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

ivy;4088320 said:
I'm pretty sure he means it to be the from the first day he met michael - which actually would damage his claim

It would also portray Michael unfavorably that he had an oral, managerial contract on his first meeting with Tohme.

Below is what Jermaine stated about Tohme, Michael, and the NL deal in his book as per your summary. If Jermaine's version of the events are accurate, Tohme is not acting as Michael's manager and is most likely eligible for the finder's fee.

2007 when in Africa in a business meeting trying to find a backer for the project, a friend mentions Tohme Tohme as a guy "who knows a lot of people". March 2008 Jermaine and Halima goes to meet Tohme. Not charming but gracious. Jermaine discusses Crystal City to Tohme without mentioning Michael. 4 meetings with Tohme. Tohme says he'll try to come up with oil-rich investors to fund $6billion and report back.

Neverland foreclosure news. Jermaine worries that Michael would need to sell his catalog to save Neverland. He decided to call Tohme. Halima says "you hardly know the man". April 2008 Jermaine meets with Tohme , tells him the situation and asks if he knows anyone that can help. Tohme says Tom Barrack / Colony Capital would help and "he'll make sure of it". Jermaine goes to Las Vegas to talk to Michael. Security doesn't let Jermaine in. He goes to a hotel and comes back 3 times, still they don't let him in. He calls Katherine who calls Grace who lets Jermaine in. Jermaine complains about the security not letting him in. Michael tells him he'll make changes soon. Jermaine tells Michael about Tom Barrack.

"I know that my sister La Toya has said she wished she could have “protected” him from the likes of Tohme-Tohme, but had she known the history and the dire reality of the situation, I doubt she’d have held such an opinion."

Jermaine takes Tohme to meet Michael. Michael talks with Barrack on the phone. Meeting with all of them is set. Shortly before foreclosure Barrack pays $23M and gets 50% ownership at Neverland. Barrack and Tohme are heroes. Tohme becomes Michael's manager. Tohme looks over Michael's finances. Cash poor, asset rich. a lot of expenses.

2008 summer Michael shows Jermaine the photos of the house he wants to buy in Vegas that belonged to Prince Jefri of Brunei. He saw the house in 2007, decided to buy it in 2008 and was in negotiations in 2009 to make a $15M down payment for it funded by his TII contract.

Michael and Barrack get along very well. Barrack wants to open a thriller tower in his Hilton hotel. Michael asks him if he wants to partner with him on Sony/ATV catalog. Jermaine doesn't want to leave Michael vulnerable to Barrack and Tohme so he tries to recruit lawyer Joel Katz and Michael agrees. Tohme turns against Jermaine as he brings in a lawyer. Neverland auction. Michael approved it thinking only furniture in storage will be sold. He did not want Neverland would be dismantled and his personal possesions be sold. Michael soon fires Tohme.

Jermaine says before his firing even Tohme turned into a gatekeeper not allowing him to see Michael.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

04/27/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 51, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding
Motion for Summary Adjudication - Denied

Court denied Tohme's motion. Which to me isn't that surprising, I expected the court to give Estate time for discovery and probably reconsider this motion after discovery. I'll post the details of the order when it becomes available at the system. (can take several weeks)

I got a little more detail about judge's ruling. Judge denied Tohme's motion stating that there are triable issues. Tohme was asking the judge to order Estate to pay him his finders fee (plus 10% from any future sale). Trial is set for May 2016. Previous documents have shown depositions are gonna start this month.

In regards to the manager agreements, labor commissioner hasn't made a decision yet - it's been 18 months waiting for a decision. Court will again ask Labor Commissioner if they would decide any time soon.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

More good news:)
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

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

I got a little more detail about judge's ruling. Judge denied Tohme's motion stating that there are triable issues. Tohme was asking the judge to order Estate to pay him his finders fee (plus 10% from any future sale). Trial is set for May 2016. Previous documents have shown depositions are gonna start this month.

In regards to the manager agreements, labor commissioner hasn't made a decision yet - it's been 18 months waiting for a decision. Court will again ask Labor Commissioner if they would decide any time soon.

There is hoping that the labor commissioner offers a far more compelling answer. This is actually unacceptable.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

There is hoping that the labor commissioner offers a far more compelling answer. This is actually unacceptable.

Yeah I don't get what is taking so long. Labor commissioner hearings were concluded in October 2013. So they started thinking about it November 2013. A few months to decide is fine but 18 months? And in the last 6 months or so they have been asked twice before. Initially said the decision would come in 3 months- which it didn't. The last time judge asked, they said they cannot give a time but it would be soon.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

If I am correct, it was the Estate that requested the Labor Commissioner's involvement.

Interesting that Beckloff would allow the executors to continue to drain funds from the estate with more depositions regarding Tohme's finder's fee. At some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

If I am correct, it was the Estate that requested the Labor Commissioner's involvement.

Interesting that Beckloff would allow the executors to continue to drain funds from the estate with more depositions regarding Tohme's finder's fee. At some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee.

This is a very bizarre response. the executors are not draining the estate funds, unlike your favorite KJ who just lost her billion dollars lottery lawsuit. On the contrary they are trying to save the estate from wasting millions.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

Typical establishment attitude towards mj imo inregards to the delayed decision..
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

If I am correct, it was the Estate that requested the Labor Commissioner's involvement.

labor commissioner is the appropriate body to determine the validity of the contracts based on talent agency act.

Interesting that Beckloff would allow the executors to continue to drain funds from the estate with more depositions regarding Tohme's finder's fee. At some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee.

Well Tohme's requested finders fee was around $4 million as of 2014, plus he wants 10% from any future sale of Neverland. So I think it's safe to say right now what he asks for is easily over $8 Million. I can't imagine 3 depositions they plan to do cost more than $8 million - just for neverland. Plus "just pay whatever people ask for because it's cheaper than to pursue a lawsuit to fight against it" could be against fiduciary duties of executors.
 
Last edited:
Passy001, thanks for the laugh.

ivy;4089853 said:
labor commissioner is the appropriate body to determine the validity of the contracts based on talent agency act.

The estate’s attorneys tell a different story. They claim Tohme manipulated Jackson into agreements that gave him "unfair financial compensation" and that Jackson fired him in March 2009.

But weeks after the complaints were filed, the estate’s attorneys filed a motion to stay — put on hold — the entire case. They contended that the California Labor Commission first had to rule on whether Tohme's work violated the Talent Agencies Act, a controversial law that says only licensed talent agents can secure employment for clients.

The stay was granted in its entirety, and it's been in place until a couple weeks ago. The Labor Commission heard the case nearly a year ago but still hasn't made a ruling. Tohme's attorneys filed to lift the entire stay, arguing the "extraordinary delay" warranted reviving the case. Alternatively, they requested at least the Neverland dispute reenter the court because securing a real estate investment isn't covered by the TAA. In hearings over the past two weeks, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Mitchell L. Beckloff agreed to lift the stay on only the issue of Neverland. The rest of the case awaits the Commission's decision.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hollywood-docket-michael-jacksons-manager-770709

I am correct. In your words, the Estate petitioned the Labor Commission.

So I think it's safe to say right now what he asks for is easily over $8 Million.

How did you arrive at that safe figure? Would you be able to speak to Estate's legal fees regarding Tohme? That is clearly what I was referring to, not simply the cost of the pending depositions.

Plus "just pay whatever people ask for because it's cheaper than to pursue a lawsuit to fight against it" could be against fiduciary duties of executors.

???

Would you be referring to a settlement?
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

I am correct. In your words, the Estate petitioned the Labor Commission.

Yes they did and I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with that.

How did you arrive at that safe figure?

tohme's own documents stated as of May 2014 the finder's fee is at $3.9 million. I assumed by now it would be over $4million. Assuming the same amount from a sale of Neverland would bring it to $8 Million - for Neverland alone. Given Tohme also wants a percentage from the deals he helped with - mainly TII - Tohme overall is asking for tens of millions.

Would you be able to speak to Estate's legal fees regarding Tohme? That is clearly what I was referring to, not simply the cost of the pending depositions.

I (or anyone) can't give the exact numbers but we have some idea. Per accounting for the year 2012 Estate spent $4Million on legal fees. for 2013 January to October 2013 they spent $5Million. These are the total costs for all of tens of lawsuits they handle including international and smaller ones that never get mentioned here. So I cannot imagine them having higher legal costs in Tohme's case than what he is asking for.
 
ivy;4089871 said:
tohme's own documents stated as of May 2014 the finder's fee is at $3.9 million. I assumed by now it would be over $4million. Assuming the same amount from a sale of Neverland would bring it to $8 Million - for Neverland alone. Given Tohme also wants a percentage from the deals he helped with - mainly TII - Tohme overall is asking for tens of millions.

Ivy, Tohme’s finder's fee must include interest to grow beyond $3.9M. It most likely was originally $2.5M or so. I do not remember the exact figure Colony paid to prevent NL's foreclosure. If Tohme is allowed, the sale of NL will garner him much more monies but, that is not the figure I was referring to.

I (or anyone) can't give the exact numbers but we have some idea. Per accounting for the year 2012 Estate spent $4Million on legal fees. for 2013 January to October 2013 they spent $5Million. These are the total costs for all of tens of lawsuits they handle including international and smaller ones that never get mentioned here. So I cannot imagine them having higher legal costs in Tohme's case than what he is asking for.

My statement only included Tohme’s 10% finder’s fee which is most likely $2.5M or so without interest. Below is the legal fee for 2013 as per the article you posted previously for the third accounting. This lawsuit has continued since 2012.

ivy;4035970 said:
The largest fee request is Katten Muchin's, which will receive more than $1.1 million. The lion's share of that work is the estate's ongoing litigation to void agreements Jackson's former manager, Tohme R. Tohme, obtained before the pop star's death, which accounted for $917,919 of the total fees.
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

^^

yeah it was around $2.4 M without interest but even by the time of MJ's death there was an one year interest on it.

that legal fee isn't related to Neverland issue though. remember this has 3 parts. Neverland finders fee, Tohme's management fee and Estate's claims about property/money.

the quote you mentioned points out it was spent for "ongoing litigation to void agreements" which was the labor commissioner trial to void the management agreements. (note: tohme wants 15% of the deals he helped with, which included TII and only movie grossed over $250 million)

Neverland issue had been on stay for years and it only put on calendar on January 2015. So they are only now starting to incur costs about it. (There is a similar situation with the management agreements as well, yes they incurred legal costs in 2013 but they have been doing nothing but wait for the last 18 months - hence not incurring any significant costs as they wait)

so to recap

- let's assume TII gross was $250 million and Tohme wants 15% which means Tohme wants $37.5Million. Estate spent $917,919 to cancel the agreements in front of labor commissioner. (that was during 2013 and for the following 18 months they were/are still waiting for a decision.)

- Neverland finder's fee would be $2.5 Million plus interest, plus 10% from any future sale. Let's say somewhere between $2.5 to $8 Million. that has only been put on calendar January 2015. For that Estate legal expenses as of now only responded to summary adjudication motion and they have 3 depositions planned. With any future motions and/or trial they would incur legal costs.

So I still don't think "the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's fee" anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
My statement only included Tohme’s 10% finder’s fee which is most likely $2.5M or so without interest. We see the Estate’s legal fees against Tohme totaled $917,919 in 2013. You have listed the finder’s fee at $2.4M or so without interest which I have no issue with.

ivy;4089876 said:
that legal fee isn't related to Neverland issue though. remember this has 3 parts. Neverland finders fee, Tohme's management fee and Estate's claims about property/money.

the quote you mentioned points out it was spent for "ongoing litigation to void agreements" which was the labor commissioner trial to void the management agreements.

???

Can you actually identify 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.

Neverland issue had been on stay for years and it only put on calendar on January 2015. So they are only now starting to incur costs about it.

???

Are you suggesting the Estate spent $917,919 against Tohme in 2013 only for the management fee portion? Any documentation to support your suggestion?

So I still don't think "the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's fee" anytime soon.

THIS is my statement:

Tygger;4089840 said:
At some point, the legal fees against Tohme will surpass Tohme's 10% fee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

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

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:
ivy;4089893 said:
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 a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
ivy;4099933 said:
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:
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
 
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:scratch:
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Re: MJ Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

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

Summary here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/estate-v-tohme/305-mj-estate-v-tohme-labor-commissioner-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.
 
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
 
ivy;4100020 said:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top