About the ppl that talk about "partnership" with sony:
Branca ' sony/atv advisor job, is a job for sony in which John branca represents sony's interests in sony/atv. Branca is not representing the common interest by working for sony with this job.
That is what the emails and documents proves. Branca gets paid by sony and he has fiduciary duties Toward sony for his service for sony.
Again, this assumes that the interests of Sony and of the Estate are separate and adversarial, when in practice, gains for Sony necessarily mean gains for the Estate.
We KNOW Branca gets paid by Sony. That is not a secret.
There would have been no need to get paid/sign up for a job for sony and for Sony wanting fiduciary duties toward them from branca , if it was something for the common benefit of the joint venture , since branca has duties toward MJ's benefits from sony/atv via his fiduciary duties toward MJ. if it was a joint venture, sharing common interests , there would be no need of this job and a salary from Sony with fiduciary duties.
The "joint venture" would not have required a job for Sony from branca and fiduciary duties toward sony for doing the common interest In sony/atv. There are 2 sides of the joint venture , and branca offered himself to work for sony's sides , representing them and having fiduciaries duties toward them.
As executor, dealing with Sony/ATV is not Branca's only responsibility for the Estate. His expertise has benefit to Sony/ATV, and necessarily to the Estate as well. He is being paid to advise Sony to a greater extent that only his work for the Estate would necessitate. Hence, the salary. What is not here, in the logic, is HOW Sony and the Estate are adversarial. I have read the emails (links above) and see NOTHING to indicate that the Estate "undersold" TII. So -- specifically, WHICH email is that info coming from?
It does't exist on earth a Joint venture with 1 half paying the lawyer that represent the other half , to represent the interest of 1 side with fiduciary duties Toward 1 side....that is not a joint venture...u do not get paid from 1 side of the partnership and have fiduciary duties toward 1 side if you are in a joint venture that should have no sides and together look after the common interests With no money and fiduciaries involved.
Personally, I am on two boards of directors. Boards may have different responsibilities, but primarily they exist to advise and make decisions, for a non-profit or a business. With board membership, different tasks may be assigned to different board-members, in terms of expertise and focus of attention. In Branca's fiduciary responsibilities for the Estate, his primary task is to grow the wealth and income stream of the Estate. Sony/ATV is part of that, but not all. With board membership at Sony, I assume the task is decision-making about the health of the company, ouside of the scope of duties toward the Estate (i.e. he could not justify time spent on that directly with responsibilities to the Estate). The health of Sony impacts the revenue of the Estate. They are related, but not adversarial.
There is yet to be a valid example here of HOW those two entities are adversarial (and there is nothing in the emails that indicates TII was undervalued. If that "fact" exists, WHERE is it?)
MJ did not trust John branca for his promiscuity with sony and there are other emails showimg how branca is after his own interest (for representing sony in sony's affairs) and after sony's interests.
And there we have it. Problem is, MJ's will IS valid and that will names Branca as co-executor. One does not name as executor someone one does not TRUST.
The money that the executor makes via the estate is nothing compared to the money branca 's Law firm makes representing a big corporation like sony in their business affairs. Mj has been used as leverage for branca's personal business for sony and Sony has used MJ for their own gain.
Branca makes ten percent of the revenues of the Estate, potentially much greater than salary from Sony. (We KNOW his salary for consulting with Sony.) Yes, Sony "used MJ for their own gain." They are a BUSINESS whose product is, in part, the artistic production of their artists. That is what they DO. They have not always treated MJ fairly, i.e. not adequately promoting Vince. With Branca consulting, is is less likely that such negative decisions will happen in the future.
I'm 90% sure they are the same person. We'll see.