MJ Estate Sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme Countersues / Tohme's Complaint [Merged]

[ivy]

It would be in the Estate’s best interest to settle because the film was extremely successful.

Don't you think this is a contradictory statement? According to Branca's website combined gross revenues for TII movie is $500 Million. 7.5% of it is 37.5 Million. So you think it's financially better to just handle him tens of millions?

 

[passy001]

The TII footage was always meant to be seen in some length and is not a performance concert but, a rehearsal/behind-the-scenes. It was filmed in HD and I believe Ortega (or someone similar) stated sometime in March-May 2009 the footage, particularly of the dancers, was to be used for a reality show or some similar vehicle.

most of those footages were for personal use and was rushed to release only to capitalize on his death. you can tell even by the quality.

even if they were meant for release at some point, that would have been as part of the deliverables under the agreement with MJ. in other words the release was very tied to TII concert. and without that concert those footages would never have been released except for when MJ died and the executors and his concert promoter sought to capitalize on it.

Also wasn't a new deal struct after MJ death and long after Tohme was fired? if so, in what capacity would Tohme be entitled to MJ monies?

Both legal teams have been quite stubborn however; the Estate’s legal team is using Estate funding which lessens monies for the beneficiaries. It would be in the Estate’s best interest to settle because the film was extremely successful.

With that kind of reasoning the executors may as well give money away to wade robson, safechuck and everyone else that wants money, making the beneficiaries even poorer.

They are protecting the beneficiaries against heavy losses. and you can't blame them for doing their jobs.

 

[Tygger]

Don't you think this is a contradictory statement? According to Branca's website combined gross revenues for TII movie is $500 Million. 7.5% of it is 37.5 Million. So you think it's financially better to just handle him tens of millions?

You may want to clarify if Tohme receive $37.5M in a settlement or if the Estate is found liable at trial.

most of those footages were for personal use and was rushed to release only to capitalize on his death. you can tell even by the quality.

No. It was not for personal use and that is why it was on HD film.

even if they were meant for release at some point, that would have been as part of the deliverables under the agreement with MJ. in other words the release was very tied to TII concert. and without that concert those footages would never have been released except for when MJ died and the executors and his concert promoter sought to capitalize on it.

No. It is not the TII concert; it is rehearsal/behind-the-scenes footage of the concert’s preparations. As I said, the footage was to be released in some length as a reality show or such particularly focusing on the dancers as per Ortega’s statements. I believe Phillips may have said additional footage may appear on a concert DVD or someone similar said this and/or the comments I attributed to Ortega. I cannot remember who it was or can search for the statement at this time.

Also wasn't a new deal struct after MJ death and long after Tohme was fired? if so, in what capacity would Tohme be entitled to MJ monies?

The TII footage and how it was to be utilized was dealt with while Tohme was manager. The new deal was who would secure the footage and theatrical distribution and the Estate chose Sony Pictures regardless of other offers.

With that kind of reasoning the executors may as well give money away to wade robson, safechuck and everyone else that wants money, making the beneficiaries even poorer.

They are protecting the beneficiaries against heavy losses. and you can't blame them for doing their jobs.

Why is this being compared to Robson/Safechuck? In this instance, both legal teams have sought to inconvenience each other at most opportunities and those legal wrangling cost monies. See Ivy’s figure above for an estimated $37.5M. Would it be better to spend that amount as well as legal costs or seek a more cost-efficient solution? What do you believe the Estate's chances are to appeal the Labor Commissioner's decision?

 

[ivy]

You may want to clarify if Tohme receive $37.5M in a settlement or if the Estate is found liable at trial.

Tohme's management contract gives him 15%. So if we assume Branca's website is correct " This is It – This is the largest grossing concert film in history, with combined revenues exceeding $500 million." (Note: combined meaning it includes movie showings, DVD and probably CD as well. Hard to say if all applies to Tohme's commission)

So 15% of 500 Million is $75 Million.

Labor Commissioner reduced Tohme's fee by 50% to 7.5%. Which means 7.5% of 500 Million would be $37.5 Million.

A settlement would pretty much would be the same amount IMO. Parties meeting in the middle.

Would it be better to spend that amount as well as legal costs or seek a more cost-efficient solution?

Your argument would only be true if we are to assume that Estate would lose this case. Obviously just giving him the money would be cheaper than spending money on legal fees and also paying the money. But what if they win? If they end up being successful and spend a few millions and not required to pay tens of millions to Tohme then pursing this legally would be the cost-efficient solution.

What do you believe the Estate's chances are to appeal the Labor Commissioner's decision?

If you read it, it's not exactly an appeal. They are asking for a new trial at Superior Court like Labor Commissioner proceedings didn't happen. So don't you think that their chances are good or at least they would end with the same outcome (which cut Tohme's fees by half and determined Estate did not have to pay his legal fees)?

edited to add

To me it is obvious why Estate is pursing this legally. Gross revenues for TII movie was in hundreds of millions and if Tohme is to get commission from that it would be tens of millions. They are fighting for not paying this.

As for the Labor Commissioner ruling as one person said, it's a weak decision especially if we consider they took 20 months to decide. I urge everyone to read the document - at least the part about TII movie. (pages 25-26 of the pdf document, or pages 22-23 of the labor commissioner decision).

I don't get their logic. If TII is considered to be illegal activity by TAA, why would Tohme get anything from anything related to TII? And if we consider TII movie and TII concert separate, why is Tohme getting commission from a movie deal that was arranged after the stopped working for MJ?

 

[Tygger]

A settlement would pretty much would be the same amount IMO. Parties meeting in the middle.

Would you agree sometimes settlements are for lesser amounts than middle ground?

But what if they win? If they end up being successful and spend a few millions and not required to pay tens of millions to Tohme then pursing this legally would be the cost-efficient solution.

It seems you are viewing a settlement as a loss.

If you read it, it's not exactly an appeal. They are asking for a new trial at Superior Court like Labor Commissioner proceedings didn't happen. So don't you think that their chances are good or at least they would end with the same outcome (which cut Tohme's fees by half and determined Estate did not have to pay his legal fees)?

These are the proceedings the Estate requested and the decision by the Labor Commissioner seems fair in my view; albeit ridiculously late (which may have benefited the Estate). Are you suggesting the Estate should continue incurring legal fees by appealing this decision and proceeding to trial for the same decision?

To me it is obvious why Estate is pursing this legally. Gross revenues for TII movie was in hundreds of millions and if Tohme is to get commission from that it would be tens of millions. They are fighting for not paying this.

With a settlement they could pay less. Remember there is also the issue of the NL fee which Tohme is most likely eligible for. There may be a figure he will accept that is a rounded figure for both instead of the full fee for both.

As for the Labor Commissioner ruling as one person said, it's a weak decision especially if we consider they took 20 months to decide.

Did this person believe the legal fees not owed to Tohme is a weak decision as well or simply the section of the decision that was not in the Estate’s favor?

I don't get their logic. If TII is considered to be illegal activity by TAA, why would Tohme get anything from anything related to TII? And if we consider TII movie and TII concert separate, why is Tohme getting commission from a movie deal that was arranged after the stopped working for MJ?

The TII concert that never happened and the footage seen in the TII movie are separate.

Question please: why is it unclear that a concert that never happened and a movie incorporating rehearsal footage and behind-the-scenes footage of said concert is separate? Utilizing that footage for other purposes (not a TII movie at the time) was determined between March-May 2009 as per Ortega/Phillips(?) when Tohme was performing as Michael’s manager. The deal completed after Tohme was terminated by Michael (but, not by AEG) and after Michael's passing was the TII movie which only dealt with the distribution of and securing of the footage by Sony Pictures. AEG owned the footage, not Michael.

Regardless, whatever reasons the footage is utilized (reality show, movie, etc.) and the actual concert that never happened are not the same; they are separate. They also would have created separate revenues which Tohme would not be eligible for a portion of the latter revenue as per this decision (at least not from the Estate or Michael had he performed a concert(s) and legally pursued not paying Tohme a fee for his concert performance(s)).

 

[ivy]

Let me start my saying I don't plan to continue on this topic much longer as we have already discussed this before.

It seems you are viewing a settlement as a loss.

what we define as a loss or a win or cost effective depends on what we expect the outcome to be, doesn't it?

Assume this the full amount is $75 Million, the middle is $37.5 Million and then there's paying nothing aka $0.

If anyone believes Tohme is likely to win his claim, a settlement - which would mean paying him less than the full amount - would be considered a win and cost effective. However if anyone believes Estate is likely to win, the paying nothing $0 would be the win and the cost effective alternative despite the legal costs.

So this demonstrates there isn't much to discuss really. How we approach to this depends on our perceptions about the merit of this claim.

There may be a figure he will accept that is a rounded figure for both instead of the full fee for both.

Just curiosity: how much do you think the settlement amount could be? Correct me if I'm wrong but you come across as thinking the settlement amount would be minimal amount that doesn't worth the legal effort.

Utilizing that footage for other purposes (not a TII movie at the time) was determined between March-May 2009 as per Ortega/Phillips(?) when Tohme was performing as Michael’s manager.

You might want to read the document, especially the pages I mentioned. I'll quote a short section "there was no engagement contract of any kind in respect to the rehearsals and the recording of the rehearsals". So LC actually says the opposite you are saying - that there was no plan for these videos and Michael wasn't supposed to receive any compensation for / from them if he lived (so even a behind the scenes video was released, MJ wasn't gonna see a dime). Read it and then tell me if that argument makes sense to you.

 

[Tygger]

Let me start my saying I don't plan to continue on this topic much longer as we have already discussed this before.

I am not and have not referred to any past conversation however; I completely understand your preference to not continue discussing this particular case any further.

So this demonstrates there isn't much to discuss really. How we approach to this depends on our perceptions about the merit of this claim.

There is a discussion but, again, I understand it is one you prefer not to have.

Just curiosity: how much do you think the settlement amount could be? Correct me if I'm wrong but you come across as thinking the settlement amount would be minimal amount that doesn't worth the legal effort.

I am unsure how you arrive at your conclusions regarding my posts. I have no inkling what would be an acceptable amount for both parties.

You might want to read the document, especially the pages I mentioned. I'll quote a short section "there was no engagement contract of any kind in respect to the rehearsals and the recording of the rehearsals". So LC actually says the opposite you are saying - that there was no plan for these videos and Michael wasn't supposed to receive any compensation for / from them if he lived (so even a behind the scenes video was released, MJ wasn't gonna see a dime). Read it and then tell me if that argument makes sense to you.

On the contrary, it was clear from the AEG civil trial that there were no contractual obligations regarding rehearsals and that is what that statement refers too. That statement should not be confused with Ortega/Phillips(?) statements regarding some reality show for the dancers or footage for a concert DVD.

So if we assume Branca's website is correct " This is It – This is the largest grossing concert film in history, with combined revenues exceeding $500 million."

Correction: TII is the highest grossing documentary film. Some media (and it seems Branca's website) have stated it was the highest grossing concert film but, that is not the correct characterization as there was no TII concert; only rehearsal footage and behind-the-scenes.

 

[ivy]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

I am unsure how you arrive at your conclusions regarding my posts. I have no inkling what would be an acceptable amount for both parties..

I asked about your opinion, not what parties might think.

Or let's try it like this. What are the items that Tohme deserves to be paid commission for? TII movie? Neverland 10% - 10%? Anything else? If yes 15% of $500 Million is $75 Million, + $2.3 M for initial neverland + $10 Million for current Neverland - and these doesn't account for any interest. So $87 Million total. Let's assume a settlement in the middle around $40 Million. So my question is should Estate just pay Tohme $40 Million with no legal attempt?

 

[Tygger]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Ivy, I know what you are asking. I asked you several questions that you did not respond to. However; I responded to your question and it seems that response was not acceptable in your view. I cannot control that.

Or let's try it like this. What are the items that Tohme deserves to be paid commission for? TII movie? Neverland 10% - 10%? Anything else? If yes 15% of $500 Million is $75 Million, + $2.3 M for initial neverland + $10 Million for current Neverland - and these doesn't account for any interest. So $87 Million total. Let's assume a settlement in the middle around $40 Million. So my question is should Estate just pay Tohme $40 Million with no legal attempt?

Remember Tohme's fee was reduced to 7.5% as per the Labor Commissioner's decision requested by the Estate's legal team. Also, there have been several legal exercises by both parties. If this does not reach trial, it does not mean there were not legal attempts.

"there was no engagement contract of any kind in respect to the rehearsals and the recording of the rehearsals"

As long as it is clear the above statement refers to the lack of contractual obligations regarding rehearsals (Michael did not have to attend rehearsals, AEG was allowed to film rehearsals) and does not refer to how the HD footage AEG owned would be used, I am happy to have had the discussion.

As long as it is clear the TII concerts that never happened are separate and apart from the TII rehearsal/behind-the-scenes footage, I am happy to have had the discussion.

 

[passy001]

You may want to clarify if Tohme receive $37.5M in a settlement or if the Estate is found liable at trial.
No. It was not for personal use and that is why it was on HD film.

it was. and that was said as much even during the press release. those footage were MJ's that he was using to perfect his routine. MJ has always filmed his rehearsals and was using the footage as an educational tool.

No. It is not the TII concert; it is rehearsal/behind-the-scenes footage of the concert’s preparations. As I said, the footage was to be released in some length as a reality show or such particularly focusing on the dancers as per Ortega’s statements. I believe Phillips may have said additional footage may appear on a concert DVD or someone similar said this and/or the comments I attributed to Ortega. I cannot remember who it was or can search for the statement at this time.

But it was a by-product of the this is it concert. Put it simply, without the concert deal, the rehearsal footage would not exist. in other words MJ would have no reason to rehearse at all and film himself in the process. This is similar to merchandising.
the estate is arguing that since Tohme was illegally representing MJ as his manager by making a deal with AEG without a valid licence, he should not be entitled to any monies resulting from that initial agreement. That is the reason why they went to the labor commissioner in the first place.

and if they were no contractual agreement, it makes the labor commissioner decision even contradictory, meaning that MJ was not bound to pay Tohme for the exploitation of the this is it documentary even with another party.

The TII footage and how it was to be utilized was dealt with while Tohme was manager. The new deal was who would secure the footage and theatrical distribution and the Estate chose Sony Pictures regardless of other offers.

But this was an exploitation of MJ talent, and Tohme did not have the license for that. and the only reason those footages even existed is because of the concert.

Why is this being compared to Robson/Safechuck? In this instance, both legal teams have sought to inconvenience each other at most opportunities and those legal wrangling cost monies. See Ivy’s figure above for an estimated $37.5M. Would it be better to spend that amount as well as legal costs or seek a more cost-efficient solution? What do you believe the Estate's chances are to appeal the Labor Commissioner's decision?

Very simple: in both cases the plaintiffs are demanding the court to order the estate to pay them money. so, according to your own reasoning, the estate should just transfer the money into their bank accounts instead of wasting money fighting.

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, it was NOT Michael’s footage; it was AEG’s and the contract between the Estate (Michael's likeness/image), Sony (distribution and securing of the HD footage), and AEG (owner of the HD footage) proves that.

If you believe it was Michael’s footage, ask yourself why Michael: filmed himself at a meeting shown as an extra on the DVD, would film the auditions of the TII dancers as well as footage of himself watching the auditions, filmed miscellaneous footage of Ortega instructing the TII crew, etc.

Please note: there was NO TII concerts. Not one. Michael passed during the rehearsal phase. His rehearsals and others’ preparations for the TII concerts were filmed by AEG in HD.

Very simple: in both cases the plaintiffs are demanding the court to order the estate to pay them money. so, according to your own reasoning, the estate should just transfer the money into their bank accounts instead of wasting money fighting.

You are attempting to apply my statements regarding the Tohme case to Robson/Safechuck’s doomed venture which is rather illogical. They are completely different issues.

 

[Bubs]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

"At the time, Jackson was in default on the promissory note that was secured by a lien on Jackson's personal property, memorabilia and ownership interest in his music catalogue"

and

"Through Tohme's efforts, the purchase of the note was implemented pursuant to a transaction that effected a cancellation of the foreclosure on the Neverland Ranch property, secured a release of the lien on Jackson's personal property, memorabilia, and the ownership interest in his music catalogue.....

I don't remember reading his music catalogues were tied to Neverland foreclosure thingy, and he was about the loose the ownership of his music catalogue too?
If that is true, then I am more certain than ever that Michael didn't want Neverland, but he wanted his personal stuff (he fought with Julien's when Tohme was trying to sell them) and he wanted his music catalogue.

 

[ivy]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

"At the time, Jackson was in default on the promissory note that was secured by a lien on Jackson's personal property, memorabilia and ownership interest in his music catalogue"

and

"Through Tohme's efforts, the purchase of the note was implemented pursuant to a transaction that effected a cancellation of the foreclosure on the Neverland Ranch property, secured a release of the lien on Jackson's personal property, memorabilia, and the ownership interest in his music catalogue.....

I don't remember reading his music catalogues were tied to Neverland foreclosure thingy, and he was about the loose the ownership of his music catalogue too?
If that is true, then I am more certain than ever that Michael didn't want Neverland, but he wanted his personal stuff (he fought with Julien's when Tohme was trying to sell them) and he wanted his music catalogue.

I don't remember catalogs being tied to Neverland either. My understanding was Michael took a loan with Neverland as being collateral. Perhaps it said if Neverland isn't enough to satisfy the debt, other assets might be used? And if you remember foreclosure auction was already set - in other words fortress was planning to sell neverland. and the moment they sold it for $23 - 24 Million , the debt would have been satisfied and there wouldn't be a need for any other asset.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

The only logically reason for the estate to settle is if thome were to except a very small amount in comparison to what hes asking for. and we know he wouldnt go for that unless he was desperate for a few bucks. of course while this is ongoing he wouldnt take a small amount and on the other side of the coin the estate will continue to fight until they reach a point where trying to make a settlement will be in their best intrests. but because the original figure thome is looking for is so high the estate wont go down that route till all others are exhusted. considering the ruling is so contridictary and ovbiously flawed you dont start talking settlement at this stage as this isnt someone asking for 100k where lawyers fees would cost far more so you settle.

 

[Bubs]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

I don't remember catalogs being tied to Neverland either. My understanding was Michael took a loan with Neverland as being collateral. Perhaps it said if Neverland isn't enough to satisfy the debt, other assets might be used? And if you remember foreclosure auction was already set - in other words fortress was planning to sell neverland. and the moment they sold it for $23 - 24 Million , the debt would have been satisfied and there wouldn't be a need for any other asset.

What if no one wanted to buy Neverland, but would have wanted Michael's memorabilia and his music catalogue, was that possible?
I remember Arnie Klein's bankruptcy and his houses went to foreclosure too.
If I remember correctly, the content of his houses were sold (auctioned off) first, then houses itself?

So if Michael's foreclosure had gone ahead, the content of the house would have sold first?


I don't know where the estate is going to pull out those millions if they have to start paying to Tohme:bugeyed

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

thought the horizon trusts protected the cats. wasnt it an old friedman/tabloid story ?

 

[passy001]

Passy001, it was NOT Michael’s footage; it was AEG’s and the contract between the Estate (Michael's likeness/image), Sony (distribution and securing of the HD footage), and AEG (owner of the HD footage) proves that.

If you believe it was Michael’s footage, ask yourself why Michael: filmed himself at a meeting shown as an extra on the DVD, would film the auditions of the TII dancers as well as footage of himself watching the auditions, filmed miscellaneous footage of Ortega instructing the TII crew, etc.

Please note: there was NO TII concerts. Not one. Michael passed during the rehearsal phase. His rehearsals and others’ preparations for the TII concerts were filmed by AEG in HD.

Ok. Even if AEG owned the footage, Tohme involvement was clearly under his management agreement with MJ, and he did not have the licence for that.

You are attempting to apply my statements regarding the Tohme case to Robson/Safechuck’s doomed venture which is rather illogical. They are completely different issues.

Same issue: they are both demanding money they don't deserve. and the estate has every right to dispute the merits of their claims.

 

[passy001]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

I asked about your opinion, not what parties might think.

Or let's try it like this. What are the items that Tohme deserves to be paid commission for? TII movie? Neverland 10% - 10%? Anything else? If yes 15% of $500 Million is $75 Million, + $2.3 M for initial neverland + $10 Million for current Neverland - and these doesn't account for any interest. So $87 Million total. Let's assume a settlement in the middle around $40 Million. So my question is should Estate just pay Tohme $40 Million with no legal attempt?

What I don't get is how the LC concluded that the this it it documentary represents 50% of the work Tohme did. they give no formula whatsoever for that. the concert negotiations were far more important from the get-go and should constitute about 80% of the work. but i guess he's been trying to reach a middle ground and in doing so created an even bigger mess.

 

[Bubs]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

thought the horizon trusts protected the cats. wasnt it an old friedman/tabloid story ?

What?
Sorry Elusive, my brain went dead, what cats? What was Friedman's tabloid story?

 

[ivy]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

What I don't get is how the LC concluded that the this it it documentary represents 50% of the work Tohme did. they give no formula whatsoever for that. the concert negotiations were far more important from the get-go and should constitute about 80% of the work. but i guess he's been trying to reach a middle ground and in doing so created an even bigger mess.

Majority of their arguments doesn't make sense. They list 4 items Neverland refinancing, getting $10 Million from Sony and settling the case with Sheikh - these all are legal under TAA or not related to TAA. Then there's the concert deal of TII - which is illegal under TAA. LC then like you said with no formula states legal illegal activities are 50-50.

Then they reduce Tohme's fee by half to 7.5%. But then they argue TII concerts did not happen, MJ did not receive any money from them hence Tohme wouldn't receive compensation from it. So then why did they cut the fee in half? I mean if TII concerts were illegal under TAA but there hasn't been any revenue or commission from it why reduce Tohme's fee?

It feels like LC didn't know what to do - hence the unbelievable 20 months they took to decide - and then came up with a ruling which is basically the middle ground.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

MJ set up trusts to protect the catalogs from debtors.

 

[Tygger]

Through Tohme's efforts, the purchase of the note was implemented pursuant to a transaction that effected a cancellation of the foreclosure on the Neverland Ranch property, secured a release of the lien on Jackson's personal property, memorabilia, and the ownership interest in his music catalogue.....

Tohme brought Barrack (Colony) to Michael. Barrack in turn recommended a legal team that Tohme hired to attempt a renegotiation of the Sony/ATV catalog debt. Michael’s estate eventually led the renegotiation of that debt. The TII deal that Tohme negotiated would have eradicated much of Michael’s debt including the catalog debt through the TII world tour.

Ok. Even if AEG owned the footage, Tohme involvement was clearly under his management agreement with MJ, and he did not have the licence for that.

Not if. AEG owned the footage, no one else.

Tohme was not licensed to negotiate the TII deal which is illegal however; Tohme still negotiated the TII deal. The Labor Commissioner is attempting to compensate Tohme as services were rendered (the TII deal negotiation) and that service was a benefit to Michael (as per the quote from Bubs above).

They are penalizing him for illegally negotiating the TII deal by halving his commission. The only TII revenue Tohme was allowed access to is the TII movie which is logical as there were no concerts. (If there were concerts, I believe the Labor Commissioner would attempt some compensation for that as well). It is a bit illogical to believe Tohme would not be compensated at all for services rendered despite not holding the appropriate license. Tohme was not a volunteer.

Same issue: they are both demanding money they don't deserve. and the estate has every right to dispute the merits of their claims.

No. Tohme rendered services and the Labor Commissioner is suggesting 7.5% compensation as a penalty for not being licensed. Robson/Safechuck are simply attempting to fleece the Estate through fabricated claims.

 

[passy001]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Not if. AEG owned the footage, no one else.

Tohme was not licensed to negotiate the TII deal which is illegal however; Tohme still negotiated the TII deal. The Labor Commissioner is attempting to compensate Tohme as services were rendered (the TII deal negotiation) and that service was a benefit to Michael (as per the quote from Bubs above).

The This is it deal tanked when MJ died. MJ never received money from this is it. in fact MJ had to refund AEG for the production costs incurred during preparations.

the executors of the estate negotiated a separate deal with AEG for the documentary in order to repay those costs. and they got compensated for that (10%).

They are penalizing him for illegally negotiating the TII deal by halving his commission. The only TII revenue Tohme was allowed access to is the TII movie which is logical. It is a bit illogical to believe Tohme would not be compensated at all for services rendered despite not holding the appropriate license. Tohme was not a volunteer.

This argument makes no sense. His activity is illegal, yet he's compensated even against the law. and at the same time the LC nullifies his 10% indemnity deal because it was illegal. MJ was not a charity. it's a illogical to think that he should just pay people any money they want. Tohme was already receiving $35000 under the management agreement. so it's not like he was homeless while working.

No. Tohme rendered services and the Labor Commissioner is suggesting 7.5% compensation as a penalty for not being licensed. Robson/Safechuck are simply attempting to fleece the Estate through fabricated claims.

Both are attempting to fleece the estate. Tohme is asking 15% under a very detrimental and illegal management agreement - those fees are way beyond industry standard even for an artist like MJ. on top of that he was getting paid $35000 monthly salary. he got MJ to sign indemnity agreement of 10& for service that were not beneficial to MJ. he got the dodgy nevy deal again, 10% finding fee and 10% for any subsequent sales transaction. none of which were beneficial to MJ even considering he did not provide any finding services.

Plus, It's obvious you have not read the LC document. that's not the reason for which the LC is suggesting tohme be compensated. in fact they think his involvement in the documentary was legal but represented 50% of the service provided under the management agreement. That's a very dodgy conclusion. the LC does not say how they came up with the 50% figure.

 

[Tygger]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Passy001, the negotiation of the TII deal was a service to Michael that benefited him. Are you suggesting because Tohme did not have a license to negotiate the deal, he should not receive compensation? Which law is the Labor Commissioner going against by attempting compensation? Can you respond with the appropriate percentage a manager should receive from an artist to prove 15% is beyond the industry standard?

I read the document and as you said, it does not state how the halved compensation was determined which makes my suggestion as valid as your lack of a suggestion.

Again, Tohme rendered a service and is seeking compensation, Robson/Safechuck have not. Simple.

Adding: Passy001, pretend Tohme had a license. Would he not be eligible for 15% for the TII deal? He did not have a license which is illegal for him to do such negotiations without a license. Can you see how halving the 15% can be considered a penalty?

 

[passy001]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Tygger, Tohme was already compensated under his management agreement. he was getting $35000 per month for god's sake.
the executors got compensated for arranging the documentary deal with AEG. they got compensated for that (10%) as per court instruction. so MJ already paid up his fees.

the law is pretty clear. representing an artist without a licence, will lead to the forfeiture of fees. that is the reason the law was introduced in the first place. otherwise it defeats the purpose.

i can't tell you the appropriate percentage. but the executors are getting a combined 10-12% percentage. using the same standard, tohme should be entitled to 6% at the very most, especially for an artist like MJ who is a big money drawer. still they are problems with that. the deal was concluded by the executors in a separate transaction for which the executors got compensated a combined 10% fee which is even lower than the 15% tohme is demanding. if MJ were to pay tohme, it means he's paying a double tax. plus, it's unclear how much involvement Tohme had in the documentary since he was fired as early as March 2009. they are lots of issues with this stuff. and MJ can't just be paying money like an out of control charity otherwise, he's making losses as he's paying the tax on gross revenue as opposed to a profit.

please read the LC document again. you are making gratuitous conclusions just as the LC himself did.

Again, both claimants (tohme and robson/safechuck) are attempting to fleece the estate. does not matter which method each uses. that is the bottom line.

 

[Tygger]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Passy001, I will read the document again if you will do so as well.

The document does not state Tohme is only eligible for a flat monthly fee as you are suggesting.

I do not understand why you are comparing executor's compensation percentage (which the executors successfully petitioned the court to increase) with the compensation percentage of an artist's manager. Tohme negotiated the TII deal. The Estate allowed AEG to utilize the footage that AEG owned because the Estate controls Michael's image/likeness. AEG allowed Sony to distribute and secure the footage. It does not matter if the movie deal was posthumous; it existed because of the TII deal negotiated by Tohme.

If the law is clear a non-licensed person is not eligible for compensation then, you are suggesting the Labor Commissioner is suggesting an illegal payment to Tohme. Surely the Estate' legal team would have commented on that if you are correct

I will not repeat this again: Tohme is attempting receive compensation for services rendered. You would do better to compare him to Mesereau than Robson/Safechuck who are claiming fabricated, heinous acts to gain funding from the Estate. If you choose to continue to believe services rendered is synonymous with a faux molestation charges, so be it.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Tohme brought Barrack (Colony) to Michael. Barrack in turn recommended a legal team that Tohme hired to attempt a renegotiation of the Sony/ATV catalog debt.

Tohme was not licensed to negotiate the TII deal which is illegal however; Tohme still negotiated the TII deal. The Labor Commissioner is attempting to compensate Tohme as services were rendered (the TII deal negotiation) and that service was a benefit to Michael (as per the quote from Bubs above).

They are penalizing him for illegally negotiating the TII deal by halving his commission. The only TII revenue Tohme was allowed access to is the TII movie which is logical as there were no concerts. (If there were concerts, I believe the Labor Commissioner would attempt some compensation for that as well). It is a bit illogical to believe Tohme would not be compensated at all for services rendered despite not holding the appropriate license. Tohme was not a volunteer.



No. Tohme rendered services and the Labor Commissioner is suggesting 7.5% compensation as a penalty for not being licensed.

I have been against Tohme receiving even one additional dollar, once I read the outrageous payments he arranged for himself, taking advantage of Michael, whose back was against the wall at that point and probably would have agreed to anything. I see him in my mind like a chicken hawk swooping down on vulnerable prey-or in more professional terms, no better than a corporate raider or those that specialize in "distressed properties." It didn't seem to me that he did that much work for Michael, but rather knew people that knew people.

However, reading this and re-reading this and comments back and forth, I agree now that he DID render services-no matter how distasteful. Maybe that's why the LC took so long to come to a decision as well-maybe the Estate could take their guideline (7.5%) and negotiate a settlement of something lower-5% on TII movie only-no Neverland money-and just get rid of him.

 

[Tygger]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

However, reading this and re-reading this and comments back and forth, I agree now that he DID render services-no matter how distasteful. Maybe that's why the LC took so long to come to a decision as well-maybe the Estate could take their guideline (7.5%) and negotiate a settlement of something lower-5% on TII movie only-no Neverland money-and just get rid of him.

I appreciate your response.

My view is not pro-Tohme. I simply do not see an option where Tohme will not receive any monies for his services (including the NL finder's fee which I believe he may be eligible for as well). If this is truly the case, it is better to manage the amount he is eligible for while preventing what may eventually be unnecessary legal costs.

Tohme had the most interesting professional relationship with Michael. I am weary of him and yet, he was extremely helpful when Michael needed it.

 

[passy001]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

There are three main issues at play here

1) Tohme's service rate

To start off, Tohme is charging MJ 15% which is extremely high even by Hollywood standard. Currently the executors are getting a combined 10% for doing the same thing, except that MJ is now dead. but they essentially provide the same service they would have had MJ been alive to date. Plus the court determined those fees based on what managers typically get in the industry. so it's not like the court pulled this percentage out of its butts. A good example is the cirque du soleil deal for which the executors are getting 10% of the deal. had MJ been alive he would be the one singing and dancing as opposed to a bunch of acrobats spinning to his songs. and he would still be paying 10% or less commissions to whoever would close the deal for him.

using the same standard, the court could reduce Tohme's rate to 10% or even less. but assuming the court takes this matter most favorably to Tohme it can settle the charging rate at 10%.

2) Tohme's illegal practice

Like any industry, you need a valid license in order to practice independently. doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on. Tohme was an independent practitioner who entered the artist management business without a valid licence. the law penalizes this by forfeiting the fees.
so the court may look at this and say "tohme we revoke your charging rate entirely by 100%". or if the court is lenient, it can decide to impose only 50% penalty. one of the things that will most likely affect the decision is whether Tohme knew or should have known he needed a licence to represent MJ.

again, assuming that the court looks at this matter in a manner that is most favourable to Tohme, it may decide to impose just 50% penalty.
so tohme rate will now be further reduced by 50%, meaning 50%*10% = 5%.

so at this point, taking into account the industry standard rate, and tohme's lack of a valid licence, the court could decide Tohme's charging rate should be reduced from 15% to 5%.

3) Tohme's involvement in the documentary

now, this is the biggest part and will keep both sides busy in court. How much involvement did Tohme had in the documentary originally? was that involvement covered by his monthly salary of $35000 per month? otherwise why was MJ paying him that money? and was that involvement part of the original this is it deal? if the answer to the last two questions is yes, then Tohme gets nothing. however if the answer is no, then the court could determine how can it be detached from the original concert deal and what portion it holds in the value of the entire documentary?

so as you can see, there are complications.

but to keep the argument simple, let's assume the court decides to detach his involvement completely from the original this is it concert deal by 100%.

and now the court must decide how much that part is worth in the entire documentary deal.

the court could decide his initial involvement represents 50% or 25% or 10% of the value of the entire documentary. again assuming the court looks at this in the most favorable way to tohme, they may settle at 50%. that means his contribution is worth 50% and the executors contribution is worth 50%. currently the executors are earning 10% of the entire thing. now with tohme in the picture they may earn 10% of (50% of the entire documentary value) since their contribution is now 50% as opposed to 100%.

in the end Tohme share could be: 5% of (50% of this is it documentary since he contributed 50% of the total value) = 2.5 % of this is it documentary.


Caveat: obviously this is a very simplistic view of the matter, things are far more complicated than that and there is no guarantee that the court will even deliberate the way I've laid out above. so take this with a big fat grain of salt!


having said that, the idea of MJ paying 25 % ( 15% + 10%) commissions on the same product is too high. no-one in Hollywood, dead or alive, will agree to that.

Similarly, even if tohmes rate is reduced by 50%, MJ pays 17.5% (7.5% + 10%) commissions. that is still too high. and no-one in Hollywood will agree to that.

Mj should not pay more than 10% commissions. and that is the standard rate.

whatever the court decides, it is possible that the executors may have to share their earnings with Tohme. so that MJ does not pay more than 10% commissions. otherwise he would be double taxed, which is unfair to him and now his estate.

If the law is clear a non-licensed person is not eligible for compensation then, you are suggesting the Labor Commissioner is suggesting an illegal payment to Tohme. Surely the Estate' legal team would have commented on that if you are correct

Relax, the estate has filed a petition with the supreme court to disregard all the findings of the LC. they have asked for a trial.
LC findings make no sense. whatsoever and he sat on this thing for 20 months.

I will not repeat this again: Tohme is attempting receive compensation for services rendered. You would do better to compare him to Mesereau than Robson/Safechuck who are claiming fabricated, heinous acts to gain funding from the Estate. If you choose to continue to believe services rendered is synonymous with a faux molestation charges, so be it.

let's agree to disagree here. me charging you $100 for an apple that costs just $1 is what Tohme is trying to do to MJ and now his estate. this is unacceptable. it's fraud!

 

[myosotis]

Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

I can't keep up with the timelines....I thought that AEG (in some form or another) first approached MJ to do a concert well before 2009, but Michael was not interested at that time. Does that initial approach by AEG (or their representative) precede Tohme's tenure as MJ's 'manager'? In which case, does that reduce the potential benefit to Tohme of the contract.ie because there was already an initial approach from the other side?