

You have a sharp and quick mind.

Thank you for posting this.
 
Victoria83 said:
The other thing Joe could do would be to appeal the validity of the will. I can't see how this would help him, though, because the prior will was almost identical, with the same executors. He would have to prove BOTH wills invalid and that there was an even more recent will. Not sure how he could do that, though.

One thing I wonder about is, did Michael have a safe or fire-proof box in his house? Most people do that, if they have significant assets. It's usual to retain a copy of one's own will, and have the other with the attorney. So I'm wondering if a safe or "safe-box" was found in Michael's house? Especially if he had expensive jewelry, that would be the usual thing to do. If there was an even more recent will, that's where it would be. But then, the house was not secured and we will likely never know. Joe will have to go with the existing will. I don't think he has any legal ground to stand on, whatsoever.
Click to expand...


That's what I can't understand as well. What would Joe gain from invalidating the will (if it was possible)? Then 1997 will become valid, even if they somehow invalidated that as well then Michael would not have any will and everything will go to the children. In that case as the children are minors, I would expect the court to appoint an independent counsel / bank/ firm etc to look for their best interest and run the estate.

I also personally do not think that there's a newer will. If it was there would be a lawyer that prepared it, 2-3 witnesses that signed it and a new set of executors (we are assuming that he replaced them). This means that there should be at least 5-6 people aware of the will and yet nobody came forward. So I don't think there is any newer will than the 2002 one.

princessleia said:
Well, per the video the $360m figure applies to 2007, when the arrangement to pay off the debt from Sony/ATV receipts was put in place - which means MJ has been paying the debt off since that time, so the outstanding amount should be a lot less by now.

Besides, the point is not whether it's a huge amount or not, but whether Sony/ATV income is excluded or not, as some have claimed.

Plus, it's not like the executors are being generous in any way, since it's not like they actually have to do anything for this income, Sony/ATV will bring in tens of millions each year to the estate even if the executors do absolutely nothing, so it's not like they have to work hard for it and I don't see why they should be entitled to 10% of that income in the long term, (if this arrangement is to stay in the long term), that would be disproportionate IMO.
Click to expand...

That's a $360 million debt with 20% interest rate.. which means each year it gets added $72 million in interest. I guess the catalog brings $50 million a year, if all the money goes into paying the debt still the principal amount increase by $20 million per year. in 2009 it would be $400 million and this is the number that many media outlets reported as MJ's debt.

I personally think (and the above calculation also shows) this catalog will require some sort of work/ attention as it is not able to cover for the debt on it by itself alone, further more the law states that executors are entitled to a percentage over the value of the estate but they are asking for a percentage of the profits. Doesn't it mean that they are only asking for a payment on the money they bring in but not the money already in the estate?
 
Last edited:
That's what I can't understand as well. What would Joe gain from invalidating the will (if it was possible)? Then 1997 will become valid, even if they somehow invalidated that as well then Michael would not have any will and everything will go to the children. In that case as the children are minors, I would expect the court to appoint an independent counsel / bank/ firm etc to look for their best interest and run the estate.
Click to expand...
guess thats what happens when u have oxman repping you.
 
virginia_woolf said:
10% for Branca and 10 % for McClain? Give me a break. I hope the judge won't allow it.
Click to expand...



I agree 100 & 10% !
This leech is already getting more than the children and the children.



images

Attention: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Harlem community.
Now that I have told you about the Historical way the Music Industry cheats their artists especially "black" artists;
I must meet with my "dear friend" John Branca (who is a former SONY lawyer) and
sign my new Will giving total control of my entire estate over to him. He is my "loving friend" and
my family is "bad"and must never question John (GOD) Branca.

My whole career and life's work was all for him.








con·spir·a·cy - An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
 
ivy said:
That's what I can't understand as well. What would Joe gain from invalidating the will (if it was possible)? Then 1997 will become valid, even if they somehow invalidated that as well then Michael would not have any will and everything will go to the children. In that case as the children are minors, I would expect the court to appoint an independent counsel / bank/ firm etc to look for their best interest and run the estate.

I also personally do not think that there's a newer will. If it was there would be a lawyer that prepared it, 2-3 witnesses that signed it and a new set of executors (we are assuming that he replaced them). This means that there should be at least 5-6 people aware of the will and yet nobody came forward. So I don't think there is any newer will than the 2002 one.



That's a $360 million debt with 20% interest rate.. which means each year it gets added $72 million in interest. I guess the catalog brings $50 million a year, if all the money goes into paying the debt still the principal amount increase by $20 million per year. in 2009 it would be $400 million and this is the number that many media outlets reported as MJ's debt.

I personally think (and the above calculation also shows) this catalog will require some sort of work/ attention as it is not able to cover for the debt on it by itself alone, further more the law states that executors are entitled to a percentage over the value of the estate but they are asking for a percentage of the profits. Doesn't it mean that they are only asking for a payment on the money they bring in but not the money already in the estate?
Click to expand...


As far as the will is concerned, Katherine & Joe did originally want to file the will intestate with everything going to the children, so they must have thought that best. And then as you say a firm I suppose.

As far as a newer will, Malnik did claim to have one from 2004 to at least several reporters - I don't think they all got it wrong - he did back away from it later. At first I thought that Malnik made a deal with Branca after MJ died, they did work together with Koppelman in 2005 on a deal to have his debts refinanced, but I rethought that after the Malniks came to visit &
Joe's filing where Branca turned in Malnik on his "money laundering" loan business to the feds. Obviously no love lost there. I now think Joe called up Malnik, not necessarily a deal, but the Jacksons first priority was to get the custody of the kids, not split them up with the oldest going to DR & Blanket going ?? Malnik has a shady past but they are very family oriented, Nancy seems very loving with her children, she seems like a great mom, has a good relationship with her husband's adult child. I think they would have wanted whats best for MJ's children & for them to be with their grandmother. I think Malnik made the will disappear to make it easier for the Jacksons to get the kids.

I think that when LaToya said that they expected a newer will to show up, that is because they knew Mj was suspicious of Malnik so when they fell out it was most likely he made a newer will after the one with Malnik. Maybe he got busy or something happened to it. We may never know.
 
jrsfan said:
Since you are saying he is incorrect, do you have any figures? A link would be good too.

Thanks in advance:).
Click to expand...

I don't need a link. The children get 40% NOW and when Mrs Jackson passes on they get 80% AND 20% going to charities and there is a TRUST that is sealed, so we don't know what it says but it is there for their protection. Charities are in the will because estate tax will be paid and this offsets some of that as any astute businessman knows.
 
jrsfan said:
As far as the will is concerned, Katherine & Joe did originally want to file the will intestate with everything going to the children, so they must have thought that best. And then as you say a firm I suppose.

As far as a newer will, Malnik did claim to have one from 2004 to at least several reporters - I don't think they all got it wrong - he did back away from it later. At first I thought that Malnik made a deal with Branca after MJ died, they did work together with Koppelman in 2005 on a deal to have his debts refinanced, but I rethought that after the Malniks came to visit &
Joe's filing where Branca turned in Malnik on his "money laundering" loan business to the feds. Obviously no love lost there. I now think Joe called up Malnik, not necessarily a deal, but the Jacksons first priority was to get the custody of the kids, not split them up with the oldest going to DR & Blanket going ?? Malnik has a shady past but they are very family oriented, Nancy seems very loving with her children, she seems like a great mom, has a good relationship with her husband's adult child. I think they would have wanted whats best for MJ's children & for them to be with their grandmother. I think Malnik made the will disappear to make it easier for the Jacksons to get the kids.

I think that when LaToya said that they expected a newer will to show up, that is because they knew Mj was suspicious of Malnik so when they fell out it was most likely he made a newer will after the one with Malnik. Maybe he got busy or something happened to it. We may never know.
Click to expand...


so you think there were not one newer will but TWO , right and the TWO are missing , right ? :mello:eek:k


and from your post it seems you agree in both of them , the jacksons would have gotten nothing may also have lost custody of the kids , my opinion is if they knew of a will that gave them more money than the one we have now , they would not have asked anyone to hide it so they could 'take care of the kids' :smilerolleyes: just saying .
 
Soundmind said:
so you think there were not one newer will but TWO , right and the TWO are missing , right ? :mello:eek:k


and from your post it seems you agree in both of them , the jacksons would have gotten nothing may also have lost custody of the kids , my opinion is if they knew of a will that gave them more money than the one we have now , they would not have asked anyone to hide it so they could 'take care of the kids' :smilerolleyes: just saying .
Click to expand...

Well you may not agree with me but I don't think all the reporters got it wrong when Malnik said he had a will. One I believe was from a local CBS station. If one got it wrong, bad reporting but it wasn't just one.

The rest is my speculation from what LaToya said about the will, Malniks showing up, Branca reporting about Malnik to the feds. MJ, from reports, did not have any contact with Malnik & he was listed along with Branca, Trudy Green, Howard Kaufman, Charles Koppelman, Brett Ratner & Tommy Mottola in a conspiracy to bankrupt him.

I find it rather intriguing that Jacksons are now friends with the Malniks & that Joe says in his filing that Branca reported Malnik to the Feds since Koppelman, Malnik & Branca all were working on a deal for MJ in 2005. I bet Malnik wasn't too pleased to have found out that.

It is my opinion & that is what discussion boards are for, just saying.:smilerolleyes:

links:

http://wcbstv.com/entertainment/michael.jackson.al.2.1061679.html

Longtime Jackson friend and Miami businessman Al Malnik told CBS station WFOR-TV in Miami in an exclusive interview that he and Jackson had a signed document that said Malnik could take custody of the youngest child, Prince Michael II, also known as Blanket.

"I guess in 2003 or 2004, he asked me if anything ever happened to him, if I would become godfather and parent to Prince Michael. So I signed a document at that time agreeing to bring up Blanket in the event anything happened to him," Malnik said.

According to Malnik, he was the executor of Michael Jackson's will in 2004. But he has no idea what has transpired since then, or if there is a new, updated will. Still, he's sure the children will be taken care of for years to come.

link to Malnik, Branca, Koppelman info:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB111819644592353818-Idje4NolaN4n5upbHuGca2Fm4.html
 
ivy said:
That's a $360 million debt with 20% interest rate.. which means each year it gets added $72 million in interest. I guess the catalog brings $50 million a year, if all the money goes into paying the debt still the principal amount increase by $20 million per year. in 2009 it would be $400 million and this is the number that many media outlets reported as MJ's debt.
Click to expand...

The 20% interest rate applied only for one year AFAIK, when Fortress bought the loan in 2005. In 2006 the loan was renegotiated and the interest rate was reduced to around 6%. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/business/media/13music.html?_r=1 So the actual outstanding amount should be less than what you calculated.

ivy said:
I personally think (and the above calculation also shows) this catalog will require some sort of work/ attention as it is not able to cover for the debt on it by itself alone,
Click to expand...

I think your calculation is incorrect because of the different interest rate. If the catalog was not enough to cover the debt, MJ would have never been able to get a loan with only the catalog to secure it in the first place. Banks have to follow very strict rules regarding how much risk they can take and they usually "oversecure" themselves. So for example, when assessing how much a collateral like the catalog is worth, they have to take into account the "fire sale"/liquidation sale value, which is significantly lower than the market value. So the fact that MJ had a loan means that the bank was confident that the catalog would cover the loan, even if sold cheaper than what it's worth.

ivy said:
further more the law states that executors are entitled to a percentage over the value of the estate but they are asking for a percentage of the profits. Doesn't it mean that they are only asking for a payment on the money they bring in but not the money already in the estate?
Click to expand...

They are not asking for 10% of the profits but 10% of the receipts, so 10% of the revenue/total income (without reducing any expenses). So in essence, even if the estate wasn't making any profit, the executors would still be entitled to their compensation.

As for your question, no, their payment could include 10% of what is already in the estate, since if they sell anything already in the estate, that's money coming in, and they will be entitled to 10% of that money also.
 
the judge heard Joe's objections and said he has not legal standing on these matters
 
Go Flying said:
yup, thus far... But I don't think anyone has the impression that Joe is simply going to say KThnxBye and walk away
Click to expand...

maybe, but the judge don't care about him or his objections. He's not in the will/trust. He can not say anything
 
Go Flying said:
yup, thus far... But I don't think anyone has the impression that Joe is simply going to say KThnxBye and walk away
Click to expand...

Joe appealed the decision mid November. If the appeals court held/ holds the decision of the court than it is over.

Did anyone heard anything about the outcome of the appeal?
 
jrsfan said:
As far as the will is concerned, Katherine & Joe did originally want to file the will intestate with everything going to the children, so they must have thought that best.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what they thought at first, that Michael had no will. They didn't seem displeased with that. They were very quick to announce that Michael died without a will, so I'm assuming that's what they wanted?

jrsfan said:
As far as a newer will, Malnik did claim to have one from 2004 to at least several reporters - I don't think they all got it wrong - he did back away from it later.
Click to expand...

Yes, Malnik said that and surely he knew he'd be required to prove it. Anyone can SAY they have a copy of Michael's will, but I don't know why someone would even say that, if they couldn't prove it? We don't know why he backed away. No one here knows that.

jrsfan said:
I now think Joe called up Malnik, not necessarily a deal, but the Jacksons first priority was to get the custody of the kids, not split them up with the oldest going to DR & Blanket going ?? Malnik has a shady past but they are very family oriented, Nancy seems very loving with her children, she seems like a great mom, has a good relationship with her husband's adult child. I think they would have wanted whats best for MJ's children & for them to be with their grandmother.
Click to expand...

This seems within the realm of possibility. I'm ruling nothing out at this point, if it seems possible. Not likely, but possible. . .

jrsfan said:
I think Malnik made the will disappear to make it easier for the Jacksons to get the kids.
Click to expand...

If that is what happened, I wonder who was listed as executor? Just wondering.

jrsfan said:
I think that when LaToya said that they expected a newer will to show up, that is because they knew Mj was suspicious of Malnik so when they fell out it was most likely he made a newer will after the one with Malnik. Maybe he got busy or something happened to it. We may never know.
Click to expand...

Right. We may never know. I'm not going so far as to say the current will is not legitimate, because I have no real way of knowing, nor does anyone else on this board. However, I've wondered why there are no copies? An attorney ALWAYS makes copies of a will (as my own attorney did). It would be "normal" for Michael to have a copy in a safe somewhere in his house. Since the house was not secured, I guess we'll never know about that.

The one thing invalidating BOTH wills (unlikely to happen) would do is remove Branca and McClain as executors. They seem to have an adversarial relationship with the family as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top