Sony and Jackson Estate reach agreement for Sony to acquire remaining half of Sony/ATV Music Publish

[Allusio]

Michael wanted to gift it to his children as an investment... Not something untouchable or more important than his own music.

It is impossible to live a life and do right things without looking around and taking into account all the circumstances.

Yes, Michael is NOT here and he can NOT help his Estate or his children with anything more than - this catalog is still here to sell.

That IS Michael’s achievement.

 

[Annita]

Prove it! you can not prove your opinion. opinion is different to fact. huge difference!

It is the oposite. You can not prove your opinion and it`s a fact that in the Murray-trial no one could prove and there was no indication that MJ was addicted from any medication.

But now back on topic.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

Whatever the final valuation for Sony/ATV, Jackson’s investment in the 1985 acquisition of ATV will have paid the Jackson estate $1.31 billion when the deal is done -- and it will continue to generate returns for the Jackson estate. The estate still owns its 10 percent stake in EMI Music Publishing -- which means if the EMI investment is ever unwound, the Jackson estate should, at the least, be looking at another $220 million windfall, and quite possibly more than that.

If that happens, Jackson’s investment in ATV could end up yielding his estate at least $1.53 billion -- and it all began with an $11 million cash investment. "You have to say hats off to Branca,” says an industry source. “He was with Jackson when they bought the ATV catalog -- and look at how they parlayed that over the years.”

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7262961/inside-sony-atvs-buyout-michael-jackson-estate

and BTW, this is without all MJ income money from his album/single sales and tours and any other official projects associated with his name that have generated over 1 billion.

That makes 2.5 billion dollars for Michael Jackson!

I dont know If all Elvis songs are in Mijac Music, but here is the full list of 60 Elvis Presley songs:


AN AMERICAN TRILOGY (Mickey Newbury)
AND THE GRASS WON’T PAY NO MIND (Neil Diamond)
BIG BOSS MAN (Al Smith/Luther Dixon)
BOSSA NOVA BABY (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
BURNING LOVE (Dennis Linde)
DIRTY DIRTY FEELING (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
DON’T (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
DON’T CRY DADDY (Mac Davis)
FOOLS FALL IN LOVE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
FUNNY HOW TIME SLIPS AWAY (Willie Nelson)
GET BACK (John Lennon/Paul McCartney)
GIRLS, GIRLS, GIRLS (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
HE IS MY EVERYTHING (Dallas Frazier)
HEARTBREAK HOTEL (Mae Boren Axton/Tommy Durden/Elvis Presley)
HELP ME (Larry Gatlin)
HEY JUDE (John Lennon/Paul McCartney)
HOT DOG (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
HOW’S THE WORLD TREATING YOU (Chet Atkins/Boudleaux Bryant)
I CAN’T STOP LOVING YOU (Don Gibson)
I FEEL SO BAD (Chuck Willis)
I LOVE YOU BECAUSE (Leon Payne)
I WANT TO BE FREE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
IN THE GARDEN (Gordon Stoker/Neal Matthews)
IN THE GHETTO (Mac Davis)
IT’S A SIN (Fred Rose/Zeb Turner)
JAILHOUSE ROCK (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
JUST TELL HER JIM SAID HELLO (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
KING CREOLE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
LAWDY MISS CLAWDY (Lloyd Price)
LITTLE EGYPT (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
LONG TALL SALLY (Richard Penniman/Entoris Johnson/Robert Blackwell)
LOVE COMING DOWN (Jerry Chesnut)
LOVE LETTERS (Victor Young/Edward Heyman)
LOVE ME (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
LOVING YOU (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
MAKE THE WORLD GO AWAY (Hank Cochran)
MIRACLE OF THE ROSARY (Lee Denson)
NEVER AGAIN (Billy Edd Wheeler/Jerry Chesnut)
ONE NIGHT (Dave Bartholomew/Pearl King/Anita Steiman)
RELEASE ME (Eddie Miller/Dub Williams/Robert Yount)
RIP IT UP (Robert Blackwell/John Marascalco)
SANTA CLAUS IS BACK IN TOWN (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
SAVED (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
SHE’S NOT YOU (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller/Doc Pomus)
STEADFAST, LOYAL, AND TRUE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
SUSPICIOUS MINDS (Mark James)
SWEET CAROLINE (Neil Diamond)
THAT’S WHEN YOUR HEARTACHES BEGIN (Fred Fisher/Billy Hill/William Raskin)
THERE GOES MY EVERYTHING (Dallas Frazier)
TREAT ME NICE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
TROUBLE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)
T-R-O-U-B-L-E (Jerry Chesnut)
TUTTI FRUTTI (Richard Penniman/Dorothy LaBostrie/Joe Lubin)
WALK A MILE IN MY SHOES (Joe South)
WEAR MY RING AROUND YOUR NECK (Russell Moody/Bert Carroll)
WELCOME TO MY WORLD (Ray Winkler/John Hathcock)
WITCHCRAFT (Dave Bartholomew/Pearl King)
YESTERDAY (John Lennon/Paul McCartney)
(YOU’RE SO SQUARE) BABY I DON’T CARE (Jerry Leiber/Mike Stoller)

In 1976, MJ formed MiJac Music, two years later, he and Randy formed Miran Publishing, Jackie had his own publishing too, Siggie Music.

In 1980, the Jacksons formed Peacock Productions. Joseph Jackson had started Joseph Jackson Productions around the same time.

So MJ probably did know a bit before hearing about buying stock from other musicians. So after he fully established him as a musician, he and his attorney looked at what was the most valuable thing to buy and that was the Northern Songs/ATV catalog, which just happened to include 200 of the Beatles' songs but they had other songs in there by other artists. I hate it now how people keep referring to it as "The Beatles catalog" when it's not, the only reason they call it so is because the Beatles signed rights to some of their songs to Northern Songs in 1969 after settling a lawsuit.

MJ also bought the South Carolinian state anthem, I forget what year. I don't know if he gets a lot of money for that but sensing it's a state song he probably does own a lot of stock on it. I wonder which of the catalogs it's under?

MJJ Music could've worked out had MJ moved the label to another distributor and not through Epic. Because it did have some success but at the end it fell out of favor as did the artists who signed with them (3T, Brownstone, etc.).

Sony have no control over Michael's music from 1979-88. Michael now owns the masters to all of his albums from Off The Wall to Invincible to Thriller25 etc, plus he owns all of his music videos that are sold on iTunes except for 2 or 3 videos. Just go to iTunes and you will see that all of Michael's albums are licensed to MJJ Productions.Inc, not Sony BMG Entertainments as The Jacksons albums are.

Mijac is thought to be worth roughly $100-150 million, according to many reports.

BTW, did you know that ATV catalog was once administered by EMI Music?
from my archive:

THE MEDIA BUSINESS; EMI to Pay Michael Jackson $70 Million to Manage Music
By ANDREA ADELSON
Published: Thursday, November 25, 1993

The pop singer Michael Jackson said through his lawyer yesterday that EMI Music Publishing would begin managing his 6,000-title music catalogue, which includes most early Beatles hits, in a deal being described as the most lucrative in music publishing.

Mr. Jackson will receive $70 million in advance against revenue that EMI expected to generate managing the publishing rights to ATV Music. The catalogue, acquired by Mr. Jackson in 1985 for $47.5 million, includes the classic Lennon-McCartney Beatles compositions, as well as songs from Little Richard, Elvis Presley and the Pointer Sisters.

Total revenue over the deal's five-year term is estimated to be $150 million, said Martin N. Bandier, president of EMI Music Publishing, which controls 900,000 songs in its own catalogues. Financing for Acquisitions

As part of the deal, EMI had agreed to provide financing for acquisitions of other music catalogues in a partnership arrangement, in which EMI and the singer would share future ownership.

Such an arrangement increased the value of the deal, making it the largest in music publishing, according to John Branca, Mr. Jackson's lawyer.

The deal comes at a difficult time for the singer. Mr. Jackson, who recently ended a world tour so he could be treated for addiction to pain-killers, is believed to be receiving medical treatment in London, according to British news reports. He is facing a lawsuit in California by a 13-year-old boy, who contends Mr. Jackson sexually molested him. Mr. Jackson has denied the charges. Criminal investigations into the allegations are being conducted, and the boy's civil suit has been set for trial on March 21.

"ATV's use and value is impervious to Michael's own success," Mr. Branca said.

ATV, along with Mijac Music, which controls rights to Mr. Jackson's own song writing, make Mr. Jackson one of the largest independent music publishers in the world, Mr. Branca said. Mijac Music is excluded from the EMI deal. 'Major Additions'

"We expect major additions in the next few years," he said, noting that a probable first target would be the Jobete catalogue of the Motown Records Corporation, owned by Barry Gordy. Several years ago, Mr. Gordy turned down a $175 million offer for Jobete, which then had half the revenue of ATV, Mr. Branca said. Last year, ATV had sales of $25 million.

Mr. Bandier of EMI said his company had managed ATV Music under its previous owner, Robert Holmes a Court, the late Australian financier. And EMI had outbid Mr. Jackson by $500,000 for the ATV catalogue in 1985. "But when Michael agreed to go to Perth to perform at a charity benefit I knew we were out of luck," Mr. Bandier recalled. "We can't moonwalk."

MCA, a unit of the Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, had managed the ATV catalogue under a three-year contract that will expire on Dec. 31.

 

[mjchris]

It is the oposite. You can not prove your opinion and it`s a fact that in the Murray-trial no one could prove and there was no indication that MJ was addicted from any medication.

But now back on topic.

you can not prove your opinion.
the fact is that murray didnt say anything. just sit there.
Amen. Back to topic

 

[ivy]

Yes let's please get back to topic. This drug talk is highly irrelevant on this thread.

 

[etoile 37]

Michael wanted to gift it to his children as an investment... Not something untouchable or more important than his own music.

My point is, they should ASK his children how important it is to THEM before saying it's just an investment. It's their catalogue, not John Branca's. If the children said they were happy about the sell I wouldn't see any problem. But I think there's something very wrong if they're selling things they want to keep against their will.

 

[Allusio]

My point is, they should ASK his children how important it is to THEM before saying it's just an investment. It's their catalogue, not John Branca's. If the children said they were happy about the sell I wouldn't see any problem. But I think there's something very wrong if they're selling things they want to keep against their will.

I even do not know what to think.

How something as important as this can depend simply on what children want?

Sometimes right things are those we do not want at all but as adults, we have to take it.

It is not a game of who wants what.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Asking their opinion about say neverland is one thing as it holds childhood memories etc etc. but the cat is a very diff thing.

 

[krikzil]

Rather than being insulting, you could have just left me with Sony had an opinion..which has nothing to do with what I was trying to find out from you about how this contract was constructed for Michael, and how it was constructed for Sony.
You could simply leave me with what kind of point you were trying to make. The topic is that the transaction happened. Perhaps YOUR topic is.supposedly, an opinion that sony supposedly had...which, again..is just an opinion. So you can make the effort to insult me,about my reading comprehension, which I have a problem with,(I clicked 'Thanks' on quite a few posts, which I comprehended, perfectly) or just tell me what your point was, and just leave it at that. You don't help your case by attacking me, personally. What..you don't think how sony thinks, influences how they make up a contract?

Attacking you? Lol.

 

[etoile 37]

I even do not know what to think.

How something as important as this can depend simply on what children want?

Sometimes right things are those we do not want at all but as adults, we have to take it.

It is not a game of who wants what.

It doesn't depend only on what they want, but their opinion should still be taken into account. It's THEIR inheritance. Not ours. And not John Branca's. Prince is an adult now, but do the executors even bother discussing these things with him? That's what I would like to know.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

A Timeline of Michael Jackson's Best Bet: The Sony/ATV Catalog

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7262944/timeline-michael-jacksons-best-bet-sony-atv

Michael Jackson was a famously profligate spender, renowned in his latter years for endless shopping sprees that nearly broke the bank. As a result, at the time of his death in 2009, the self-proclaimed King of Pop was $500 million in the hole.

Before his shocking overdose at age 50, rumors repeatedly swirled that Jackson was on the verge of a forced sale off one of his prized, and most valuable, assets: his 50 percent stake in the Sony/ATV catalog. That deal finally closed this week and the sale price is proof that Jackson's 1985 purchase of half of the music publishing company whose holdings include iconic songs by The Beatles and Bob Dylan was perhaps the shrewdest move of his 40-plus-year career.

A look back at the history of Jackson and the Sony/ATV catalog:

1957: The music publishing company is founded as a division of Associated Television, whose owner, Sir Lew Grade, was a renowned British media mogul in the '50s and '60s.

1969: Beatles John Lennon and Paul McCartney fail in their bid to gain control of their publishing after their publishing company, Northern Songs, is sold to Grade.

1982: Jackson learns about the importance (and lucrative nature) of song publishing from soon-to-be-former friend and musical companion Paul McCartney, during their London sessions for the song "Say, Say Say."

1985: Informed by attorney John Branca (who would later be part of the brain trust handling his estate) that the 4,000-song ATV catalog was available, Jackson paid a then-unheard-of price of $47.5 million for the rights to the priceless Lennon-McCartney catalog, as well as songs by Bruce Springsteen, Cher, Elvis, Hank Williams, Little Richard and The Rolling Stones.

1988: CBS sells its recording division to the Sony Corp. for $2 billion in cash. The purchase of the world's then-most powerful record company, home to Columbia, Epic and Portrait Records, included a deep roster of acts including MJ, Dylan, Springsteen, Willie Nelson, Barbra Streisand and Billy Joel. The company was renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991.

1995: Sony and Jackson form Sony/ATV Music Publishing after Jackson sells a 50 percent share of ATV to Sony for around $100 million.

2002: Sony/ATV buys country music publisher Acuff-Rose for $157 million, scooping up the rights to 55,000 country songs by the likes of Hank Williams, Roy Orbison, Boudelaux Bryant, Marty Robbins and The Everly Brothers.

2006: Under a crushing debt load in excess of $270 million, Jackson agrees to give Sony an option to buy half of his stake in Sony/ATV for around $250 million.

2007: Sony/ATV acquires one of the crown jewels of publishing catalogs with its purchase of the songs of Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller. The deal brings into the fold such iconic songs as "Jailhouse Rock," "Hound Dog," "On Broadway" and "There Goes My Baby."

2008: Sony/ATV purchases the international administration rights to Famous Music for $370 million from the Universal Music Group. Among the hits in the 125,000-song catalog are songs by Eminem, Shakira, Pink and Beck.

2009: Jackson dies on June 25, 2009 at age 50, leaving behind three young children and an estate in dire financial straits. His longtime attorney, John Branca, and music industry veteran John McClain take control of the estate and begin an ambitious plan to pull the star's assets into the black.

2012: A group led by Sony/ATV and the Jackson estate (among others) close a $2.2 billion deal for the purchase of EMI Music Publishing. EMI's assets count more than 1.3 million songs, including 251 Beatles compositions, as well as songs by The Police, Justin Bieber, One Direction and The Beach Boys.

2015: In October, Sony triggers the buy-sell process with the Jackson estate that allows it to buy out MJ's stake in 750,000-song Sony/ATV catalog, which now includes hits by everyone from Marvin Gaye to Taylor Swift, A$AP Rocky, Fall Out Boy, Adele and Lady Gaga.

2016: March 15, Sony announces plans to complete its acquisition of the estate's 50 percent of Sony/ATV for $750 million.. A definitive agreement is expected by March 31, with deal closure to come in late 2016 or early 2017, pending regulatory approval.

 

[krikzil]

I know this has nothing to do with the Sony buyout of Michael's share of the catalog but I had to call Billboard and several other media outlets out last night when I read these articles-I am so sick and tired of people continuing to push the myth that Michael outbid Paul for that catalog in 85 and their friendship crashed and burned because of it.
Of course, Paul is to blame for a lot of that, because he gave a lot of "whiny" interviews about it in the beginning-

But he did set the record straight many years ago, and yet this myth continues. Paul and Yoko did consider buying the catalog themselves, BUT Paul only wanted the Beatles songs, not the whole catalog. And Yoko thought it was just too expensive. Paul also considered buying them himself, but decided against it, because it would turn John's fans against him.
So when it actually came up for bid, they declined right of first offer. They did NOT bid on the catalog when Michael did. Yoko even made an announcement after the sale that she was extremely pleased that Michael had ended up with the catalog.

To this day, I see people trouncing Michael left and right for "stealing" the songs away from Paul (who had the money to buy 10 of those catalogs back then) and articles like this don't help.

In reality it's Koppelman/Bandier who lost out but of course Paul makes for the better story.

 

[redfrog]

So, companies can't change their minds? We really have no idea what Sony's plan is for the Catalog but the emails indicate that doing something with the Catalog has been on the radar. Apparently they did devise some plan for it and triggered the clause to put things in motion. Given all the upheaval in Sony it's not really a surprise to me. They've been selling, reorganizing and spinning assets off for years now trying to shore up the company.

Just because someone in the company at some point thought about selling their share does not mean
that Sony's leadership as a whole ever seriously considered that. If they ever thought that streaming
makes publishing less profitable I sure would like to see the data their used because it's just blatantly untrue
when they project a 23% increase in profit. MJ had no doubt that Sony wanted his catalog
and they wouldn't have bothered to make a deal with him in 2006 if that had not been the case.
So we are supposed to believe that between that and 2015 Sony at some point seriously was considering
doing the exact opposite of what they wanted to do between at least 2001 and 2009 and in 2015 because?

The bottom line they bought a catalog they believe will yield even higher profits in the future
and that money won't be going to the Estate at the same time who knows how what's left of the 750m will be invested
and how profitable that will be if at all but Branca already dares say that this is all good for MJ's kids.

Both Michael and Paul got over this issue decades ago, so should fans on both sides and the press.

I wonder if all the whiners would still whine if one of the other bidders had gotten it. MJ was not the only one who wanted it
but it's only a problem if he wins?

"The competitors in the 1984 sale of ATV Music included Charles Koppelman and Marty Bandier's New York-based The Entertainment Co., Virgin Records, New York real estate tycoon Samuel J. LeFrak, and financier Charles Knapp.
On November 20, 1984, Jackson sent a bid of $46 million to Holmes à Court. Branca suggested the amount of the bid after having spent time evaluating the earnings of the catalog and learning of another bid for $39 million.
One Holmes à Court rep described the negotiations as a "game of poker." Jackson's team thought they had reached a deal several times, but new bidders would enter the picture or they would encounter new areas of debate.
"

I wonder why all the MJ bashers don't jump on those guys too. After all it's not that they thought
I won't bid on it because it's wrong to take it from Paul!
Who made that 39m bid? Not Paul that's for sure.

"In June 1985, they learned Koppelman/Bandier had made a tentative agreement with Holmes à Court to buy the catalog for $50 million"

Did anyone ever say that Koppelman and Bandier betrayed Paul? Nope.

Such hypocrisy.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

As for the "the self-proclaimed King of Pop" thing in the article:


Michael Jackson NEVER SELF-PROCLAIMED - King Of Pop.

For the first time, the title KOP appeared in the New York Post article, on February 8th, 1984.

Here is the proof - the article:

This is a typical tabloidish scheme and attempt how to reduce or infect the positive financial info about any mega deals and investments connected to MJ, especially in connection with ATV catalog, beatles and Paul Mccartney.

Anything positive has to be infected with BS.


FYI, do you remember this from 1991? This waas BEFORE Sony/ATV merging.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

As for the "the self-proclaimed King of Pop" thing in the article:


Michael Jackson NEVER SELF-PROCLAIMED - King Of Pop.

For the first time, the title KOP appeared in the New York Post article, on February 8th, 1984.

Here is the proof - the article:

This is a typical tabloidish scheme and attempt how to reduce or infect the positive financial info about any mega deals and investments connected to MJ, especially in connection with ATV catalog, beatles and Paul Mccartney.

Anything positive has to be infected with BS.


FYI, do you remember this? This waas BEFORE Sony/ATV merging.

They stay trying it with that self proclaimed King of Pop mess.
And even if if it was "self proclaimed" who else would be fit for the title other then MJ.
Honestly MJ isn't the King of Pop he's the King/Emperor of all music and entertainment.

He's more then earned his place at the top, and I dislike when people try to take it from him.

 

[Allusio]

It doesn't depend only on what they want, but their opinion should still be taken into account. It's THEIR inheritance. Not ours. And not John Branca's. Prince is an adult now, but do the executors even bother discussing these things with him? That's what I would like to know.

I do not know if anyone bothered to discuss these things with Prince or not.

I guess, Prince has enough weight to say that he wants to take part in discussions.

If Prince did not express such interest, I see no point to blame John Branca for not asking and doing HIS job.

 

[HIStory]

I would imagine if the beneficiaries had strong feelings that the executors do not act in their best interest they would have legal possibilities to express that and to go against the executors' actions. Ivy?

 

[maja]

I doubt that the children have much insight in the matter (the legal issues etc.). And considering their young age and that they have rather greedy relatives, I'm quite happy that the fate of the brand Michael Jackson lies in the hands of the estate. And the estate is legally obliged to do the best for the children financially, which they do.

 

[etoile 37]

The executors don't receive 10% from the catalogue, but if they invest the money elsewhere, will they then get 10% of the income that new investment will bring?

 

[OnirMJ]

Prove it! you can not prove your opinion. opinion is different to fact. huge difference!

I don't need to prove it. It is already proven. And it is not my opinion. Professional expert testified about it in the murder case so even if it's not a fact fact it is much more than your opinion. The expert who testified about it had some pretty strong evidences that Michael was not an addict and that he was not addicted but dependent so I guess his professional testimony means much more than your opinion given his expertise and references.

 

[ivy]

The executors don't receive 10% from the catalogue, but if they invest the money elsewhere, will they then get 10% of the income that new investment will bring?

this is what was reported

"The men agreed in February 2010 to accept 10 percent of the gross entertainment-related earnings of the estate, minus money generated by Jackson’s 50 percent interest in the Sony-ATV music catalog and earnings from “This Is It,” a film compiled from the singer’s final rehearsals."

2012 article said "The executors also have been excluded an interest in Jackson's music, which has sold briskly since his death on June 25, 2009, at age 50."

I personally understand "gross entertainment related earnings of the Estate" as earnings from the new projects & deals.

 

[OnirMJ]

ok, this would go to far in the direction off topic. so i dont want to start with 'propofol' and other things.

Propofol is non addictive drug.

 

[144000]

Please don't bring Ke$ha into this conversation. She can't be a bigger liar than she is. It's disgusting to talk about MJ's real problems with Sony Music and her money grab, made up "problems" with them. It's really unfair and wrong to even mention her when talking about MJ.

Even though the tendancy is to think a woman makes it up when she is raped, and I blatantly disagree with you about her claims, though I agree that MJ's case is important, I'll leave this alone because this is not the subject of this thread.

 

[barbee0715]

I would imagine if the beneficiaries had strong feelings that the executors do not act in their best interest they would have legal possibilities to express that and to go against the executors' actions. Ivy?

Probate assigned the kids their own attorney, so she's supposed to be looking out for the kids' interest. Wouldn't she be consulted?

 

[OnirMJ]

Even though the tendancy is to think a woman makes it up when she is raped...

No. She is not raped. She said it herself. On video. Under oath. It's not "the tendency to think a woman makes it up when she is raped". It's the tendency to think Ke$ha makes it up because she is a liar. Don't twist my words!

 

[ivy]

I would imagine if the beneficiaries had strong feelings that the executors do not act in their best interest they would have legal possibilities to express that and to go against the executors' actions. Ivy?

there is always legal options. they can take it to the judge and even ask executors to be removed if they are mishandling the estate.

However the burden would be the "best interest" part. Everyone needs to understand what a probate is. Executors identify the property/assets, pay debts and taxes and distribute what is remaining to the beneficiaries. So for example "Catalog shouldn't be sold because it has sentimental value" might not mean much from legal and probate perspective. It's routinely said that "there is no room for sentiment in business".

 

[HIStory]

there is always legal options. they can take it to the judge and even ask executors to be removed if they are mishandling the estate.

However the burden would be the "best interest" part. Everyone needs to understand what a probate is. Executors identify the property/assets, pay debts and taxes and distribute what is remaining to the beneficiaries. So for example "Catalog shouldn't be sold because it has sentimental value" might not mean much from legal and probate perspective. It's routinely said that "there is no room for sentiment in business".

Yes, I understand that. However, I think they could sue, for example, if they felt the executors are in a conflict of interest and are acting in favour of another party against what is in the beneficiaries' interest.

It's another matter, but I googled a bit and it looks like they could also sue the executors if they lose against the IRS:

The most potentially damaging risk is liability for actions undertaken on behalf of the estate. The estate's beneficiaries, who are likely your relatives, may sue you if any of the following situations occur:

You fail to properly secure and insure the assets of the estate, and it suffers a loss as a result.
You diminish the estate through imprudent investments or inadequate record keeping.
You fail to pay taxes on the estate, in which case you may be personally liable for interest and penalties.
You sell an asset of the estate without authority to do so.
You delay settlement of the estate unnecessarily or are tardy in executing important transactions.
You engage in actions that constitute a conflict of interest.
You improperly delegate decisions to others who have no legal authority over the estate.
You approve a coexecutor's or coadministrator's breach of duty.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...nsiderations+for+Executors+and+Administrators

 

[Prince Of Pop]

My 2 cents on this, great I'm glad it's over and done with. Michael should have sold it when he was still alive. Same in regards to Neverland. Nothing but trouble in his final decade of life. MJ's own music is still protected. Sony doesn't have a share of that at all. IMO that's what is the most important thing.

Also, the ATV catalog is mostly famous because of The Beatles. IMO The Beatles franchise is slowly fading away. Yeah they still sell cds & dvds. You can only milk a cow for so long. It's a cow that's been milked to death. Eventually the Beatles generation will eventually die off. My generation and generations after mine, they might buy the Beatles, but it won't be as huge. Today's generation on the other hand, the majority has proven they don't give a rats ass about the Beatles. I think in the end, it was a smart move by the estate to sell the catalog while it's still fairly high in value. Maybe they know something we don't know. For all we know, that catalog could start to devalue in the near future.

People need to stop freaking out over it.

 

[ercan]

 

[mjchris]

I don't need to prove it. It is already proven. And it is not my opinion. Professional expert testified about it in the murder case so even if it's not a fact fact it is much more than your opinion. The expert who testified about it had some pretty strong evidences that Michael was not an addict and that he was not addicted but dependent so I guess his professional testimony means much more than your opinion given his expertise and references.

sure u have to prove it. prove and ask mj himself cause he is the one who knows it, and can tell you. or murray for example. and its not proven until you ask himself, and not some experts saying some things. they only assumed something, and that is not a fact. and there was no strong evidence.