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

[Tygger]

1) Tohme's service rate

Fifteen percent is not a high percentage for artist managers. If it was, the Labor Commissioner would have commented on that percentage. It was not illegal for Tohme to receive 15% of future deals and $35K per month. Again, if it was illegal, the Labor Commissioner would have commented on that pay scheme. That percentage (and flat monthly fee) should not be compared to executors’ compensation. The executors are NOT artist managers and they are not licensed to do so; they are controlling Michael’s image and likeness now that Michael has passed.

2) Tohme's illegal practice

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.

I am glad you realized the Labor Commissioner may very well be attempting to penalize Tohme by halving his commission because he was unlicensed. His action – negotiating the TII deal – was illegal because he did not have a license. The TII deal itself was not illegal. Again, 15% is not an illegal percentage; thus, halving that percentage as a possible solution.

There is no option in my view where Tohme will not be compensated for negotiating the TII deal and it is interesting the Estate has taken the stance that Tohme should not be compensated at all.

3) Tohme's involvement in the documentary

I am having difficulty following your points in this section. If I may simply state: Tohme negotiated the TII deal and the result was the TII documentary. (If there were concerts, Tohme would be eligible for a percentage of those performances.) Again, the TII deal itself was not illegal so he is most likely eligible for a percentage of the TII documentary. The Labor Commissioner has suggested half of the original 15%. I believe that half is a penalty for Tohme being unlicensed.

The executors only allowed AEG to utilize the footage as it contained Michael’s image. The executors have no part in the TII deal. The executors were involved with the new deal between the Estate, Sony, and AEG for the release of the TII documentary. Their participation in the new deal and Tohme’s participation in the original TII deal are separate and remain so.

Because the documentary was so successful AND because Tohme most likely will be eligible for the NL finder’s fee; it would behoove the Estate to settle with a round figure acceptable to both parties. Settlement amounts can be less than middle ground.

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.

That is not the same as stating an unlicensed person receiving a commission is illegal.

The Estate filed a petition because they believe Tohme should receive no compensation whatsoever for his negotiation of the TII deal while the Labor Commissioner has decided Tohme is entitled to compensation. The Commissioner continued, in effect, by penalizing Tohme for not possessing the appropriate license by halving his commission to 7.5%.

Do you believe the court will disregard the Labor Commissioner’s decision?

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!

That is not what Tohme is doing. Tohme, in your example, did not retrieve an apple for Michael. Tohme negotiated with AEG to plant an apple orchard that only Michael could tend to successfully. The orchard did not bear red delicious apples but, it did bear apples that were very in demand and acceptable to the masses. The Estate would prefer Tohme not receive any compensation for securing that apple orchard by working between AEG and Michael.

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?

No. Tohme negotiated the TII deal. Without negotiation resulting in an enforceable contract, Michael and AEG were only having discussions.

 

[ivy]

Do you believe the court will disregard the Labor Commissioner’s decision?.

my understanding for a trial de novo , it has to.

 

[Tygger]

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

my understanding for a trial de novo , it has to.

Question please: are the odds in the Estate's favor or Tohme's favor for a new trial?

 

[ivy]

Question please: are the odds in the Estate's favor or Tohme's favor for a new trial?

what do you mean by odds in favor? Do you mean a new trial happening?

Estate is asking for a trial de novo and I think they'll get it. So that's in Estate's favor. Impossible to say if Tohme was happy with the labor commissioner decision or would prefer a new trial and the chance to go for the full fee amount once again.

I posted the relevant code in my summary "Labor Code 1700.44 states “In cases of controversy arising under this chapter, the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo.”"

To me it means first you take the dispute to the LC (they did) and after LC decides if they ask within 10 days (and they did) a new trial would happen at superior court.Code says "same shall be heard de novo" and to me it sounds like a new trial will and should be granted 100%. (so if you mean can court reject the new trial request, based on reading the code I don't think so) and Trial de novo means the new trial would happen as there wasn't a previous trial, outcome of the previous trial won't be considered. So labor commissioner decision becomes moot.

Note: Given that Estate is asking for a new trial which would totally ignore and make the LC decision moot, it's clear that they don't agree with that decision.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, based on your response, there will be a new trial with odds 100% in the Estate's favor.

Do you believe the Supreme Court will arrive at a decision that may mirror the Labor Commissioner, i.e., Tohme is eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal?

What does the bond below refer to?

1700.44. (a) In cases of controversy arising under this chapter, the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo. To stay any award for money, the party aggrieved shall execute a bond approved by the superior court in a sum not exceeding twice the amount of the judgment. In all other cases the bond shall be in a sum of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and approved by the superior court.

The Labor Commissioner may certify without a hearing that there is no controversy within the meaning of this section if he or she has
by investigation established that there is no dispute as to the amount of the fee due. Service of the certification shall be made
upon all parties concerned by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested and the certification shall become
conclusive 10 days after the date of mailing if no objection has been filed with the Labor Commissioner during that period.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, failure of any person to obtain a license from the Labor Commissioner
pursuant to this chapter shall not be considered a criminal act under any law of this state.

(c) No action or proceeding shall be brought pursuant to this chapter with respect to any violation which is alleged to have
occurred more than one year prior to commencement of the action or proceeding.

(d) It is not unlawful for a person or corporation which is not licensed pursuant to this chapter to act in conjunction with, and at
the request of, a licensed talent agency in the negotiation of an employment contract.

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy, based on your response, there will be a new trial with odds 100% in the Estate's favor.

again, I'm not clear what you exactly mean by "odds at Estate's favor". If you mean, a new trial will happen - yes. If you mean, Estate would win that new trial, no one can say for sure and not enough information yet.

Do you believe the Supreme Court will arrive at a decision that may mirror the Labor Commissioner, i.e., Tohme is eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal?

not the supreme court. superior court. although this is referred as an "appeal", it's not really an appeal, it's a totally new trial. it means this will be just like any other regular trial heard at Beckloff's courtroom. I believe both Estate and Tohme asked for a jury trial. So I would expect first discovery happen (as it started with Neverland finder's fee) and if it survives summary judgment, go to trial sometime in second half to late 2016 (probably would see at least one extension to the may 2016 tentative date). It's premature to say what the outcome might be without seeing any discovery and any arguments. Especially with a jury trial.

That being said, in my personal opinion even with a jury trial I would think jurors will easily agree that Tohme wasn't licensed as an agent and at best (for Tohme) similar to LC would separate items he is entitled for payment and items he isn't. So I don't see Tohme getting the full amount he is asking. The most important point would be if the jurors would separate TII concert from the TII documentary. Two things stood out to me. One LC wrote how and why that footage was shot wasn't a matter in front of them. I would imagine it would become an issue for the jury or at least something presented to them. Was there any discussions about those footage and how much Tohme was involved in those discussions/ negotiations?. Two LC said it was speculative that footage wouldn't happen without the TII concerts. I personally can't see jurors thinking that as speculative. Call me simple but MJ signs a concert deal, he starts rehearsals, rehearsals gets filmed, MJ unfortunately dies, rehearsal footage is turned to documentary - aka that documentary wouldn't have happened if MJ didn't sign the concert deal seems like a no brainier to me. Anyway like I said, it's too early to speculate the outcome, but I personally don't see jury giving Tohme the full amount he is asking for. That's why I previously said I would expect the outcome to be at least similar to LC outcome if not better (for Estate). but I reserve to change my mind with more information becoming available over time.

"Tohme is eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal" - I believe Labor Commissioner said the opposite. TII deal was illegal and therefore he wasn't entitled to any commissions. But it doesn't really matter , with a trial de novo, that decision becomes moot.

edited to add

I read the discussion over the last few days and there are several things I agree with some members and some points I want to add.

- I don't understand how this decision took 20 months.
- the decision almost literally the mid point of what parties wanted.
- some LC decisions are so arbitrary. how did they decide 50% of what he did was legal and 50% was illegal?
- his "work" on Neverland shouldn't be discussed or considered under the management agreement. There's a whole separate agreement and fee structure for that.

 

[Tygger]

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

Anyway like I said, it's too early to speculate the outcome, but I personally don't see jury giving Tohme the full amount he is asking for. That's why I previously said I would expect the outcome to be at least similar to LC outcome if not better (for Estate).

We agree because I stated Tohme is eligible for A commission for negotiating the TII deal. The Estate would prefer Tohme receive no commission (0%). In your view, it seems a commission less than 15% would be beneficial for the Estate and I do not have an issue with that view. It is simply a difference in outlook; i.e. glass half full/half empty.

"Tohme is eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal" - I believe Labor Commissioner said the opposite. TII deal was illegal and therefore he wasn't entitled to any commissions.

???

From your blog:

Therefore Labor Commissioner determines Tohme was directly involved in AEG TII concert deal and this is in violation of the Talent Agency Act. Labor Commissioner determines TII concert deal to be illegal procurement of employment for an artist under Talent Agency Act. (Note: TAA requires any manager/agent to be licensed to secure performance engagements for artists)

The deal is not illegal, Tohme's action, i.e., negotiation of the deal (procurement of employment for an artist under Talent Agency Act) without the appropriate license is illegal.

his "work" on Neverland shouldn't be discussed or considered under the management agreement.

I am unsure if you are referring to my posts or others. I know the NL issue is separate and I believe Tohme is eligible for the finder's fee in that case. This is why I suggested settlement.

 

[ivy]

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

The deal is not illegal, Tohme's action, i.e., negotiation of the deal (procurement of employment for an artist under Talent Agency Act) without the appropriate license is illegal.

yes and if you read my blog or the document, LC says Tohme shouldn't be getting a fee for the illegal activities aka TII concert deal. Then they argue as the concert did not happen, no monies were paid to michael for the concert and Tohme never became entitled ti illegal commissions from TII concerts. So LC decision doesn't give Tohme anything from the TII concerts. It gives him money from TII documentary and the argument for that is because there was no negotiation about that footage. But even you disagreed with that stating that footage was being shot for a reason.

ps: when I use legal / illegal, it refers to LC considers to be legal / illegal activities per TAA.

I am unsure if you are referring to my posts or others. I know the NL issue is separate and I believe Tohme is eligible for the finder's fee in that case. This is why I suggested settlement.

That wasn't referring to anyone's post. it was a general observation I made. in the document LC listed Neverland foreclosure as a "legal" service Tohme provided. I'm saying LC shouldn't have mentioned it at all because a) neverland issue predates the management agreement and b) it is covered under finder's fee agreement. So if LC is considering Neverland as one of the legal activities Tohme did under the management agreement , they are wrong. Whether Tohme gets a fee or not for Neverland should be considered under the finder's fee in no relation to the management agreement. You will disagree probably but I think LC's decision had several flaws and hard to understand and/or quite arbitrary approaches in my opinion.

 

[Tygger]

It gives him money from TII documentary and the argument for that is because there was no negotiation about that footage. But even you disagreed with that stating that footage was being shot for a reason.

???

I never stated there was a negotiation regarding the footage particularly during Michael’s lifetime. There were statements made on how that footage would be utilized. We know there were no contracts regarding how that footage would be utilized during Michael's lifetime (it would have appeared in the AEG civil trial).

So if LC is considering Neverland as one of the legal activities Tohme did under the management agreement , they are wrong. Whether Tohme gets a fee or not for Neverland should be considered under the finder's fee in no relation to the management agreement. You will disagree probably but I think LC's decision had several flaws and hard to understand and/or quite arbitrary approaches in my opinion.

They did not state the NL deal was under the management agreement of Michael as an artist because it would go against their decision regarding the NL fee.

You may disagree with the wording and logic of their decision but, it seems you do agree with the result that the Estate is appealing: Tohme is most likely eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal.

With that in mind, I do not see a new trial having a different result; maybe only a different percentage which will not favor the Estate because the percentage will be higher than zero. Although others may find any percentage below 15% beneficial for the Estate, the Estate does not agree because they are appealing the 7.5%.

Knowing Tohme will most likely also be eligible for the NL finder's fee, do you understand why I suggested settlement?

 

[ivy]

I never stated there was a negotiation regarding the footage particularly during Michael’s lifetime. There were statements made on how that footage would be utilized. We know there were no contracts regarding how that footage would be utilized during Michael's lifetime (it would have appeared in the AEG civil trial).

I didn't say you stated there were negotiations. However you said the footage was being shot for a behind the scenes type of thing - which demonstrates there was a plan for the footage. Contracts,plans etc doesn't need to be written. Oral arguments are as binding.

They did not state the NL deal was under the management agreement of Michael as an artist because it would go against their decision regarding the NL fee.

If you read the document I posted, you will see that they referred to Neverland deal multiple times under "legal services" provided. I'm saying they shouldn't have referred to it at all. It isn't covered under management agreement.

You may disagree with the wording and logic of their decision but, it seems you do agree with the result that the Estate is appealing: Tohme is most likely eligible for a commission for negotiating the TII deal.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion but no I don't think he is "most likely eligible for a commission" for the TII deal. To the contrary, personally I think he shouldn't be receiving anything from TII (concert and documentary) and my reasoning is simple - he wasn't licensed hence he shouldn't be paid. Oh and another thing Tohme's montly $35,000 fee was mentioned before but I guess people forgot that AEG was also supposed to pay Tohme $100,000 per month for his services (this was mentioned during AEG trial). Honestly I think that money is more than enough for his services regarding TII deal.

With that in mind, I do not see a new trial having a different result;

Knowing Tohme will most likely also be eligible for the NL finder's fee, do you understand why I suggested settlement?

personally you seem over confident to me in regards to payment Tohme might receive. If you ask me there are multiple questions that needs to be answered, more information is needed before we can comment about what is most likely IMO.

For example for neverland deal : Estate brought up two questions. There was at least one other deal for Neverland, was it a better deal? and if Tohme was to receive a fee from Colony Capital as well? In other words was there a conflict of interest? We need to see more information. If there is any reason to reasonably conclude that there was a conflict of interest (that Tohme pushed CC deal because it was more beneficial for him), then he shouldn't be paid anything for Neverland deal. If there is no conflict of interest and everything was on the up and up then yes he deserves to be paid a finders fee but how much is the next question to be answered. Estate also argued 10% was too much for finder's fee. And keep in mind Tohme didn't go out and tried to find money to save neverland. He just introduced MJ to his friend. So 10% back then and 10% at future sale - which could be over $12.3 Million ($23 M initial loan and $100 M sale price , interest not considered)- seems like an overkill to me. (I think another member commented on this, but compare this number to executor compensation. Wouldn't you agree that it seems a little too much?)

As for the management agreement, I agree with LC that some items deserve payment under management agreement. The $35,000 monthly fee and a fee for Sheikh settlement and Sony payment seems legit (so 15% of $13,000,000). I also agree with LC that Tohme wasn't licensed as an agent and hence shouldn't be paid for anything TII related - including nothing for the documentary inmy personal opinion.

Then it brings us back to Estate's claims against Tohme - remember the one Estate claimed money and personal property was missing? Even the LC document states Tohme got Sony pay MJ $10 Million but Tohme only gave $5.5 Million to MJ Estate. Where's the rest? where's the $4.5 Million? So that needs to be examined and explained. If indeed Tohme put that money in his personal accounts, and used it to buy himself house and cars then that mismanagement of funds - aka fraud and/or theft - should be enough to invalidate any legit payment he is entitled.

so do you understand where I am coming from? Okay you think he is most likely eligible for payment and that's why you suggest settlement. Do you understand in my perspective there are some question that needs to be answered before I can say he is legitimately eligible for payment hence why I don't consider these legal attempts as a waste of time and money? If in the end it turns out everything was by the book, he gets paid millions and I'm okay with that. But I'm also okay with first making sure everything is legit.

 

[Tygger]

I didn't say you stated there were negotiations. However you said the footage was being shot for a behind the scenes type of thing - which demonstrates there was a plan for the footage. Contracts,plans etc doesn't need to be written. Oral arguments are as binding.

Oh? Who is responsible for producing said reality show? Where and when would it air? Terms were never negotiated so it remained conversations at best.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion but no I don't think he is "most likely eligible for a commission" for the TII deal. To the contrary, personally I think he shouldn't be receiving anything from TII (concert and documentary) and my reasoning is simple - he wasn't licensed hence he shouldn't be paid.

It seems you are now retracting and/or revising your below statement where we agreed; tis fine.

Anyway like I said, it's too early to speculate the outcome, but I personally don't see jury giving Tohme the full amount he is asking for. That's why I previously said I would expect the outcome to be at least similar to LC outcome if not better (for Estate).

Oh and another thing Tohme's montly $35,000 fee was mentioned before but I guess people forgot that AEG was also supposed to pay Tohme $100,000 per month for his services (this was mentioned during AEG trial). Honestly I think that money is more than enough for his services regarding TII deal.

You cannot include the $100K/monthly as per AEG for Tohme’s services to AEG in services rendered to Michael. AEG did not pay Tohme for negotiating the TII deal. He was placed on their payroll after the deal was executed.

personally you seem over confident to me in regards to payment Tohme might receive.

Despite your questions, there is no law that states Tohme is not eligible for a commission for services rendered despite not possessing a license. If there was such a law, the Estate would have stated such against the Labor Commissioner’s decision. If there was such a law, the Labor Commissioner would have stated such in their decision. If the Commissioner was setting a precedent with Tohme, the Commissioner and the Estate's legal team would have commented on such.

Can your questions only be answered through a costly civil trial or can they be answered through a settlement process?

Again, it is illogical that you are now comparing executor’s compensation to Tohme’s NL finder’s fee as it was illogical to compare executor’s compensation to that of artist’s manager. The tasks are vastly different.

 

[ivy]

Oh? Who is responsible for producing said reality show? Where and when would it air? Terms were never negotiated so it remained conversations at best.

what reality show? I never said reality show. I thought the plan was extra's on a DVD (the contract mentioned a concert DVD release) and/or being used for promos on MJ Live website. If you read LC decision, they almost sound like someone was randomly shooting this footage and after MJ's death they were like "holly cow we have all this footage". I disagree with that position. I believe they always had a plan for the footage (either as extras on a concert DVD or used as promo items to raise public interest) and they just repurposed the footage after MJ's death. To be clear, the discussion here is if TII documentary can be considered separate from TII concert.

It seems you are now retracting and/or revising your below statement where we agreed; tis fine.

No I'm not retracting and/or revising anything. While it is possible for Tohme to get paid for some stuff, I don't think and never stated that he should be paid for TII. To the contrary in my mind TII (both concert and documentary) is the one thing he shouldn't be paid for. LC agrees partially with this as they classified TII concert deal "illegal" per TAA. So to clarify, if Tohme is asking for 15% and LC gave him 7.5% commission, I said the outcome of a civil trial would be 7.5% or less. Never said he should be paid for TII.

In my later posts I made my opinions a lot more clearer. $35,000 per month, payment for Sony and Sheikh settlement services, and some payment for Neverland (assuming there's no conflict of interest). That would mean Tohme receive several millions and it would make it lower than the 7.5% including TII documentary per LC decision - meaning it a better outcome for Estate than LC decision.

You cannot include the $100K/monthly as per AEG for Tohme’s services to AEG in services rendered to Michael. AEG did not pay Tohme for negotiating the TII deal. He was placed on their payroll after the deal was executed.

I did not include it as "services rendered to Michael". Yet it is still an amount he was to be paid over TII. During AEG trial Jackson's lawyer Panish questioned if this was conflict of interest or not. You were talking about being paid for his services, I'm asking you how much is enough?

Despite your questions, there is no law that states Tohme is not eligible for a commission for services rendered despite not possessing a license.

and if that's the case doesn't it make it a question for a jury.

Can your questions only be answered through a costly civil trial or can they be answered through a settlement process?

remind me when did you start following this case? Do you know that one of the first things Estate did was to ask Tohme for an accounting? And Tohme filed an opposition/ demurrer against providing accounting of the time he was a manager? Why? why would any legitimate manager not provide an accounting of all the money? It took court to order him to produce an accounting. The last we heard Estate was still trying to track the money. So now tell me, do you think Tohme is forthcoming, transparent that this could be solved by talking? Perhaps it would take depositions and subpoena's to find answers to questions like "were gonna get a commission from CC as well?". So a discovery might be warranted and based on that discovery there might be a settlement. On the other hand if indeed there was a mismanagement of MJ's money, why should he get rewarded by settlement?

Again, it is illogical that you are now comparing executor’s compensation to Tohme’s NL finder’s fee as it was illogical to compare executor’s compensation to that of artist’s manager. The tasks are vastly different.

I agree, tasks are vastly different. Tohme introduces MJ to his friend and walks away with a deal that could give him over $12 Million. then you have executors who work on MJ estate constantly, bring in hundreds of millions in gross revenues, arrange refinancing, work on projects etc. and so on but it takes 4 years for them to get to those kind of numbers. Seems unfair, no?

Well this has been interesting.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I am repeating myself.

Having a plan for approximately 100 hours of footage and negotiating a contract that discusses how the footage will be utilized are distinctly separate as we can see. Negotiation on how that footage would be utilized happened after Michael’s passing.

You cannot include AEG payments to Tohme in Tohme’s compensation from Michael. Those payments are for separate services.

It is not a reasonable comparison to compare the compensation of Tohme’s managerial services to that of the executors as those tasks are separate.

It seems you do not believe your questions can be answered unless the Estate continues with a costly litigation that you believe will have similar results to the Labor Commissioner’s findings. As you stated, you do not believe Tohme should receive commission for TII negotiations however you do believe he would receive 7.5% or less as commission for TII negotiations via a civil trial in spite of your beliefs.

Interesting indeed.

 

[barbee0715]

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

What did Tohme do before Jermaine introduced him to Michael? He had outrageous monthly salaries negotiated with both Michael and AEG.

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy, I am repeating myself.

and you can either continue to repeat yourself or accept others might have different opinion than you and wouldn't change it regardless of how many times you repeat your opinions.

As you stated, you do not believe Tohme should receive commission for TII negotiations however you do believe he would receive 7.5% or less as commission for TII negotiations via a civil trial in spite of your beliefs.

come on, it's not that hard to understand. Let me try like this - Tohme is asking for $100, LC gave him $50. I'm thinking the outcome of the civil trial would be Tohme getting $50 or less. Kapish?

starting from my first post I wrote separating TII concert from TII documentary doesn't make sense and he shouldn't be getting paid for TII documentary. claiming I believe he would get commission for TII deal is either unfortunate inability to understand what I'm saying or deliberate attempt to twist what I'm saying.

 

[passy001]

Fifteen percent is not a high percentage for artist managers. If it was, the Labor Commissioner would have commented on that percentage. It was not illegal for Tohme to receive 15% of future deals and $35K per month. Again, if it was illegal, the Labor Commissioner would have commented on that pay scheme. That percentage (and flat monthly fee) should not be compared to executors’ compensation. The executors are NOT artist managers and they are not licensed to do so; they are controlling Michael’s image and likeness now that Michael has passed.

Tohme could have charged 90% if he wanted to. that was his right. but it does not mean that his rate is not high.
Plus, that bit was never the focus of the LC investigation. his focus was strictly to examine Tohme's conduct in terms of services rendered and whether it complied with the TAA.

I am glad you realized the Labor Commissioner may very well be attempting to penalize Tohme by halving his commission because he was unlicensed. His action – negotiating the TII deal – was illegal because he did not have a license. The TII deal itself was not illegal. Again, 15% is not an illegal percentage; thus, halving that percentage as a possible solution.

There is no option in my view where Tohme will not be compensated for negotiating the TII deal and it is interesting the Estate has taken the stance that Tohme should not be compensated at all.

Tohme will be lucky if he even gets 5%. and it will be hard for him to argue how the this is it footage was separate from the concert deal. add the fact that he was already receiving plenty of MJ money.

I am having difficulty following your points in this section. If I may simply state: Tohme negotiated the TII deal and the result was the TII documentary. (If there were concerts, Tohme would be eligible for a percentage of those performances.) Again, the TII deal itself was not illegal so he is most likely eligible for a percentage of the TII documentary. The Labor Commissioner has suggested half of the original 15%. I believe that half is a penalty for Tohme being unlicensed.

The executors only allowed AEG to utilize the footage as it contained Michael’s image. The executors have no part in the TII deal. The executors were involved with the new deal between the Estate, Sony, and AEG for the release of the TII documentary. Their participation in the new deal and Tohme’s participation in the original TII deal are separate and remain so.

Because the documentary was so successful AND because Tohme most likely will be eligible for the NL finder’s fee; it would behoove the Estate to settle with a round figure acceptable to both parties. Settlement amounts can be less than middle ground.

What it boils down to is if the footage can be separated from the concert deal. it''ll be hard for Tohme to make a case for that as this was well part of the whole comeback concert plan that never panned out. Read the previous Ivy's post. she makes a very great explanation of that.

That is not the same as stating an unlicensed person receiving a commission is illegal.

The Estate filed a petition because they believe Tohme should receive no compensation whatsoever for his negotiation of the TII deal while the Labor Commissioner has decided Tohme is entitled to compensation. The Commissioner continued, in effect, by penalizing Tohme for not possessing the appropriate license by halving his commission to 7.5%.

Do you believe the court will disregard the Labor Commissioner’s decision?

The estate is essentially disagreeing with the LC. so it has asked the court to disregard his findings as it they don't even exist.
so in the end, the LC opinion is irrelevant at this point. it's now up to the jury to decide if it ends in a trial.

That is not what Tohme is doing. Tohme, in your example, did not retrieve an apple for Michael. Tohme negotiated with AEG to plant an apple orchard that only Michael could tend to successfully. The orchard did not bear red delicious apples but, it did bear apples that were very in demand and acceptable to the masses. The Estate would prefer Tohme not receive any compensation for securing that apple orchard by working between AEG and Michael.

Let's just agree to disagree here.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, you are expressing your views; the statements I posted below are not my opinion (caution, repetition follows):

- A plan is not a contract negotiation
- Payments to Tohme from AEG for services rendered are separate from payments to Tohme from Michael for services rendered.
- The tasks of an executor differ vastly from the tasks of an artist’s manager.

I never found it necessary to twist your words. I am simply surprised you do not see the conflict in stating you do not believe Tohme is eligible for compensation however; you believe he will most likely be eligible for compensation - similar to the Labor Commissioner’s decision - if there is a civil trial and the Estate should continue with costly litigation to achieve a result similar to the Labor Commissioner's decision despite the Estate appealing that decision.

Passy001, I will simply say the compensation percentage rate of 15% is an industry standard; that is why the Labor Commissioner did not focus on it. By the way, I quite like the apple orchard analogy.

Barbee0715, Tohme was a real estate investor who, because of his gift for negotiation and extensive, internatoinal contacts, brokered many lucrative non-real estate deals.

 

[ivy]

(caution, repetition follows)

can you repeat it again? I on the other hand won't repeat anything as I'm pretty sure 99% of the readers got what my point was.

I never found it necessary to twist your words. I am simply surprised you do not see the conflict in stating you do not believe Tohme is eligible for compensation however; you believe he will most likely be eligible for compensation - similar to the Labor Commissioner’s decision

there's no conflict in what I say. Didn't Labor Commissioner say some of the activities Tohme did was legal and some were illegal per TAA and he is entitled payment for the legal ones and he is not entitled for payment for the illegal ones? I'm basically saying the same thing - that Tohme is entitled payment for the legal activities and not for the illegal ones. I disagree with the Labor Commissioner that TII documentary falls under the "legal" activities. Really, it's not that hard to understand what I'm saying.

- if there is a civil trial and the Estate should continue with costly litigation to achieve a result similar to the Labor Commissioner's decision despite the Estate appealing that decision.

Well I didn't just say the result would be the same. I said I don't expect Tohme get the full amount he is asking and that the outcome of the civil trial would be at least similar to Labor Commissioner (the worst case scenario) or even better for Estate. You need to sit down and think what does "even better" mean. If we assume that jurors agree with what several members posting here - that TII documentary is connected to TII concert and hence should be considered "illegal" per TAA and Tohme shouldn't receive any commission from it - that would mean the payment they think Tohme should get would be tens of millions less than what the Labor Commissioner said he should get. Do you get it? In other words if we say what Tohme is asking for 100 and Labor Commissioner decision gave him 50, I'm saying in my opinion the civil trial outcome would be somewhere between 0 to 50. Given Estate didn't go "yay Labor Commissioner cut his fee in half", I'm gonna assume they do think that at a civil trial they can get a better outcome - meaning 0 to less than half.

But I kinda get why you seem to have such trouble with what I and other people are writing. Like I said before, you think Tohme would win hence the see legal costs Estate incurring as a waste. You don't consider Estate could successfully end up with a verdict that says no payment for TII -concert or documentary - and could save tens of millions in payments to Tohme and if that happens the legal costs would be money well spent. You just don't even consider that possibility and that seems to be why you seem to be so confused about what people are saying. It's okay though, like I said this was interesting. You could be the only fan ever to side with Tohme.

 

[Tygger]

sigh

Ivy, you arrive at the most interesting conclusions when reading my posts. You felt the need to characterize me as a Tohme fan in your response. Any particular post you would like to quote to verify your false characterization? Would your false characterization be for any particular reason/benefit to yourself or maybe perceived others? Your false characterization does not support or benefit this discussion yet, you felt that need because I agree with the full Labor Commissioner's decision. Less you forget, you (and others that you made a point to mention in your post for some reason) agree with the Labor Commissioner's decision as well minus the decision regarding TII. You accuse me of not appreciating others' views and yet, you falsely characterize me because you do not agree with portions of my view which is... conflicting.

I did not feel the need to characterize you as a Tohme fan or anti-Estate because you believe Tohme is eligible for compensation for his legal activities. The Estate is not appealing the TII decision. The Estate is appealing the full Labor Commissioner's decision; even the beneficial portions such as the voided indemnity agreement. You seem to have forgotten in your responses that any compensation awarded to Tohme – for legal activities and any other as per a jury - will come from Michael’s Estate. Reminder: the Estate prefers 0% compensation. Simplifying: zero, nothing, no compensation to Tohme for legal activities and no compensation for illegal activities. Less than 7.5% for illegal activities is your view. The Estate prefers: ZERO + zero = $0.

Hopefully, when you have a chance to sit down, you will think about that.

Adding: at the very least, I will take it as a compliment you view me as a MJ fan.

 

[Bubs]

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

Ivy, what's the plan from now on?
If the estate gets this de novo trial, will those issues that were handled with LC go back to old case they had against Tohme, or is it going to be totally new case?

Ps, why LC is under the impression that MJ was about to lose ownership interest in his music catalogue if they were put in the trust so he couldn't have lost them?
Maybe Tohme was lying to LC?

 

[barbee0715]

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

Tygger-thank you for background on Thome. On a phone and can't hit thank you button.

 

[ivy]

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

You felt the need to characterize me as a Tohme fan in your response. Adding: at the very least, I will take it as a compliment you view me as a MJ fan.

I didn't characterize you as "Tohme fan". The word "fan" referred to a MJ fan as you clearly understood at the end of your post. I wrote you "side with Tohme". There are two sides in this lawsuit; Estate versus Tohme. Plus given all your posts have been all about how Tohme should be just paid money, how Estate should just engage in settlement talks , it's a correct statement to say that in this lawsuit you "side with Tohme". you really need to improve your reading and/or your understanding ability.

[As for MJ fan, I have been in other fan communities as well and define fandom as anyone that has any kind of love towards the person. I don't create fan standards and look down to people who don't fit my standards. That's silly so you won't me find me question anyone's MJ fandom.]

The Estate is not appealing the TII decision. The Estate is appealing the full Labor Commissioner's decision

based on the code I posted, I don't think partial appeal is possible.

Simplifying: zero, nothing, no compensation to Tohme for legal activities and no compensation for illegal activities. Less than 7.5% for illegal activities is your view. The Estate prefers: ZERO + zero = $0.

This again demonstrates you don't either read my posts or you clearly don't understand them. I never said Tohme must be paid something. Remember the missing $4.5 Million? Remember possible conflict of interest? Remember how I said if Tohme was involved in theft and/or fraud, he doesn't deserve to be paid anything - not even a dime? As I mentioned before, more information, more discovery is needed to determine if everything is proper or if there are some red flags. If after discovery it turns out Tohme's actions were legitimate and he is entitled to tens of millions, I'm okay with that. If it turns out there was mismanagement of MJ's money and the actions weren't in MJ's best interests and Tohme doesn't get a single dime, I'm okay with that either. Given Estate also sued Tohme, it is safe to assume that they think he deserves $0, nothing, zero, nada. Personally I prefer to see more information before I make such confident statements like you do, that's why for now I stated a range and where I place myself on that range can and will change with more information.

Ivy, what's the plan from now on?
If the estate gets this de novo trial, will those issues that were handled with LC go back to old case they had against Tohme, or is it going to be totally new case?

I'm pretty sure, there will be a new trial (trial de novo). The relevant code used the word "shall", it doesn't read like court has the option to reject such request. Neverland finder's fee is already on calendar with May 2016 tentative trial date. I expect everything also put on the calendar and a trial considering everything happens. I imagine there would be some new discovery, depositions and the regular case process. I expect probably at least one extension request in regards to the trial date. So unless this gets dismissed at summary judgment, or parties settle, I expect a trial at second half of 2016.

 

[Bubs]

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

I'm pretty sure, there will be a new trial (trial de novo). The relevant code used the word "shall", it doesn't read like court has the option to reject such request. Neverland finder's fee is already on calendar with May 2016 tentative trial date. I expect everything also put on the calendar and a trial considering everything happens. I imagine there would be some new discovery, depositions and the regular case process. I expect probably at least one extension request in regards to the trial date. So unless this gets dismissed at summary judgment, or parties settle, I expect a trial at second half of 2016.

The issues wit LC was under the same case number as the Neverland issue, so will these 2 issue go back to the same case as NL or brand new case?

Sorry for me being thick skulled but I'm trying to understand whether there is going to be 1 (existing) case, or 1 existing and 1 new one:blush:

 

[Tygger]

Reminder: Ivy, the more false characterizations you post about myself means the less you post about the topic of the thread.

I didn't characterize you as "Tohme fan". The word "fan" referred to a MJ fan as you clearly understood at the end of your post. I wrote you "side with Tohme". There are two sides in this lawsuit; Estate versus Tohme. Plus given all your posts have been all about how Tohme should be just paid money, how Estate should just engage in settlement talks , it's a correct statement to say that in this lawsuit you "side with Tohme". you really need to improve your reading and/or your understanding ability.

You have generalizing my statements. Anyone who has read them and possesses reading comprehension can see your tone has become increasingly angry as you spin my statements to support your false characterizations.

You could be the only fan ever to side with Tohme.

Are you sitting down?

As for the management agreement, I agree with LC that some items deserve payment under management agreement. The $35,000 monthly fee and a fee for Sheikh settlement and Sony payment seems legit (so 15% of $13,000,000).

As I said, I agree with the full decision while you (and the others you mentioned for your reasons) agree with the Labor Commissioner's decision as well minus the decision regarding TII. It is unfortunate that you will expense negative energy to falsely characterize a poster simply for disagreeing with you (and others you mentioned for your reasons) regarding one portion of this decision.

Will you or can you truly maintain I am the only fan ever to side with Tohme based on your statement above? Should I expect a post redefining MJ fandom or should I expect a post attempting to explain how an agreement with the Labor Commissioner’s decision minus the TII portion is somehow not siding with Tohme? Most likely an expansion beyond the decision to include other Tohme claims to distance oneself from agreeing with portions of the Commissioner's decision which is what my recent posts focused on.

laughs

Tygger-thank you for background on Thome. On a phone and can't hit thank you button.

No worries.

 

[ivy]

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

Angry? LOL no. You got extremely defensive from a single sentence / single word, why? You posted a whole post about "tohme fan" when I never called you that and now you are going to call my reply to your false accusation of "tohme fan" as off topic? Yeah okay.

Do I get frustrated at times because you make me explain simple stuff over and over, picking one part ignoring the rest etc ? Yeah. But I'm also pretty sure that's your goal and you live on confrontation and being the different opinion in every regard on this forum. Then you wonder why people don't answer your questions.

If it'll please you we can say that you aren't siding with Tohme, we can ignore every single thing you wrote on this thread (before and after LC decision). We can even say that you are neutral in regards to Estate v. Tohme case. I'm pretty sure many people would enjoy a good laugh.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

So would this be a jury trial ala civil or crim one. not one decided apon by a judge. after the inability imo of the L.C to come to the most obvious rulings i wonder how much a jury would care to come to the right decision ala the schaffel trial wher the jurrors showd their destain for both mj and schaffel arguing over millions

 

[ivy]

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

So would this be a jury trial ala civil or crim one. not one decided apon by a judge.

this is a civil case. it could be decided by a judge or a jury but if my memory isn't failing me they asked for a jury trial.

btw don't let the use of word "illegal" confuse you. that's illegal per Talent Agency Act. In other words TAA says you need to be licensed and if you aren't licensed anything you do to find performance work for an artist is "illegal" per TAA. It's not a criminal "illegal". Plus even if there's fraud and/or theft here, those are still civil claims as well.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Thxs......

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, it seems you chose option three. smile

You posted a whole post about "tohme fan" when I never called you that and now you are going to call my reply to your false accusation of "tohme fan" as off topic? Yeah okay.

Your reading comprehension must have suffered because that post was not simply about being labeled a Tohme fan.

The rest of your response is your usual complaints and false characterizations of a poster who disagreed with your view (and others you mentioned for your reasons). It is a familiar distraction. In this instance, you are attempting to distract from the fact I posted in the post you mentioned. You, I, and others do side with Tohme (your words) as per the Commissioner’s decision minus the TII portion.

 

[ivy]

You, I, and others do side with Tohme (your words) as per the Commissioner’s decision minus the TII portion.

you might want to re-read my posts especially what I copied below. My position cannot be summarized as "commissioner decision minus TII portion", I also expressed several possible scenarios - highlighted in bold red below - in which he shouldn't be paid anything. That's what you fail to acknowledge.

If you ask me there are multiple questions that needs to be answered, more information is needed before we can comment about what is most likely IMO.

For example for neverland deal : Estate brought up two questions. There was at least one other deal for Neverland, was it a better deal? and if Tohme was to receive a fee from Colony Capital as well? In other words was there a conflict of interest? We need to see more information. If there is any reason to reasonably conclude that there was a conflict of interest (that Tohme pushed CC deal because it was more beneficial for him), then he shouldn't be paid anything for Neverland deal. If there is no conflict of interest and everything was on the up and up then yes he deserves to be paid a finders fee but how much is the next question to be answered. Estate also argued 10% was too much for finder's fee. And keep in mind Tohme didn't go out and tried to find money to save neverland. He just introduced MJ to his friend. So 10% back then and 10% at future sale - which could be over $12.3 Million ($23 M initial loan and $100 M sale price , interest not considered)- seems like an overkill to me. (I think another member commented on this, but compare this number to executor compensation. Wouldn't you agree that it seems a little too much?)

As for the management agreement, I agree with LC that some items deserve payment under management agreement. The $35,000 monthly fee and a fee for Sheikh settlement and Sony payment seems legit (so 15% of $13,000,000). I also agree with LC that Tohme wasn't licensed as an agent and hence shouldn't be paid for anything TII related - including nothing for the documentary inmy personal opinion.

Then it brings us back to Estate's claims against Tohme - remember the one Estate claimed money and personal property was missing? Even the LC document states Tohme got Sony pay MJ $10 Million but Tohme only gave $5.5 Million to MJ Estate. Where's the rest? where's the $4.5 Million? So that needs to be examined and explained. If indeed Tohme put that money in his personal accounts, and used it to buy himself house and cars then that mismanagement of funds - aka fraud and/or theft - should be enough to invalidate any legit payment he is entitled.

so do you understand where I am coming from? Okay you think he is most likely eligible for payment and that's why you suggest settlement. Do you understand in my perspective there are some question that needs to be answered before I can say he is legitimately eligible for payment hence why I don't consider these legal attempts as a waste of time and money? If in the end it turns out everything was by the book, he gets paid millions and I'm okay with that. But I'm also okay with first making sure everything is legit.