Latest on MJJC

Let's look at Sony. . . .

celine said:
Sony and BMG quit playing solo in the race to the watchdog's office
Mergers and acquisitions are back: big five play musical chairs
Friday 7 November 2003 10.58 GMT

Sony and BMG yesterday announced they intend to merge their recorded music businesses, bringing together artists such as BMG's Pink and Sony's Beyoncé Knowles. They said they have signed a non-binding letter of intent to form a joint venture which would be half owned by the Japanese electronics group Sony and half by the German media group, Bertelsmann, which owns BMG. The announcement extends the game of musical chairs that has been going on in the record industry. EMI is understood to be close to securing a $1bn (£600m) loan to fund an acquisition of the recorded music assets of Time Warner.

Sony BMG, as the new venture would be known, would only include the recorded music divisions of BMG and Sony, not music publishing, and Sony's Japanese music business would not be included. No cash would change hands, it is believed. Due diligence will continue, and the companies could be ready to sign a deal within a month, a source close to the situation said. The companies confirmed that BMG chief Rolf Schmidt-Holtz would be chairman of the new joint venture while Sony's boss, Andrew Lack, would be chief executive.

Sony BMG has already had informal discussions with the tough competition regulators at the European commission. They would formally ask for permission to merge after a deal has been signed. The progress of the new venture puts pressure on EMI and Warner to complete their deal. It is widely expected in the industry that regulators could allow the big five music majors to become four, but not for four to become three. Therefore who gets to the regulators first could be crucial. In 2000, regulators blocked a merger between EMI and Warner Music.

The other music major is Universal, the world's largest recording business with a 26% market share, which is excluded on competition grounds. The combination of Sony and BMG would have a 25% share while EMI and Warner would have 24%. The music majors are trying to merge so they can cut costs and alleviate the problems the record industry has experienced in recent years. It has suffered from illegal downloading of music from the internet and the better quality of bootleg CDs. Worldwide music sales have been in free fall now for three years.

However, the music publishing business, which exploits music rights rather than trying to break new acts, has fared better. At present this is not included in any of the mega-mergers being discussed. "If you were patching up a sinking ship, the recorded music vessel would have the bigger leaks," said Marcus Anselm, a music specialist at corporate finance boutique LongAcre Partners. "The current business model for recorded music going forward just doesn't work... but I am not sure that a merger is a long-term answer." Time Warner is considering a sale of its music publishing business, Warner Chappell, and several independent publishers, including Carlin America and Peermusic, are talking to financial backers about a deal. Sony ATV, a joint venture between Sony Corporation and singer Michael Jackson, is also looking at acquiring Warner Chappell.

It is not clear whether Bertelsmann would keep hold of BMG's music publishing business or seek to sell it once its recorded music division had joined with Sony's. As Sony BMG's letter of intent is non-binding, speculation continued that BMG could be playing a game with Sony in an attempt to bring Warner back to the negotiating table. They had been trying to do a deal until talks broke down in September, when Warner turned to EMI and BMG to Sony. A source close to BMG said: "These [Sony-BMG] talks are exclusive, a third party couldn't come in."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/nov/07/citynews.business

- - -

Sony BMG seeks Michael Jackson's backing for move to sign songwriters
Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor
July 5, 2007

Sony is in talks with Michael Jackson to renegotiate the terms of their music publishing joint-venture, which would allow Sony BMG, the sister company, to sign songwriters for the first time.


A clause in the existing agreement between the Thriller singer and the Japanese electronics giant prevents Sony backing a music publisher to rival their Sony/ATV venture, which has the copyrights to all 252 Beatles songs in its catalogue. If Sony can persuade its volatile and cash-strapped business partner to relax or even erase the clause as part of the negotiations, that would allow Sony BMG, the recorded music concern, to become a part-competitor.


Sony BMG is desperate to enter the music publishing market because it would help to offset the collapse in recorded music and would allow the record label behind Justin Timberlake and Bob Dylan to sign up songwriters in tandem with acts. Recorded music sales are expected to be off by as much as 11 per cent this year, but publishing has been more stable because it generates income from growing areas, such as radio airplay and use of music in advertising as well as CD and download sales.


Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Sony BMG’s chief executive, said in May that “we will do everything to reenter the market for music publishing”. His remarks surprised rival executives, who knew that a decision to go into publishing was not within his power. However, the existence of the previously unknown discussions explains his confidence.


Discussions between Sony and Jackson are at an early stage and could collapse. Relations between the two have been strained in the past. Sony/ATV has faced problems making acquisitions because contacting the controversial star quickly enough to agree bids has been difficult. Jackson recently agreed to allow Sony/ATV to expand aggressively under Marty Bandier, the newly appointed chief executive. The company now also has an option, which it has so far declined to exercise, to buy a further 25 per cent of the business from its partner.
It is unclear how far the shareholder agreement between the two parties will be relaxed. There are hopes that Jackson will not have to be paid, although if that is the case he is likely to insist that Sony BMG can only sign up a handful of songwriters.


Half-owned by Sony and Bertlesmann, of Germany, Sony BMG is the second-largest recorded music company in the world, but it is unique because the company does not include a publishing arm. The music business is traditionally split into two halves. Recorded music operations find, develop and promote artists, while music publishing units handle and manage songwriter copyrights. Its rivals Universal, EMI and Warner Music all conduct both activities.


Sony and Sony BMG declined to comment.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2028494.ece
Click to expand...


Great articles!


vlcsnap-2009-09-15-11h36m25s42.jpg


Worth a thousand words and billions and billons of dollars.
 
very interesting article. No wonder sony wanted Michael out. They need that $1 billion. They are losing money. Well let us see what Branca does? I dont think he will want to negotiate with Sony, he is in for the Money as well.
Paul McCartney underestimated mMichael. Well the plot thickens..
 
parli123 said:
Well let us see what Branca does? I dont think he will want to negotiate with Sony, he is in for the Money as well.
Click to expand...

Watch him closely. That will naming him as executor was just too convenient. Is he being paid by Sony? We don't know. . . . I give ATV six months with the estate. Or less. Sony WILL get it. Just WATCH.
 
I will ALWAYS wonder WHY!! Why didn't Paul McCartney--even without Yoko's assistance---buy the catalogue when it was for sale in the 1980's.
Even after Yoko didn't want to buy any share of the catalogue, Paul should have known how valuable it was.
Dawn
 
Victoria83 said:
Watch him closely. That will naming him as executor was just too convenient. Is he being paid by Sony? We don't know. . . . I give ATV six months with the estate. Or less. Sony WILL get it. Just WATCH.
Click to expand...


Oh, no, no..... :doh::(


MJ'sOzfan said:
I will ALWAYS wonder WHY!! Why didn't Paul McCartney--even without Yoko's assistance---buy the catalogue when it was for sale in the 1980's.
Even after Yoko didn't want to buy any share of the catalogue, Paul should have known how valuable it was.
Dawn
Click to expand...

Skinflint.

I've found it in my dictionary. Think that is the right word :scratch:
 
Gaiaschild said:
I found an interesting article where Allen Grubman also represented CBS and Billy joel , the same conflict of interest, so it seems he has done this before!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/76712
Click to expand...

Yes, they are noted for it, that's how it is. I'm thinking you maybe didn't read that 'Tommy Boy' excerpt article, it's longish, but interesting.


Victoria83 said:
Watch him closely. That will naming him as executor was just too convenient. Is he being paid by Sony? We don't know. . . . I give ATV six months with the estate. Or less. Sony WILL get it. Just WATCH.
Click to expand...

:(

What about Mijac, have you any idea when this expiration is due Victoria?

"Separately, sources say that Sony/ATV also gets a first look at purchasing Jackson's own Mijac catalog upon the expiration of its administration deal with Warner/Chappell."
 
Victoria83 said:
Watch him closely. That will naming him as executor was just too convenient. Is he being paid by Sony? We don't know. . . . I give ATV six months with the estate. Or less. Sony WILL get it. Just WATCH.
Click to expand...

Disturbing but likely. Thanks for this thread. I was also wondering WHY there was such extensive video on the TII tour, I mean we've seen behind the scenes before but nothing to the extent of the footage they captured as well as the quality. Branca claims (from one of the earlier posts) that Michael wanted a concert movie? yet he also claims that they only met on the 17th, 9 days before Mike passed, so did Michael practice 10 hrs a day for them to get all of that footage, or was it already being captured in HQ just for the hell of it. Random questions...
 
Buying and selling music - that's what Branca famous for....yep in less than a year Beatles will be sold. Do we know how legitimate these creditors that Branca talking about?

Music Publishing

In 1985, Branca facilitated one of the most famous music publishing deals in history, the purchase of The Beatles' and Little Richard's music catalogs to Michael Jackson.

In 2008, changes in the tax law that allowed songwriters to pay a small capital gains tax instead of a larger income tax prompted Branca to advise some of his clients that this was the perfect time to sell their music publishing catalogs, thereby establishing new precedents in valuation. Ensuing sales included: Kurt Cobain and Nirvana copyrights; Steve Tyler's Aerosmith publishing catalog of 160 songs to Primary Wave Music Publishing for $50 million; Julian Lennon's share of The Beatles' royalties, and the catalog of the legendary song-writing team of Leiber & Stoller to Sony/ATV, which created a new yardstick by which the worth of catalogs was measured. He also sold Berry Gordy's Jobete Music to EMI, which changed the method and standard by which catalogs were valued.

In 2009, in a highly-watched move, Branca beat out Wall Street investment banking houses to represent the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization and sold their catalog for an excess of $200 million, despite predictions by the Wall Street Journal and others that the catalog wouldn't fetch more than $150 million.

In addition, Branca helped songwriters such as Don Henley of The Eagles regain copyrights of their songs, or to help them secure royalties that they’ve lost, as he did with John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival.

These deals prompted Marty Bandier, CEO and chairman of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, to call Branca the "number one music publishing lawyer in the country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Branca
 
Does Michael (Sony/ATV) owns 100%?
These remastered Beatles available in stores now, are they part Michael's share?
 
Moonlight said:
Yes, they are noted for it, that's how it is. I'm thinking you maybe didn't read that 'Tommy Boy' excerpt article, it's longish, but interesting.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the article , I did read it, I must admit I didn't take it all in as a lot of names I don't know so didn't connect them to anything. I thought the other article had some other interesting info on allen grubmean on him being corrupt. It helps me get the feel for what these people are about
 
Last edited:
TheLastTear said:
Oh, no, no..... :doh::(
Click to expand...
If that happens it will say a LOT about possible motive. :sad:

Skinflint.

I've found it in my dictionary. Think that is the right word :scratch:
Click to expand...
:lol: PERFECT word. That sums it up!

And then McCartney got all pissed off at Michael because MJ out manuevered him. :doh: You can't be CHEAP about investments!
 
great thread.

Things that stand out to me are Thome Thome and the lack of info available on him. It's like he only just came into existance when he started working with Michael.

Something about John Branca back on the scene just before MJ died is odd too. It seems too much of a coincidence that he is named as an executor in MJ's 2002 will, then has a falling out with Michael only to come back onto the scene right before MJ died, to then be the one who comes forward and quickly with the will that shows him as an executor. The no contest clause is strange too. Doesn't seem like the kind of think Michael would have wanted / needed on his will when his only beneficiaries are his beloved Mother, his 3 children and unknown charities. I mean, to put a clause in there that if these people who he loved and trusted more than anyone else in the world were to challenge something in the will, they would be disinherited?? To me, that sounds like something Branca wanted in there knowing that Katherine would likely want to challenge him as an executor and this was a way to stop her.

It's all about that catalogue. Such a corrupt world we live in and when something and someone is worth THAT much money, you can be sure there are people who would do anything to gain it for themselves!

I also want to know more about the Dileo and Thome connection. I think it is odd how Dileo was suddenly back on the scene after all these years, along with Branca. I mean, MAYBE it was just MJ trying to re-build his career and re-hiring all the players who were with him in the 80's. Who knows.

This is so deep!!
 
kes1984 said:
The no contest clause is strange too. Doesn't seem like the kind of think Michael would have wanted / needed on his will when his only beneficiaries are his beloved Mother, his 3 children and unknown charities. I mean, to put a clause in there that if these people who he loved and trusted more than anyone else in the world were to challenge something in the will, they would be disinherited?? To me, that sounds like something Branca wanted in there knowing that Katherine would likely want to challenge him as an executor and this was a way to stop her.
Click to expand...

Really good point. I am so glad the judge allowed Katherine to contest the will because I really don't trust Branca.
 
nestacat said:
What I would really like to know is if there are any photos or footage of that press conference at the hospital that show Dileo and Thome together?...........I agree that Victoria's often posted question of WHY the heck was Thome there anyway is very important. We keep wanting to link everyone together, which is oh so hard............but, did Dileo (who has consistently offered disdain and distrust for Thome) talk with/hug/interact with Thome at all at the hospital? We saw Jermaine with Thome, and Jermain with Dileo, but....did these two men interact there? and if so, in what way?
Click to expand...

Here's a link to an interview w/ Dileo where he says that Michael wrote a letter to have him replace Tohme on the Sony/ATV Publishing board.

http://site2.mjeol.com/mj-news/frank-dileo-talks-about-michael-and-the-tii-tour.html


Also here's a link to the UCLA press conference. You can see Tohme hug (I think) Dileo at the end. I don't know what their relationship is/was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVaEaDty5_Y
 
Weren't the ATV 50/50 rights going to be out of reach for Michael in a few years anyway?
 
good article, thanks to andjustice4some:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article531424.ece

From The Times
June 9, 2005
Debt collectors threaten to break up Jackson's empire
Singer may have to sell back catalogue as pressure grows over $270m debt
By James Doran in New York
MICHAEL JACKSON, once the richest musician in the world, now faces the ignominy of handing over his back catalogue to pay off a $270 million (£147 million) debt.
Hints of the troubled star’s dire financial circumstances were revealed during his 13-week child molestation trial in California, as it was claimed that his enormous and unusual expenses have far outweighed his earnings for years.

Yesterday it was disclosed that the singer is much deeper in debt than many had thought, with so little money coming in that he has been unable to meet monthly loan payments. At one point, according to sources, the singer’s staff were worried that he might not be able to afford to pay his electricity bill.

After he was unable to repay interest of $300,000, the Bank of America loans totalling $270 million were sold on to Fortress Investments, a company that specialises in “distressed debt”.

Experts believe that, guilty or innocent, Jackson will eventually be forced to sell his prized 50 per cent stake in Sony/ATV, a company that owns a huge back catalogue of songs, including 251 famous Beatles tunes, some of Bob Dylan’s finest work and hits by Joni Mitchell and Stevie Nicks.

Teams of advisers, which included the Rev Jesse Jackson, the one-time presidential candidate, have tried to intercede on the star’s behalf to keep the debt collectors from his door.

Others have advised him to sell at least a part of the catalogue but the singer is said to have an emotional attachment to the catalogue, especially the Beatles songs.

He is being advised in the matter by John Branca, a well-known music industry lawyer, and Charles Koppelman, the vice-chairman of Martha Stewart’s media company.

Jackson bought the back catalogue in 1985, at the height of his popularity, for $47.5 million from Robert Holmes a Court, an Australian tycoon.

A decade later, with money troubles and his unusual lifestyle becoming ever more apparent, Jackson agreed to merge the back catalogue with Sony’s smaller library of songs.

It is thought that the Japanese entertainment giant paid Jackson about $150 million to acquire the rights to half of the lucrative catalogue. Today, the back catalogue is estimated to be worth about $1 billion, Jackson’s share being worth $500 million.

Throughout the late 1990s Jackson’s money troubles worsened as his record sales declined and his concert tours commanded smaller audiences. The former child prodigy was more often lampooned for his weird appearance and peculiar speaking voice than he was celebrated as a singer and dancer.

In 2002 he was sued in California by the Union Finance and Investment Corporation, which claimed that he owed it $12 million.

The lawsuit stated: “Michael Jackson was — and is — a ticking financial time-bomb waiting to explode at any minute.” Since then Jackson’s financial position has only worsened. After his arrest last November, his record sales are understood to have declined further.

The trial, which started in February, is estimated to have cost $10 million so far, heaping further financial pressure on the singer.

Fortress Investments, which has interests in private equity and in buying up “distressed debt” — a finance industry term for loans that are in default — has agreed to give Jackson more time to pay.

The company is understood to have given him until December to make his owed payments. But, if he continues to default, Fortress could force him to sell any or all of his assets, including the MiJac back-catalogue – the company that controls the copyrights on his own songs.

Fortress, which has offices in New York, London, Rome, Geneva and Sydney, has some $15 billion of assets under management. It looks after money for 300 leading pension funds and many so-called high net-worth individuals.

Part of its business spans the high-risk world of hedge funds, where the super-rich and investment companies make big bets on the world markets.

Jackson believes that his recent travails with the banks and the courts are all part of a giant conspiracy designed to relieve him of the Sony/ATV back-catalogue.

But whatever the outcome of the child molestation trial it is likely that he will have to begin at least to reassess the amount of debt he keeps in relation to his assets.

If he is found guilty he may be forced into a fire sale of his billions of dollars of assets. Even if the jury declares him to be innocent there is speculation that he may file for bankruptcy as a means of tying up his old debts to start a new life.

Jackson’s chief lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr, issued a statement last night saying that no one had been authorised to hold news conferences on his client’s behalf.
The statement came shortly after Raymone Bain, Jackson’s spokeswoman, held a press conference at the courthouse.

“A gag order is in effect which the defence team will continue to honour,” Mr Mesereau said.

HIS OUTGOINGS

Bills keep rising for man who can't stop spending

MICHAEL JACKSON spends $20 million (£11 million) to $30 million more than he earns every year, according to accountancy experts who testified at his trial.
Neverland, his bizarre theme park home, costs as much as $120,000 a month to look after.

With giraffes, elephants and monkeys to feed, hundreds of staff to pay and, at one time, thousands of children to lavish with gifts, the homestead was not designed to be cheap.

It has also been speculated that the former King of Pop made payments of $1.5 million in alimony to Deborah Rowe, his ex-wife. Then there was the famous $4 million shopping spree at a Las Vegas furniture store. John Duross O’Bryan, a forensic accountant, who gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial, traced Jackson’s assets and liabilities from 1999 to 2004.

The witness said he obtained only one balance sheet, from June 30, 2002, and it showed Jackson with a net worth of negative $285 million. He said this included assets of $130 million and liabilities of $415 million.

Jackson has the daily cost of his entourage to court. They include his three brothers — Randy, Jermaine and Tito — as well as the entourage of bodyguards and advisers that sweeps up to the courtroom each day, umbrellas in hand, from Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in the nearby village of Los Olivos.

A 2003 piece in Vanity Fair magazine estimated Jackson’s monthly expenditures at $1 million and claimed that the pop star was incapable of economising and prone to eccentric spending, including a $10,000 monthly charge from a Beverly Hills chemist.

HIS ASSETS

Catalogue loss could leave him blowin' in the wind

SIR PAUL McCARTNEY would be forgiven for observing Michael Jackson’s latest financial problems with a little hint of Schadenfreude.

The back catalogue of 251 Beatles songs owned by Sony/ATV, an entity 50 per cent controlled by Jackson, could soon be put on the auction block, depending on the outcome of the American singer’s trial.

The entire catalogue is estimated to be worth $1 billion and contains greats such as Sir Paul’s Yesterday as well as Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ in the Wind and other classics. Sir Paul has been privately distressed about the ownership of some of the greatest songs he wrote since the catalogue was bought by Jackson in 1985.

Just three years earlier he and Jackson had recorded The Girl is Mine as a duet, and in 1983 Say, Say, Say. They were considered friends. But, according to press reports at the time, Jackson’s acquisition of the Beatles catalogue for $47.5 million ended that friendship.

Today, the same billion-dollar catalogue attracted the interest of Fortress Investment Group, a New York investment firm, that has taken on $270 million of debt owed by Jackson.

Fortress could try to force Jackson to sell his 50 per cent stake in the back catalogue, along with other assets such as the MiJac catalogue that contains the copyrights to all of the American singer’s records, if he continues to default on his loan repayments.

If Fortress forces a sale of the Sony/ATV stake, Sir Paul could doubtless find a way of buying back Yesterday and all the other songs he has been without for the past two decades.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/30/business/fi-jackson30

Jackson Due to Reap $3.5-Million Advance From Sony

April 30, 2004|Jeff Leeds | Times Staff Writer
Facing arraignment today on child molestation charges, pop star Michael Jackson is about to hear some badly needed good news on the business front.

Jackson is due to receive an estimated $3.5-million advance in coming weeks for his forthcoming boxed-set compilation under his long-standing contract with Sony Corp.'s record unit, according to sources familiar with his business affairs.


On top of that, the singer is poised in as little as a year to begin collecting royalties that could total $5 million annually if his recordings keep selling, according to the sources.

The royalties are in prospect because Jackson's record sales -- strong abroad, despite a sharp drop-off in the U.S. -- are nearing the point at which the tens of millions of dollars Sony has spent on Jackson over the years will be paid off.

To be sure, Jackson's overall finances remain tenuous. About $270 million in loans from Bank of America Corp., backed by his two major song catalogs, will come due in several years. And, after frittering away millions on poor investments and a shifting cast of business associates, he continues to spend lavishly.

But with the anticipated Sony advance, and a recent refinancing of his debts, the erstwhile king of pop will be turning a financial corner.

The Sony payment will come in exchange for delivery of recordings and other materials for the boxed set, which Sony is aiming to release for the fall -- probably before any verdict in the Santa Barbara molestation case.

Jackson recently obtained an extension on one loan, a $70-million package backed by his Mijac publishing company, until early 2006, sources said.

Representatives of Sony Music Entertainment declined to comment.

Jackson's representatives declined to discuss his finances. But his longtime music attorney, John Branca, said it would be a mistake to count his client out.

"He was counted out once before, when the Jackson Five lost popularity and came back bigger than ever," Branca said. "Michael speaks to a worldwide audience like no other artist in history."

Although Jackson's U.S. sales have slipped from their 1980s apex, the singer's catalog and recent greatest-hits CD have sold so strongly worldwide in recent years that he is edging toward paying off the millions of dollars in recording and promotional expenses owed to Sony before he can collect a paycheck.


(Page 2 of 3)
Jackson Due to Reap $3.5-Million Advance From Sony
April 30, 2004|Jeff Leeds | Times Staff Writer
With Jackson's release of 2001's "Invincible" album, Sony reissued much of the singer's earlier material and found worldwide demand. Since then, Jackson's albums have sold about 14 million copies worldwide, with about 9 million sold outside the U.S., sources said.

Already, Jackson has whittled down a balance that stood at about $40 million several years ago. If sales hold up enough to finish off the tab, he would begin pocketing royalties from each album sold in the future.


Some sources familiar with Jackson's record contract suggest that he could finish repaying the advances by early next year, although others predict that it could take longer, perhaps three years or more.

The biggest factor in Jackson's financial fate, however, is whether he can cut lucrative future deals.

"It's all going to come down to what happens in the next 12 months," said one music industry player close to Jackson. Even if Jackson is acquitted of the criminal charges against him, "you don't know how tarnished he's going to be."

Associates insist that Jackson could still earn a fortune by touring internationally.

"Those people talking about doomsday, don't they realize the guy could go out and do 10 or 15 dates and he would make tens of millions of dollars?" said veteran music executive Charles Koppelman, who ranks among the singer's top counselors.

Television specials may also provide cash. Jackson reportedly earned millions from TV appearances last year. But at least two networks recently turned down his pitch for a special on his charitable efforts toward the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

With Jackson's 1991 Sony contract nearing its end, he will be free to seek a new label deal, though any new pact probably would be more modest than the old one. The boxed compilation and a planned "best of" collection are the final releases under the Sony agreement.

Given the uncertainties, however, Jackson's best prospects rest on continued income from a spate of mega-deals Branca and others made during the star's ascent after the success of his 1982 blockbuster, "Thriller."

Jackson paid $47.5 million in 1985 to acquire a firm that held the Beatles' publishing rights -- one of the richest song catalogs in music -- and began snatching up other copyrights.

Ten years later, Jackson struck a deal to merge those rights with Sony's publishing unit, creating a new firm, Sony/ATV. That deal paid him more than $100 million in cash, and he received a stake in the combined company.
Jackson Due to Reap $3.5-Million Advance From Sony
April 30, 2004|Jeff Leeds | Times Staff Writer
Meanwhile, Jackson had bulked up his own publishing firm, Mijac, which holds rights to his personal hits, by buying songs that include the Sly and the Family Stone catalog and Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready."

Sources estimate the Mijac firm returns profit to Jackson of $6 million or more a year. A sale of Mijac probably would fetch at least $75 million, industry sources say.


Sony/ATV, for its part, generates profit for Jackson in the same range. His stake in the unit is worth perhaps $400 million or more, sources say.

Advisors vow Jackson won't sell one of his publishing firms to pay debt. As it stands, income from the catalogs should cover interest and some of the principal on his loans, sources said.

The expectation that Jackson may soon receive record royalties despite the enormous advances under his Sony contract stems from the unusually favorable partnership he struck with the company at the peak of his fame. Under the arrangement, Jackson receives half of what Sony earns on his music, in addition to an estimated 25% royalty rate, sources said.

Most acts sign deals with a 12% royalty, and although some of the biggest stars earn far higher rates, none is known to receive a royalty and a profit split.

Jackson also became one of a handful of superstars to get so-called reversion rights to their recordings, sources said. That means in roughly seven years Jackson will have the ability to distribute his own greatest-hits packages or license them to one of Sony's competitors.

"The truth is, the longer he holds on, the more valuable" his recording and publishing assets could be for him, said one person familiar with Jackson's finances. "Holding on is the trick."

Times staff writer Geoff Boucher contributed to this report.


Prev | 1 | 2 | 3
 
found this article thru Bonnie:

News about Michael Jackson song catalogue – MiJac Publishing

Posted on February 16, 2011 by admin
1297887555-25.jpg%3Fw%3D500%26h%3D500

We found this article
Exclusive: Michael Jackson, even in death, remains in the middle of the current musical chairs deals in the declining record industry.
For all these years, Michael’s MiJac Publishing has been administered by Warner Chappell, part of what is now Warner Music Group. MiJac includes not only Michael’s hits that he wrote, like “Billie Jean” and “Beat It,” but a vast number of other hits including those of Ray Charles, Curtis Mayfield, and Sly and the Family Stone.
​
Warner Chappell doesn’t own MiJac but it administers the rights to it and collects hefty fees. With WMG for sale, and talk of Warner Chappell being sold off, MiJac would seem like an integral part of their story.
But there’s a hitch that I can reveal to you: MiJac is leaving Warner Chappell and going to become part of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the company that Michael Jackson’s estate co-owns with Sony and contains the Beatles catalog.
According to sources, this arrangement was written into the MiJac contract with Warner Chappell years ago. It would be triggered by the release of the next Jackson album–in this case, the recent “Michael”–and the repayment of loans.
The move by MiJac to Sony/ATV is a big deal for many reasons. With both WMG and EMI Music for sale, Sony/ATV could be kicking the tires of each company’s publishing divisions for purchase. But Warner Chappell might be less interesting to Sony ATV considering they’re already getting Mi Jac. And without MiJac, Warner Chappell–which just had a down quarter–might not look so good to other potential buyers.
What may happen now: the newer, and very hot, BMG Music Rights will likely make a play for EMI Music Publishing. EMI Music–the record company, which has the Beatles albums in its catalog–the physical albums and box sets–could then be merged with another record company like Sony Music or, more horrifyingly, Warner Music. Stay tuned
 
blog from Bonnie:

http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.com/2011/05/lesson-in-creative-financing-michaels.html

I am not sure what that means in light of the information I heard on Craig Williams recording of Raymone Bain’s testimony of the refinance of certain loans by Prince Abdullah back in 2006. Seems Sony’s paid bloggers and journalists (Friedman for example), got their wires crossed on that one refinance as well. The LAST Mijac loan I was aware of was the one Neverland was financed on and that was bought and is still held by Colony Capital through the joint venture Sycamore Valley Ranch, LLC, co-owned by Colony and one of Michael’s companies in 2008. Only Branca’s bloggers are the ones that have put out there that Colony sold that loan, which according to my research did not happen.


With the refinance of the Sony/ATV by Abdullah in 2006, how is it that Sony also refinanced this loan in 2006? Source and Source.


The first source contains the timeline, researched:


December 23, 1998 – Bank of America made a loan to MJ-ATV for $200 million. Collateral was 50% (Michael’s) of Sony/ATV.

September 29, 1999 – Bank of America (BOA) made a loan to MJPT (Publishing Trust) for $72.5 million. Collateral was MiJack and the rights to receive payments for it’s administration

Fall of 2004 – Michael owes $272.5 million to Bank of America

December 20, 2005 – both loans become due.

November 2004 – Transitional is hired to refinance and provide cash to purchase Sony half of Sony/ATV

January 2005 – Michael signs contract during the Arvizos trial.

Late 2004 – Early 2005 – Transitional choses Fortress Investment Group to provide working capital through it’s lending group.

January 2005 - The same month Michael supposedly signs the contract, he gives up on trying to purchase the other half of Sony/ATV (??? Why?)

January 27, 2005 – Transitional sends letter to Don Stabler, Michael’s representative, to “confirm intention to provide bridge loan for refinancing entire BOA loan.”

February 28, 2005 – Don Stabler and Darian Dash confirm the deal as authorized representatives of MJPT and Michael Jackson. The collateral is ALL of Michael’s music publishing assets, 50% of Sony/ATV and Mijack catalogs.

May 25, 2005 – BOA sold the loans to Fortress.

Circa March 2006 – Fortress refinanced the loans by creating a special purpose entity into which the assets would be transferred called “New Horizon Trust”. This was done without knowledge or consent of Transitional. This caused a “fraudulent transfer” law to be broken.


(This actually did not, because the owners of the Trust were Fortess themselves, and two of Michael’s companies – Source)


On the Second source above:


9/22/2007

Court Updates

In the Transitional Investors case Jackson's lawyers filed for a demurrer on Michael Jackson's part. What is a demurrer?

“a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit.” Source

7/15/2008
One More Case Settled!

Michael Jackson's lawyers settled another court case today with Transitional Investors LLC.

7/16/2008
Official Dismissal Court Papers

Transitional Investors was the one who requested the dismissal.

11/22/2008
Jackson Repaid Another Loan

Since Jackson just repaid the loan the agreement has been terminated, and the titles of 1503 songs from the MiJac catalog been transferred back to the star.






​








Missing is details on the 2006 refinancing of both loans and who they were sold to prior to 2007.


In April 2006 – On this source . . . I found some explanation as to the status of the loans in 2006, but this article was printed early in that year, April to be exact. In that article it states:


“But executives involved in the deal said it came after months of talks that spanned the globe, with meetings from Los Angeles to New York to London to Bahrain, where Mr. Jackson has been living at the hospitality of Sheik Abdullah, the ruler's son.


The deal also comes after years of efforts by an eclectic parade of financial advisers including the California billionaire Ronald W. Burkle and the Florida entrepreneur Alvin Malnik to offer Mr. Jackson guidance for extricating himself from his woes. Mr. Jacks on's financial managers had been pressing him to shed a part of his stake in the Sony/ATV venture since before he stood trial last year on charges of child molestation. He was acquitted last summer. . .


Originally, they had tried to hammer out a deal in which Citigroup would acquire the loans, and offer Mr. Jackson a more favorable interest rate, around 6 percent, these executives said. Mr. Jackson had been paying more than 20 percent in monthly interest payments.


Rather than sell the loans to Citigroup, Fortress agreed to match the bank's terms, the executives said. ”




This article mentions the agreement between Michael and Sony to give Sony 1<sup>st</sup> right to refusal if Michael should sell ATV and also give Sony the option to purchase half of Michael’s share should he default on the loan – in exchange for Sony dumping Branca off the ATV board. But it does not mention WHO financed the loan. None of the articles do during that time frame. They only give the impression that SONY financed it. Fortress name is thrown around as exercising their option to refinance during that time.


From Bain’s testimony BOTH loans were refinanced by Abdullah in 2006, not by Sony. And this I learned just recently through William’s phone conversation with me as he played her taped interview trying to DISPROVE me on Colony Capital NOT selling the Neverland Loan.


Michael at this point had an advantage. Sony wanted no possibilities of third parties involved in this catalog. Michael wanted Branca out of his business and off the Sony/ATV board so Michael and financiers made a deal . . . We’ll keep Sony in the deal if you get rid of Branca and keep him from ever profiting from business done with my name on it. Michael purchased Branca’s 5% of the catalog and Branca was fired from Sony/ATV. I covered that here also. Source with documents and reference links.


Remember this?






“[FONT=&quot]Definintion of “Prescient”: [FONT=&quot]Prophetic, psychic, discerning, perceptive.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Definition of “Transitional”:[FONT=&quot] Middle, midway, inbetween, intermediary[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Definition of “Fortress”:[FONT=&quot] stronghold, citadel, fortification, castle[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Definition of “New Horizon”:[FONT=&quot] innovative , fresh, original (new), prospect, possibility, perspective (Horizon).[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Definition of “Trust”:[FONT=&quot] charge, custody, protection, entrust.[/FONT][/FONT]






Now, what happened between 2006, and 2007, when the Abdullah loans would have matured? Did they mature? Did Abdullah sell them off? What happened? There is nothing about this. We have Sony/Branca just taking up in the press where they left off in 2007, claiming ownership of these loans. Abdullah’s name NEVER shows up in the press as having refinanced for Michael.


I found this on a “Positively Michael” forum:


“You're not missing anything, Scarlett. When the loan was refinanced with Fortress Investments in Dubai back in 2006, the catalog valuation of $250 million was quite generous compared to the actual market value at the time, which was $100 million, I think (don't hold me to that--it's based on memory). Michael had Sheik Abdulla's (sp?) lawyers represent him in this negotiation with Sony & Fortress and considering the numbers, it was a good deal if Michael needed to sell quickly.” Source


I call bull* on that “good deal” issue. Just like Goldman Sach’s would have been a good deal? Michael’s not stupid. He said no. She does NOT post a source for this information, but she is very pro-Branca. These people can’t explain where Branca was during the trial, they cannot explain where he was when the media was crucifying Michael, he uttered not ONE WORD OF SUPPORT for the man until AFTER he died, yet he’s Michael’s best friend. Gag me with a pitch fork. Moving on . . .


This is where the refinances overlap. Either Fortress refinanced them in 2006 or Prince Abdullah did. I’m sorry I cannot provide a source for the Prince Abdullah story because it is not published ANYWHERE by the Sony-friendly press and Raymone’s Bain’s recorded interview in the hands of Craig Williams and Vintage Pop is the only source of that information. If Branca’s cronies want to continue to push my buttons perhaps I can tell you where to write to these people and you can ask them yourself, because chances are THAT testimony of Bain’s will show up NOWHERE in that Documentary if it ever gets produced. I would suggest not supporting it if does come out on June 25, 2011.


Crillon goes on to say that in 2007, Barclay’s then took possession of the loan:


“The 2006 refinanced Fortress Investments loan came due in December 2007 and Barclays refinanced the $300 million at that time.” – Same forum poster, Crillon.


Again no source for this information is posted. No news item, no nothing.


This is an interesting twist on the story. But you must go down to these paragraphs:


“In exchange, Sony received a freer hand to make investment decisions without Jackson’s approval; a right of refusal on his stake; and an option to buy half of Jackson’s half for around $250 million. To everyone else’s surprise, Fortress exercised a right it held to match any financing terms and held onto its Jackson loans, though only for a short term.


Problems solved? Of course not. In Bahrain, Abdulla had given Jackson use of a Rolls-Royce and a Maybach and bought him jewelry and watches and a gold statue. But after a few months their relationship became another tale of mutual hurt.


Jackson left Bahrain, and Abdulla sued him for reneging on an agreement to start a label and record songs together — including a Hurricane Katrina relief song they’d spent weeks preparing. Jackson claimed that he either did not know what he was signing or was misled. The case went to trial in London but was settled just before Jackson was to testify.” Source. http://themjplace.com/2011/01/16/the-fight-over-michaels-millions-2/



According to the Sony aided and abetted press, Fortress chose to hold onto the loans. According to Bain, Abdullah was the one that refinanced both in 2006. In that Agreement with Sony to expel Branca from the Sony/ATV, Abdullah’s signature appears on this agreement as a co-trustee along with Miss Katherine. Why would it if he was not the financier? Branca’s signature is not on it, but there is a place for it because the agreement includes Michael buying out Branca’s 5% to get him off the board and Branca was representing Sony. There is no signature from anyone in Fortress. This is a Michael Jackson/Katherine Jackson (head of the New Horizon Trust), Abdullah, Sony and Branca agreement. Check page 24 – 27 of this court document. Source




Remember back in 2005, during the trial, Michael said during his Jesse Jackson interview that he was never in financial trouble, that it was lies put out to embarrass him. Sony did not negotiate the 2006 deal, MICHAEL and his backers did. The stories were spun after the deals were inked to make it look like Sony negotiated everything. The only thing Sony still owned was Michael’s name and the music he made with that attached. (“Take my name and just let me be…”) And that was supposed to lapse in July of 2009, just a couple weeks after Michael’s passing. Perfect timing right?


Now, we know the story of Barclay the press put out, we’re just not sure exactly WHEN this took place or who negotiated it. Does the revelation from Bain that Abdullah financed both Mijac and Sony/ATV loans in 2006 change anything with the Barclay deal? Was there really a Barclay deal?


Craig Williams claimed in his phone conversation with me that Colony had sold the Neverland Loan, but Colony still holds the title to Neverland and Sycamore Valley Ranch, LLC is a registered company. This was the loan in which the Mijac was collateral. So where are these numbers and figures Branca’s press buddies have been throwing out?


No, I don’t know everything (thanks for asking), but it is obvious the PRESS stories are not adding up. So you are left grabbing for pieces of the puzzle that MAY fit instead.


Sony/ATV is in a trust. Even that much Branca and estate executors can admit. New Horizon Trust had three phases, the first of which began in February of 2006.


So we are missing something . . . a connector between Bain’s claim of Abdullah refinancing those loans in 2006 and where they went from there.


We will come back to this another time because I am going to run this too long. What I am getting at is the Prescient/Transitional/Fortress/New Horizon shuffle and just who controls that trust, who actually refinanced for Michael on both loans in 2006, and just how that transferred into a Barclay financing.


Back last year, I speculated that the way New Horizon was set up (three owners, Fortress, and two of Michael’s companies with Fortress owning 1/3 of assets of that trust until the loans were paid off).


Forget it . . . I’m just going to go into it, I can’t leave this out in the open. Let’s play with an idea here:


I speculated late last year, that New Horizon Trust was set up to protect Michael’s assets, namely the Sony/ATV catalog at that time, amongst other things.


Now, let’s look at the Parallel between Michael and ummmm, The U.S. Government CONSPIRACY if you will.


The Federal Reserve Bank and it’s owners has gotten fat by paying itself on debt that doesn’t exist. In other words, they are making money on interest, on loans that they never made. They made interest in “printed” money, backed by nothing. (The illusion).


Now, since Branca and the establishment he and people like him support (the elite) were a mechanism in the sabotaging of Michael, couldn’t we assume that the numbers they put out in the press were fabrications?


Could the estate, in the creating of the fictitious, mountainous debt of Michael’s, have attempted a Federal Reserve-style bilking of Michael’s estate?


What if I am right? What if Michael’s debts were not the numbers we were told they were? What if the whole Barclay’s story was just that? A story to make Michael look bad, that they later would use as cover to rape his estate? Michael said they were fabricating his financial situation back in the 2005 interview with Jesse Jackson. Who do YOU believe?


Curt Cobain? Weitzman has been attached to another ruined inheritance as has Branca. They’ve done it before!


Back to Michael. What if Michael, through the maneuvering of financing between 2003 and 2008 actually bought his own loans (kinda like buying your own bank, like Colony Did last year, and like Prince Al Waleed did in Saudi Arabia when he didn’t like their rules…)


Could the estate executors have perpetuated this outlandish story of a third of a million dollars in debt in order to cover the bilking of funds from the estate? These lawyers are earning on both sides of the transactions.


The money generated by the estate has been generated posthumously. This is “created” money by the work of the executors in Michael’s name, through his creations. Michael is never going to “create” as Michael Jackson again. Never. So what do executors do?


Create debt to hide earnings. It is done in business all the time. Accounting tricks. The Federal Reserve makes money off the American people collecting taxpayer money to pay off interest on loans it never made or made with paper backed by nothing.


The Federal Reserve Bank has never been audited in its 97 year history. I wonder who is in charge of auditing an estate?
 
what is the story behind thome with sony? did thome contacted sony? Jermaine introduced thome to save neverland, but in the end thome was bad for michael and isolating him right? so where sony and thome on the same side?
 
jrsfan;3379647 said:
blog from Bonnie:

http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.com/2011/05/lesson-in-creative-financing-michaels.html

I am not sure what that means in light of the information I heard on Craig Williams recording of Raymone Bain’s testimony of the refinance of certain loans by Prince Abdullah back in 2006. Seems Sony’s paid bloggers and journalists (Friedman for example), got their wires crossed on that one refinance as well. The LAST Mijac loan I was aware of was the one Neverland was financed on and that was bought and is still held by Colony Capital through the joint venture Sycamore Valley Ranch, LLC, co-owned by Colony and one of Michael’s companies in 2008. Only Branca’s bloggers are the ones that have put out there that Colony sold that loan, which according to my research did not happen.


With the refinance of the Sony/ATV by Abdullah in 2006, how is it that Sony also refinanced this loan in 2006? Source and Source.
Click to expand...

* when Raymone was still with Michael, she said she was given carte-blanche on what to talk about with the press, except for 2 things - his children and his finances. Those articles about the refinances COULDN'T have come from Michael's camp.

* now, Raymone is disproving those articles by saying it was Prince Abdullah who actually refinanced at the time. and if i get it right, her taped interview is exclusively in the hands of Vintage Pop, where Ms Katherine also is. Raymone is also spokesperson for her now, specifically regarding her Send Her Flowers business...despite her $44M lawsuit which she lost, anyway. still, ??? why work with her when she sued Michael for an awful lot, for the comeback projects that didn't even happen?

* i thought Branca was doing Michael a great favor by selling his 5% stakes to Michael, but Bonnie is painting a very different picture and i don't know what to think.

* assuming the above is factual, what could it all mean? i want to understand, too!!!
 
hi Ash :) i'm wondering, if what Raymone said about the refinancing is true, why isn't she on the Estate's side? why is her testimony exclusive to Vintage Pop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top