Latest on MJJC

Sony/ATV Said to Submit Takeover Offer for Warner Music

From article: However, Blavatnik emerged as frontrunner to complete the deal due to his close links with Warner Music, as he previously sat on the company's board.

Damn, I was hoping the estate had some weight to push around. EMI is still up for grabs according to this article as well as other sources that have talked about it these past few weeks.
 
sad the estate didnt get it but perhaps it was for the best??? maybe it woulda been a bad investment
 
Hmmm...interestin'


Warner Music Group Shareholder Sues Over Sale to Blavatnik’s Access

<cite class="byline">By Sophia Pearson - May 12, 2011 9:39 PM ET

</cite>Warner Music Group Corp. was sued by a shareholder over claims its $1.3 billion acquisition by former director Len Blavatnik’s Access Industries Holdings undervalues the company.

Warner Music directors abandoned their duty to shareholders when they agreed to a deal that benefits Access to the “detriment” of the minority investors, Barbara A. Varipapa said in a complaint filed today in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington. Warner Music’s largest shareholders, who collectively own about 56 percent of the company, agreed to vote in favor of the transaction, according to the complaint.

“The company’s shares are already locked up in favor of the proposed transaction, rendering the minority shareholders’ vote meaningless,” Varipapa said in her complaint.

Access will pay $8.25 a share for New York-based Warner Music and will assume bond debt, valuing the entire transaction at about $3.3 billion, the companies said last week. The sale capped a three-month auction whose finalists included brothers Tom and Alec Gores and Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

In her complaint, Varipapa claims that the deal is inadequate and includes onerous provisions that preclude a superior offer. Varipapa is seeking to represent all Warner Music shareholders in her bid to bar the deal.

Will Tanous, a spokesman for Warner Music, declined to comment on the complaint.

The case is Varipapa v. Warner Music Group Corp. (WMG), CA6478, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...der-sues-over-sale-to-blavatnik-s-access.html
 
sorry but i dont understand alot:
The cat michael owned with also the beatle songs, there now from the estate right? but there bind with Sony, so Sony has also rights on those songs?
 
Sony/atv is jointly owed 50/50 by sony and the estate.back in 95 sony paid 100mil to mj to merge his cat the atv with sonys own cat.to form one big company
 
Maybe it was the best at the end.

Introduces You:
Sony / ATV buys the Warner-catalogue----> the Estate must pay 50% of the purchase prices....

The debts of the Estate are still enormously high; an other advance would have had to be taken up.

It's a few years too early for such big deal I think.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
The estate wouldnt have paid anything
Click to expand...

Sure, if Sony/ATV would have buy the Warner-Catolg the Estate have to pay 50%, they are 50%owner. And 3,3 billions, that means 1,15 billions for the Estate are really to much.
 
Money cones out of the company not individuals.the company get the loan not each party that co owns it and the original agreement back in 95 if i remember right had sony paying for future investments
 
elusive moonwalker;3386051 said:
Money cones out of the company not individuals.the company get the loan not each party that co owns it and the original agreement back in 95 if i remember right had sony paying for future investments
Click to expand...

Exactly, thats why Sony wanted Michael to be their only business partner and lent him money and covered almost all his loans as guarantee, and still, Sony/ATV is the best what Michael did with Sony, without Sonys help who knows where Michael´s fortune and kids would have been..., if not homeless people then a very poor family...
 
Homeless and poor lol yeah sell off sony atc for a billion use half of that to pay all debts and even though im crap at maths that leaves quite alot of money over! On top of other assets. Some "fans" are no better than tabloids
 
More on Blavatnik who bought it:

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051811emi

Hey Blavatnik, EMI's Annual Profits Just Improved 7%...
presnikoff

Wednesday, May 18, 2011




Dump a few billion on one struggling major label, and suddenly the other one won't stop calling. But there seems to be interest on both sides, and we've heard that private, prioritized meetings are happening between Len Blavatnik's Access Industries and EMI owner Citigroup. That could spell a potentially merged WMG+EMI property ahead (and hey, double the chances of long-term survival.)
Fire-sale might be the operative word, though EMI now has
threeamigos.jpg
something positive to show. According to the Sunday Times, annual profits have bumped 7 percent to 330 million pounds ($533 million). This isn't the first time EMI has posted an improvement, though a rumored 3.5 billion pound ($5.7 billion) price tag still sounds steep (even for a price-insensitive Blavatnik).
And just like Warner, EMI's got debt - a lot of it. While still in the hands of Guy Hands and Terra Firma, the label was saddled with approximately 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) of red, a tranche eventually seized by Citigroup. Current CEO Roger Faxon can be credited with realigning and restructuring some company debt, though Faxon is also reportedly campaigning against a merge with Warner.
And, so is European independent label group Impala, which has vowed to fight any tie-up on regulatory grounds. Stay tuned.
 
Annita said:
Sure, if Sony/ATV would have buy the Warner-Catolg the Estate have to pay 50%, they are 50%owner. And 3,3 billions, that means 1,15 billions for the Estate are really to much.
Click to expand...

And why would the estate have to pay anything? Read what a "company" is ? That comment of yours makes no sense.

The estate & Sony/ATV are two separate entities.

Unless the estate is RE-investing new money in Sony/ATV they don't have to pay a cent for anything. Sony/ATV will pay for their own investment from the revenues.

A company is a STAND ALONE entity.

It just irks me when people put comments like THIS as fact, when it's VERY OBVIOUS they don't understand the basic concept of what they are writing about.

Saying the estate will pay 1.15 billion for EMI's purchase...it's like saying Bill Gates will foot the bill for Microsoft's takeover of Skype.


***sigh***
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top