Page 56 of 66 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 981

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

   
  1. #826
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    My statement only included Tohme’s 10% finder’s fee which is most likely $2.5M or so without interest.
    Correct, actually probably $2.3 Million as of 2008. I also got your point. You think $2.3 Million is a low amount and just paying that (as soon as possible without it incurring much interest) could have been more cost effective than incurring legal fees. One thing to add to that though, finder's fee agreement also states Tohme would get 10% from a future sale. Estate agreeing to pay finders fee would mean they would need to pay that future fee as well. So if we say it was $2.3 Million for 2008 and another $2.3 Million for the future sale, the total finder's fee would be $4.6 Million. So one question would be "do you still think just paying $4.6 Million would be cost effective than a trial?". Then there's the issue of if he even deserves such a fee? If we think Neverland deal was a bad deal- which at the end will result in a sale- and Tohme just introduced MJ to his buddy, does he deserve $2.3 +$2.3 million? Estate clearly stated this is what they believe, so should they fight or just pay?


    Can you actually tell which portion of the total legal fee refers to the finder’s fee as opposed to the other two issues particularly the management fee? It seems the Estate included the finder’s fee with the management fee and Tohme’s lawyers successfully argued against that in 2014.Are you suggesting the Estate spent $917,919 against Tohme in 2013 only for the management fee portion? Any documentation to support your suggestion?
    you are correct that they tried to void all three agreements in front of labor commissioner but very quickly it was established that labor commissioner did not have power over that agreement. parties waited for a year for an official ruling stating as such, then agreed labor commissioner can't / won't decide on finder's fee agreement and put it on calendar as of january 2015. I assumed as neverland finder's fee wasn't such a big part of labor commissioner hearing, it wouldn't result in much cost and almost all of that $917,919 would be spent on other two more significant management agreements.

    But let's go with your argument. initially they tried to void three agreements - neverland finders fee, manager agreement and indemnity agreement - in front of labor commissioner. we know it costed $917,919. 1/3rd of it would be $305,973. According to my math that's still whole a lot lower than the $2.3M or so and even more smaller amount if we consider $2.3M plus 10% from future sale. So sorry but I'll still maintain the legal fees spent on Neverland finder's fee issue isn't close to surpass the fees Tohme is asking any time soon. Unless you can show legal fees around $2 Million for Neverland issue?
    Last edited by ivy; 17-05-2015 at 06:07 PM.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  3. #827
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,409
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 702 Posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    So one question would be "do you still think just paying $4.6 Million would be cost effective than a trial?". Then there's the issue of if he even deserves such a fee? If we think Neverland deal was a bad deal- which at the end will result in a sale- and Tohme just introduced MJ to his buddy, does he deserve $2.3 +$2.3 million? Estate clearly stated this is what they believe, so should they fight or just pay?
    Has the Estate ever stated the Colony deal was unfavorable for Michael or only Tohme's finder's fee was unfavorable? What, if any actions has the Estate taken against Colony?

    Tohme most likely is eligible for the finder's fee. Commercial zoning was not allowed for NL. The Estate did not take advantage of first refusal so Colony is allowed to sell NL. If it sells, it most likely will be for far more than the original $23-25M or so to prevent foreclosure. Tohme will be eligible for much more than a duplicate of the original finder's fee.

    I assumed as neverland finder's fee wasn't such a big part of labor commissioner hearing, it wouldn't result in much cost and almost all of that $917,919 would be spent on other two more significant management agreements.
    Fine however, you will not be able to simply divide $917,919 by three to support your argument. You are also focused on a legal fee for one year only, 2013. The 2013 figure is 40% of your $2.3M figure.

    Remember, my statement was: "at some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee." I believe you understand I was referring to his 10% finder's fee and total legal fees against Tohme and those fees began 2012.

    You do not have to agree however; at this financial pace, it will most likely be true.
    Last edited by ivy; 17-05-2015 at 06:12 PM.

  4. #828
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Has the Estate ever stated the Colony deal was unfavorable for Michael or only Tohme's finder's fee was unfavorable?
    They said both.

    What, if any actions has the Estate taken against Colony?
    We cannot know what happened behind close doors. Personally I always thought Tohme case would create a domino effect, if they could void his contracts, they could use it to void CC agreement (check the start pages of this thread, I wrote it years ago) but perhaps it's too late now. Also discovery about this issues are just starting with 3 depositions happening this month.

    IF it sells, it most likely will be for far more than the original $23-25M or so to prevent foreclosure. Tohme will be eligible for much more than a duplicate of the original finder's fee.
    so we both agree that Finder's fee overall is not just going to be the original $2.3 Million , it would be more than double that amount. So to repeat my question, do you still think it would be more cost effective to just pay it? what if you also consider Estate's position, put yourself in their shoes and assume you think, the deal was unfavorable to MJ and Tohme is asking for over $4.6 Million to introduce MJ to his buddy?

    Fine however, you will not be able to simply divide $917,919 by three to support your argument.
    How would you divide it? $917,918 for Neverland and $1 for the other two? Isn't it still lower than more than double $2.3 M amount?

    The 2013 figure is 40% of your $2.3M figure.
    Only if you assume all of that $900K were spent on Neverland and not the other contracts. You can disagree with an equal 1/3rd division but I guess we can agree that not all of it would be because of Neverland issue. Labor commissioner trial was mostly focused on the management agreement.

    You are also focused on a legal fee for one year only, 2013.
    Was this one of the cases you did not follow? Allow me to provide a summary

    Tohme filed this lawsuit on February 2012. May 2012 Estate responded with a motion to stay as they filed a petition with labor commissioner. June 2012 court granted the stay. that motion is the only cost item
    2013 was all about labor commisioner trial. It ended in October 2013 and labor commissioner took it under consideration at November 2013. We know this cost $917,919
    Nothing happened between November 2013 to September 2014, parties were waiting for a decision. September 2014 Tohme filed a motion to lift the stay only in regards to Neverland finder's fee. Estate had no problems with it, did not even file a reply.
    January 2015 judge lifted the stay for Neverland fee and put it on calendar, starting the process.February Tohme filed summary adjudication motion and Estate filed a reply to that.

    so from 2012 to 2015, we see a stay process in 2012, labor commissioner in 2013, one year waiting with nothing, summary adjudication in 2015. as for future we know 3 depositions for sure. most probably we will see more motions as well.

    None of these cases are active or generating costs every day. To the contrary there are months and months of nothing happening most of the time.

    Remember, my statement was: "at some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee." You do not have to agree; at this financial pace, it will most likely be true.
    and my statement was "I'll still maintain the legal fees spent on Neverland finder's fee issue isn't close to surpass the fees Tohme is asking any time soon". If you agree interest aside, 2008 and future finders fee would be more than double $2.3 Million, I don't see how you think that number would be achieved for a single case. I don't remember Estate spending over $4.6 Million for any case.
    Last edited by ivy; 15-05-2015 at 06:32 AM.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  6. #829
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,409
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 702 Posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    Personally I always thought Tohme case would create a domino effect, if they could void his contracts, they could use it to void CC agreement (check the start pages of this thread, I wrote it years ago) but perhaps it's too late now. Also discovery about this issues are just starting with 3 depositions happening this month.
    You also stated such in the NL thread. You suggested the Estate could not renegotiate the deal because it was basically set in stone. I disagreed because the contract could be renegotiated if the Estate truly felt it was that harmful to Michael. A truly harmful contract would not include first refusal. You posted it outside this forum, I read it, and it was quite standard. Regardless, the Estate seems to be continuing quite agreeably with Colony for the potential sale of NL. We will see what the Estate discovers with the depositions however; I believe it may be much ado about nothing.

    so we both agree that Finder's fee overall is not just going to be the original $2.3 Million , it would be more than double that amount. So to repeat my question, do you still think it would be more cost effective to just pay it?
    I believe Tohme is most likely eligible for his finder’s fee. I stated such several times.

    and my statement was "I'll still maintain the legal fees spent on Neverland finder's fee issue isn't close to surpass the fees Tohme is asking any time soon".
    I believe you know the Estate lawyers do not perform pro-bono services for the Estate. Every legal service against Tohme has a cost assigned to it. Those services commenced 2012 and will continue it seems to 2016 at least for the NL portion.

    You may disagree with my statement.
    Last edited by ivy; 17-05-2015 at 10:44 PM.

  7. #830
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    Thread closed for cleaning. I will keep it closed for some time and open it when there is new developments and/or some time passed.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  9. #831
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    Finally Labor Commissioner has come to a decision (after 20 months).

    In short they already had said Neverland Finder's fee wasn't something they can consider (hence why it was put back on calendar), they voided the indemnity agreement and as for the management agreement they found some activities Tohme did to be in violation of Talent Agency Act and some weren't and they reduced the commission amount Tohme can get.

    Estate is appealing the decision. They want the LA superior court to held a new trial with no consideration given to Labor Commissioner trial.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  11. #832
    Points: 32,067, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,856
    Points
    32,067
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    17,502
    Thanked 16,213 Times in 4,830 Posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    Finally Labor Commissioner has come to a decision (after 20 months).

    In short they already had said Neverland Finder's fee wasn't something they can consider (hence why it was put back on calendar), they voided the indemnity agreement and as for the management agreement they found some activities Tohme did to be in violation of Talent Agency Act and some weren't and they reduced the commission amount Tohme can get.

    Estate is appealing the decision. They want the LA superior court to held a new trial with no consideration given to Labor Commissioner trial.
    Thanks Ivy for the update.
    So these are the issues on table:
    Tohme and Michael had 3 agreements:
    Finder’s fee agreement that give Tohme 10% of Neverland loan amount, 10% from any future sale of Neverland and 10% from any future transaction with Colony Capital.
    ^ That has nothing to do with LC, so that will be decided when they go to normal court?

    Services agreement which gave Tohme $35,000+ expenses per month and 15% all gross compensation received by Michael.
    ^That is the one that the estate fights with tooth and nail against, because isn't that the one that if they lose the trial, the estate have to pay percentage from TII etc that was done during his stay as MJ's "manager"? Ivy, what else falls under this agreement? What about Michael's art - paintings that Tohme gave away to L-S?

    Indemnity agreement in which Michael agrees to compensate Tohme for professional and legal expenses.
    ^LC voided that so the estate doesn't have to pay for those.

    Do you have an estimation or from what projects the estate has to pay if they lose this case?
    Last edited by Bubs; 22-07-2015 at 10:11 AM.

  12. #833
    elusive moonwalker
    Guest

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

    as for the management agreement they found some activities Tohme did to be in violation of Talent Agency Act and some weren't and they reduced the commission amount Tohme can get
    ----------------

    .thanks ivy .any idea of the exact activities that he was in violation of and how they relate in money amounts

  13. #834
    Points: 32,067, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,856
    Points
    32,067
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    17,502
    Thanked 16,213 Times in 4,830 Posts

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

    This case has been dragging so long that you nearly forget what was it about
    Anyways, there is Ivy's summary on the first page in case people have forgotten about details.

    - August 2008, Michael and Tohme enters into an indemnity agreement in which Michael agrees to compensate Tohme for reasonable expenses including personal and legal fees in connection to services Tohme provided to Michael.
    - Tohme says in this agreement Michael also agreed to not hold Tohme responsible for any damages, losses, claims, liabilities due to Tohme's services.

    Basically when he was working for Michael, he got MJ to sign all sort of agreements with nice perks for himself, and lastly he gets MJ to sign that agreement in case MJ gets sued (MJ has to pay for his legal presentation) or something goes wrong, Tohme is not to be held liable.

    - Estate says Tohme cause harm with his POA when in November 2008 he gifted Michael's art to Brett Livingstone-strong. Estate says the POA's don't give Tohme the power to gift anything and sign over Michael's copyrights.

    Ivy, do you know under which agreement this falls under - Services agreement or Indemnity agreement, or is it totally separate from those 3 agreements?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Bubs For This Useful Post:


  15. #835
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    If that POA claim is from Estate's complaint then it would be heard under probate case. I didn't see a mention of it on the document I have. TII concert deal was the violation but then LC says he can get commission from TII movie. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyway I'll post the document and longer summary later today.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  17. #836
    elusive moonwalker
    Guest

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

    yeah i agree. how can you get money from TII when the deal itself was a violation

  18. #837
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,074
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    423
    Thanked 34,433 Times in 7,251 Posts

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

    Document here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272285682/...-Determination

    Summary here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/est...ioner-decision

    Some findings were expected. Tohme wasn't licensed to be an agent / manager. TII concert is a performance contract for an artist. Tohme was involved in negotiations for TII hence this is violation of TAA. It also makes sense that Labor Commissioner considers some activities as illegal and some as legal.

    But how they divided it up TII concert from TII movie doesn't make much sense to me. they reject Estate's argument that only reason TII movie happened was because of TII concert. But even if we separate them why does Tohme gets commission from TII movie? That deal only happened after MJ's death and when Tohme was no longer MJ's manager etc. I don't get it.

    This appeal request and asking for a de novo trial means, unless parties settle we will get a full trial covering all the matters.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  19. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  20. #838
    elusive moonwalker
    Guest

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

    Thanks ivy. makes no sense to me. you cant have one without the other. call me paranoid old fan whos seen it all before but sometimes u wonder about the ppl behind these judgements and their ability to act when mjs name is involved

  21. #839
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,409
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 702 Posts

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post
    But how they divided it up TII concert from TII movie doesn't make much sense to me. they reject Estate's argument that only reason TII movie happened was because of TII concert. But even if we separate them why does Tohme gets commission from TII movie? That deal only happened after MJ's death and when Tohme was no longer MJ's manager etc. I don't get it.

    This appeal request and asking for a de novo trial means, unless parties settle we will get a full trial covering all the matters.
    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.

    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.

  22. #840
    Points: 10,361, Level: 67
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 89
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    1,807
    Points
    10,361
    Level
    67
    Thanks
    5,436
    Thanked 3,845 Times in 1,060 Posts

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

    Tohme has already robbed Michael blind in the past. There is no way the Estate should just hand over millions more to him without giving the life of his worthless life.

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Victory22 For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •