Demann - MJ Estate / Former Michael Jackson Manager Pursuing Estate Over Commissions

- DeMann, on the other hand, asserts he has an unrestricted right to examine all of the books & records of the estate & has demanded that petnrs submit to arbitration or he will file a petn/motion to compel arbitration

Here is what you get Demann, and once the estate sort out Demann, Tohme is next in line

Kick-Butt-ass-swift-kicking-1.gif
 
Is tbis sort of contract normal where a manager keeps getting royalties. serms crazy to me. its not like hes a producer or writer.

what a joje he wants access to all the estates books. if the judge cant see what hes doibg then hes lala
 
I thought we had some updates about this case earlier this year or am I mixing up all the cases now?
 
Nathy MJ;3747558 said:
Michael Jackson's Estate Urges Dismissal Of Ex-Agent's Suit

Michael Jackson's estate urged a California judge Tuesday to throw out former Jackson manager Freddy DeMann's suit over commissions from the posthumous "repackaging" of the pop star’s work, saying the suit is barred because DeMann never filed a creditor's claim against the estate.

The estate's attorney Jeryll Cohen said DeMann was receiving royalties at the time of Jackson's death in 2009 under his 1978 management agreement and should have filed a creditor's claim “to preserve [his] right to continue to receive those royalties.”

http://www.law360.com/articles/398824/michael-jackson-s-estate-urges-dismissal-of-ex-agent-s-suit

Can't see the entire article. It requests subscribing...


I'm thinking the court has granted MJ Estate's request .

There's a ruling made on January 14, 2003. Judge writes that this matter was heard on December 4th - which makes me think that it's the above request by MJ Estate.

The document says the motion of judgment (filed by MJ Estate) is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend.

Case management conference is set for Feb 22.
 
Oh forgot about this guy too. He filed a suit after the earnings of the estate was all over the news. These managers have great jobs. Here Demann had a management agreement since 78 and up to 2009 was still getting royalties.
 
After a year and half,I cannot believe this case is still going on about what books DeMann should be allowed to examine:bugeyed

Probate Notes

Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John

Attorney(s): Hoffman, Paul Gordon, Esq.

Continuance Number: 12 Continuance From: Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Last Date Changed: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:12:12 AM

Filed 7/12/11

PRIOR ORDER: Cont to 2/22/13 at 10:00 am ; 12/4/12; 11/29/12 at 8:30 am; 9/19/12; 9/6/12; 8/29/12 ; 7/25/12 at 10:00 am ; 6/19/12 at 8:30 am; 5/8/12 at 10:00 am ; 3/7/12 at 10:00 am ; 1/19/12 ; 10/19/11 at 8:30 am ;

SUMMARY:
Petnrs are co-exrs
ntc to benes ok
ntcs to DaMann via his attys ok
spec ntc/copy ok

OTHER CASES: BS 132820 DeMann Entertainment, Inc. v. John Branca, as Excutor, John McClain, et al (ntc of related cases filed 7/26/11)

FACTS: petnrs seek the Crt's instruction re a demand made by Freddy DeMann to audit the books and records of the estate & compel the estate to arbitrate issues arising from a personal management contract that terminated more than 28 yrs prior to the decd's d/d
on 7/1/78 the decd & his brothers entered into an agreement w/Weisner-DeMann Entertainment (DeMann is its successor) for personal management svcs - 5 yrs later the decd terminated that agreement - the contract provided that as compensation for svcs De-Mann would receive 10% of the Jackson parties' gross earnings during the period of the contract w/the exception of certain designated sources of revenue - the contract provided for pmt of continuing comm following its termination, but comm were limited to earnings resulting from or w/respect to contracts "substantially negotiated and/or entered into during the term or entered into w/in 6 mos thereafter as a result of offers made or negotiations commenced during the term & upon any and all extensions, renewals and substitutions thereof" -
the contract does not state it obligates (or inures to the benefit of) the decd's heirs, successors in interest or assigns
The contract was modified in 1981 to further define & limit the recordings that were subject to the 10% comm - as to the decd/estate, DeMann is only entitled to comm on the sales & uses of recordings contained on the albums Thriller & Off the Wall - Sony Music controls the use of these recordings, as the estate's exclusive licensee, and distributes the royalties generated - Sony Music has possession & control of all financial docs relevant to the sales - Puruant to a letter dated 8/25/82 Sony (& its predecessor CBS) have pd DeMann directly w/o involvement from the Jackson parties
DeMann has not filed a creditor's claim
DeMann has demanded to examine the estate's books & records to determine whether or not and to what extent he is entitled to any of the estate's or decd's earnings over & above the comm he receives directly from CBS Records & its successor Sony Music for the last 28 yrs
Petnrs do not believe DeMann is owed any money from the estate nevertheless, w/o waiving any rights, petnrs have agreed to allow DeMann to conduct an audit -- however, a dispute has arisen concerning the books & records DeMann is entitled to examine -- the scope of DeMann's dispute is related to commission rights - petnrs offered to only provide him w/the customary docs provided in an audit of the sale & use of master recordings that are relevant to the calculation of commissions -- DeMann, on the other hand, asserts he has an unrestricted right to examine all of the books & records of the estate & has demanded that petnrs submit to arbitration or he will file a petn/motion to compel arbitration
Under CA law, petnrs, cannot be compelled to arbitrate & cannot enter into an agreement to arbitrate absent Crt approval (PC 9621) -- petnrs do not be it is in the estate's best interests to arbitrate and are seeking this crt's order instructing them to provide DeMann those books & records in their possession & control that are relevant to the calculation of DeMann's comm & which would customarily be provided in such an audit, subject to an appropriate non-disclosure agreement, and instructing petnrs to defend the estate against any attempt to compel arbitration initiated by DeMann

**********************************************************
RESPONSE FILED 1/04/12
RESPONDENT: DEMANN ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
ATTORNEY: STEPHEN M. LOWE, ESQ.
***********************************************************
SUMMARY-OBJS
Objector is claimant
svd 1/4/12

FACTS-OBJS
Petn has been mooted and superseded by objector's civil complaint in SC114598. Objects and requests orders below

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED-OBJS - N/A

RELIEF:
1. JTD instruct petnrs to provide DeMann those books & records in their possession & control that are relevant to the calculation of DeMann's commission & which would customarily be provided in such an audit, subject to an appropriate non-disclosure agreement
2. JTD instruct petnrs to defend the estate against any attempt to compel arbitration initiated by MdMann
3. JTD OBJECTIONS - DWOP petn or abate until resolution of objector's civil complaint
4. JTD OBJECTIONS - alternatively, extrs make all books and records of the Estate since decd's death pertaining to gross monies or other considerations available to boecjtor for an audit and inspection
 
He has filed his 4th amended complaint. In other words the Judge agrees with Estate saying that Demann is not entitled to any payment as he did not file a creditors claim. Demann keeps editing his complaint and submitting a new complaint.
 
^^One thing I have learned from all these cases since 09, is that I now know how to respond when people say that Michael was always sued & make it seem as though it was always Michael's fault. Good that this judge anyway saw reason & agreed with the estate.
 
At some stage surely good sense will prevail and this will be dismissed?
 
He has filed his 4th amended complaint. In other words the Judge agrees with Estate saying that Demann is not entitled to any payment as he did not file a creditors claim. Demann keeps editing his complaint and submitting a new complaint.

Why the judge doesn't throw this case out as if he hasn't filed creditors claim, and it is too late for file one anyways?
 
I don't know. Judge gives him "leave to amend" meaning to update his complaint. Eventually the judge will get tired of that.
 
Why would it matter how he amended it if the limitations are up and he was to late to file a claim in the first place
 
I have a feel that all the judges are against Michael, one way or the other:-(
Everybody seems to get their way with judges in various cases, but I suppose I'm bit impatient and thats how law works:(
 
lawyers make alot of money if judges drag things out. judges were lawyers once!
 
Why would it matter how he amended it if the limitations are up and he was to late to file a claim in the first place

in USA judge's makes decision based on previous lawsuits. Demann keeps amending the complaint by changing the claims and referencing other lawsuits. So it puts judge in a position to address the newly raised points and therefore it continues.
 
thanks ivy. so hes changing the lawsuit and therefore it comes under a different statue of limitations? ie not a creditors claim?
 
in USA judge's makes decision based on previous lawsuits. Demann keeps amending the complaint by changing the claims and referencing other lawsuits. So it puts judge in a position to address the newly raised points and therefore it continues.

It would be nice to know what those newly raised points are. so far we're only hearing the same chorus: they want unlimited access to the MJ Estate book.
 
Law360, Los Angeles (March 12, 2013, 3:34 PM ET) -- A California judge on Tuesday indicated he will likely throw out former Michael Jackson manager Freddy DeMann's lawsuit over commissions from the posthumous repackaging of the pop star’s work, saying the suit is barred because DeMann never filed a creditor's claim against the singer's estate.
At a Tuesday hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff said he was strongly leaning toward dismissing DeMann's complaint without leave to amend because “the case requires a creditor's claim.”

cannot read the rest

http://www.law360.com/commercialcon...jackson-agent-s-contract-suit-hangs-by-thread
 
If he decides to go to the estate i hope the estate tell him to bugger off!
 
I couldn't login to Law 360 because my free trial has expired. I tried to free trial with different email but I'm yet to receive email conformation link:)

Anyways, can few of us register to free trial so we always have a access to this Law 360 as their articles are very useful?
Registering is pretty forward and simple - name email address and with area of law you are interested in, they send you an email with the link to the article.

Second anyways, I found the rest of the post from some place else
http://vallieegirl67.com/2013/03/12/michael-jackson-agents-contract-suit-hangs-by-thread/

Michael Jackson Agent’s Contract Suit Hangs By Thread
Source: Law 360 – By Ciaran McEvoy



Los Angeles (March 12, 2013, 3:34 PM ET) — A California judge on Tuesday indicated he will likely throw out former Michael Jackson manager Freddy DeMann’s lawsuit over commissions from the posthumous repackaging of the pop star’s work, saying the suit is barred because DeMann never filed a creditor’s claim against the singer’s estate.

At a Tuesday hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff said he was strongly leaning toward dismissing DeMann’s complaint without leave to amend because “the case requires a creditor’s claim.”

Judge Beckloff expressed doubts as to whether DeMann could file a late creditor’s claim, given how much time has passed in the litigation.

California Probate Code Section 9000 requires a creditor to file a claim within four months of the appointment of an estate’s executors. It defines a claim as a demand for payment “whether due, not due, accrued or not accrued, or contingent, and whether liquidated or unliquidated.”

But DeMann’s attorney Stephen M. Lowe said he could not have made a demand for payment at the time of Jackson’s death because the contracts for the video game and other posthumous reuses of the singer’s work did not exist yet.

“You shouldn’t allow a technical defect — if there is even a defect — to block the allowance of a cause of action,” Lowe said at Tuesday’s hearing.

Jeryll S. Cohen, a lawyer representing Jackson estate executors John G. Branca and John McClain, said DeMann “should have put the estate on notice and filed a creditors claim.”

DeMann was Jackson’s manager from 1978 to 1983, a period that included the release of two massively popular albums, “Off the Wall” and “Thriller.” According Jackson and DeMann’s 1978 contract, DeMann was granted the right to a commission from the sales of those two albums, among other things, according to DeMann’s opposition to the estate’s demurrer, filed Feb. 27.

Since Jackson’s death in 2009, the estate has negotiated contracts with Sony Corp., Ubisoft Entertainment SA and Cirque du Soleil to reuse the songs Jackson created under DeMann’s management, according to court papers. DeMann alleges that the estate is wrongfully withholding his commissions since Jackson’s death.

DeMann sued for his commissions, but on Jan. 14, Judge Beckloff dismissed the complaint, ruling DeMann failed to file a creditor’s claim. Nine days later, DeMann filed an amended complaint, which the estate’s lawyers argued merely repeated the allegations in his previous lawsuit.

DeMann Entertainment is represented by Bert H. Deixler and Ashlee L. Hansen of Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP and Stephen M. Lowe, Jared A. Barry and Thomas C. Aikin of Freeman Freeman & Smiley LLP.

Branca and McClain are represented by Howard L. Weitzman and Jeremiah T. Reynolds of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, Zia F. Modabber of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, and Jeryll S. Cohen of Hoffman Sabban & Watenmaker APC.

The case is DeMann Entertainment Inc. v. John Branca et al., case number SC114598, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

–Additional reporting by Matthew Heller. Editing by Kat Laskowski.

http://www.law360.com/commercialcon...jackson-agent-s-contract-suit-hangs-by-thread
 
Last edited:
There were many creditors claim like Ola Ray and John Landis that put in claim in time, and since they put the claim in, sales from Thriller has gone up, but they didn't wait to see much Thriller would make, and then start pestering the estate. This Demann guy is a bit idiot in a sense that he says contracts weren't done then, but now they are, so his share should be bigger? I wonder why didn't Ola and John think of that:)

I say to judge, throw it out:)
 
Hope he doesn't think too much & go for it.

Love this ^^. Somehow I thought this case was over. Didn't he lose some motion before, or am I mixing up all the cases now.

What I do not understand about this guy is that shouldn't he know prior to 09 that he had to be paid commissions? Why wait until you see the estate make some new deals, wait to see how much they made, & then claim you were not paid commissions? Then he foolishly tells in the article that he waited to see how much the sales were.
 
Last edited:
he was given options to amend his complaint. the last I checked he was on his 4th amended complaint.

This time the judge is thinking about dismissing it for good and not to give the option to amend.
 
He, being a manager, didn't think that anything related to Michael would be lucrative after he died. he didn't think the estate would be making deals. I don't know what but probably there was something he could do during the 4 months period.
 
^pretty um, dumb to say the least to even not have that in the back of your mind as a manager since Michael's fans are alive and as the days go on new generations will be born with the same interest in the very same artist..fans never die > outcome > artists keep selling > estate keeps making money.

yea not something thats new but oh well
 
At the 4th complaint the court ruled there's a triable issue and Demann can be shown accounting. Estate is asking for a jury trial.
 
I remember the estate had show him the books pertaining to certain time but Demann wanted to see everything. Is the 4th complaint about which books he is entitled to review?
 
Back
Top