MJ Estate Third Accounting - Document & Summary & Discussion

J3 will be billionaires if this continues!!

And soon the new album comes - that will make a lot of money too!

Honestly!, I am not interested wheter PPB will be billionaires or not.
My interest is the fact that there is no penny for charity because there are unpaid debts during a lot of money goes to Michael's birth-family.

Michael has left a will and in this will there is clear to read that the money from the "Katherine Jackson Trust" should be for her "care, support, maintenance, comfort and well-being".
Certainly Michael understand not under 'well-being' that his mother runs to the lawyers for actions who damage his name and his legacy.
This immens amount for K. Jackson could be used for debt liquidation.

With all my respect to Mr. Branca: The way "Peace for Money" ist the wrong way.
Michael ordered in his will:
"As soon as reasonably practical after the dead of Trustor, the Trustee shall distribute a summ equal to twenty percent (20%) of Trustors gross estate, as valued for federal estate tax purposes, to one ore more charities for the benefit and/or children's causes..."

I am sure, Michael did NOT mean the children and grand-children from his mother with his order.

 
Last edited:
Michael ordered in his will:
"As soon as reasonably practical after the dead of Trustor, the Trustee shall distribute a summ equal to twenty percent (20%) of Trustors gross estate, as valued for federal estate tax purposes, to one ore more charities for the benefit and/or children's causes..."

Actually that quote itself explains why there hasn't been a payment to charity because it states "distribute a sum equal to twenty percent (20%) of Trustors gross estate, as valued for federal estate tax purposes"

So Michael told executors to give 20% of the Estate valued for federal estate tax purposes. As we all know Estate and IRS doesn't agree about what is the value of Estate for estate tax purposes. First that needs to be determined - either through a settlement or a trial - and only after that 20% of that could be given to charities.

So to be fair that got nothing to do with the money being given to the beneficiaries.
 
Sorry, Ivy, but if I know that I have to pay a significant amount to the taxe men then I am holding my money together for this pay day, or?

And: what is the impression from the taxe men if they read about the colossal allowance for K.J.?
They could think that the executors are distributing the earned money without sense.
 
Last edited:
And: what is the impression from the taxe men if they read about the colossal allowance for K.J.?
They could think that the executors are distributing the earned money without sense.

Thanks Mneme, the bolded bit made my day :D
Shout out to Mr Branca: did you hear that?
To me, it certainly looks like they are distributing money without sense:)

---------------------------------------------------

So if IRS wins the estate tax thing for 500 million, 20% of that 500 million goes to the charity.
 
If we only talk about what we know sure for 100%, it would be very quiet threads.

Quote of the day.

that would defeat the very purpose of having a discussion board in the first place. we are not in the court room and members should not be held to the same standard as testifying witnesses.

However people are welcome (and should be encouraged) to disagree and challenge views.
 
I got what you are saying but thats basicalky blackmail and its working. The estate loans kj money and gives her a consulting role where the estate pay her and then take the money back for the loan. ie its costing kj nothing! Not to mention what mother expects to be paid for such a role in the first place? Yes mj liked sweet potatoe pie that will be 100 bucks please! Do the excutors ever sit down and look at the figures or is it because they are all way to rich that they have lost their moral compass interms of the amounts of money ppl need to live off. Tj jackie alexandria katherine all getting paid plus all kjs wages going to the rest of the family. I find it hard supporting estate projects until kj is gone and the gravy train stops

Those are my sentiments exactly. Most people (including myself) are spending money on the estate projects with the understanding that the money will go mostly to MJ kids. However if the perception that somehow the money is going to the entire clan persists, the estate may have a hard time convincing people to buy into their projects no matter how cool they are. In which case the kids will lose out.
 
^^^ KJ doesn't want to sell Havenhurst because she wants to keep it for family gatherings, but it is eating lot of money considering no one lives there. Maybe the estate puts is on market if the lawsuit against IRS doesn't go according to plan and IRS wins the case. There is more than 4 millions tied in that house and KJ wants to keep it for family weddings (which are paid from MJ's money), but I think she knows who lives there and using it as base while visiting in LA (Joe and Majestic). Maybe she is trying to get the house on her name so after her passing, she can leave it to cubs?

Maybe they stocked snack bar for Kenya (dog MJ gave to kids)lives there:)

I expect Havendurst to be sold once KJ dies. unless the kids decide to live there.
 
ivy said:
and to me that's being on the way of being solvent. However let's not forget the tax bill as well as other lawsuits. Also this isn't necessarily just about solvency. Probate law requires them to pay debts first, not give money to the beneficiaries. Regardless of if we classify them as solvent or not, their focus should be paying the debts first and not a logic of "beneficiaries should get more than executors".
Never said a thing about paying the beneficiaries more, in fact every single poster in this thread bar one has been saying the exact opposite - that the beneficiaries are being paid too much. My disagreement is about you claiming mj's estate is not solvent to defend some argument that it seems only one person is making on here . A solvent company is one that owns more than it owes and can manage all its debt payments. Mj's estate is solvent, its assets outweigh its liabilities and it can clearly make the payments on the debts otherwise why are the execs able to start paying down principal debt, and why can they renegotiate competitive rates of interest with loan companies who are concerned with these debt/asset ratios. If the estate isn't solvent, why on earth are they giving 10s of $millions to mrs j in paying off her loans, consultancy fees and greatly increasing the beneficiaries' allowances? If you believe that the estate is not solvent then presumably you believe that the executors are behaving not just overly generous as posters on here think, but incredibly recklessly and harming the interests of the estate if they are using precious resources paying off for eg the multi-million moonie debt which wasn't even incurred by mj.

Sorry, i know you said you don't want to discuss it, but I think there are really good reasons to support why the beneficiaries are not being given even more $$$ than they already are, namely that the executors are following mj's wishes in his will and are looking out for the future interests of ppb, but claiming that it's because the estate is insolvent is for me wrong and also makes out the executors to be incompetent in handing out these large distributions to mrs j etc.

really? neverland was to be foreclosed and saved by Colony Capital. Hayvenhurst was in foreclosure. Sony/atv debt was to mature in 2010. Do you consider that being solvent?
Unlike the entire media, yes, i do. He was just about making his debt payments was he not, he hadn't declared bankruptcy. As you say his ability to meet his debt repayments was going to be a real problem for the future and so that's why he took on tii. His balance sheet was solvent with his assets more than his liabilities, so yes, as i said before mj was just about remaining solvent in 09. [Thome had $5m in cash so hayvenhurst cd have been paid outright.]
 
Last edited:
Never said a thing about paying the beneficiaries more, in fact every single poster in this thread bar one has been saying the exact opposite - that the beneficiaries are being paid too much. My disagreement is about you claiming mj's estate is not solvent to defend some argument that it seems only one person is making on here .

Yes you didn't say that, another person did and that's what started all this discussion and what my replis were about and despite what some fantasize I don't say stuff just to say the opposite. Don't I have the freedom to think differently than you do?

as I mentioned I guess we define solvency differently. I do agree that Estate's position is whole a lot better and they paid significant debts. But I also believe that they still have ways to go. So I'm a lot more focused on the still remaining millions of debt. I believe the focus - as the probate requires - should be on that debt. I can't get any more clearer than that.

If the estate isn't solvent, why on earth are they giving 10s of $millions to mrs j in paying off her loans, consultancy fees and greatly increasing the beneficiaries' allowances? If you believe that the estate is not solvent then presumably you believe that the executors are behaving not just overly generous as posters on here think, but incredibly recklessly and harming the interests of the estate if they are using precious resources paying off for eg the multi-million moonie debt which wasn't even incurred by mj.

Well they are required to cover the expenses of the beneficiaries regardless of the debt. Probate doesn't require them to starve the beneficiaries. So I personally have no problem with allowances that they are being paid for a the necessities and living comfortable life. If that means there has to be an increase to cover new needs, I have no issues with that either. Do I think at some instances they are being overly generous? Yes I do. When we heard KJ had to pay back the loan in a year we were like "how would she do that?" but they found a nice way to solve that, didn't they. Is that generous? Yep. But this is all perceptions we are talking about, some might argue that paying KJ's debt is actually caring for her while some other people believe such monies should have spent to pay MJ's debt and to end the probate sooner. There's no sense in arguing in that regard. Everyone will think what they want to think

PS : I don't get how to define solvency. Isn't that current assets or stuff that could be sold quickly vs. liabilities? Yes he had assets worth more than his debt but unless Michael or Estate is planning to sell his assets to cover the debt they wouldn't have enough current assets to cover the debts.
 
Bonnie Blue, if we are being technical, I said the estate was approaching solvency and in Ivy's posts to you it seems Ivy agrees with that. However, the word "solvency" was taken out of my post and out of context as a point to disagree on; thus the resulting discussion.

Bubs, we cannot total Katherine and the children’s allowances because that gives the perception that the beneficiaries received more than the executors which happens when an estate is approaching or at solvency.
 
as I mentioned I guess we define solvency differently. I do agree that Estate's position is whole a lot better and they paid significant debts. But I also believe that they still have ways to go. So I'm a lot more focused on the still remaining millions of debt.

PS : I don't get how to define solvency. Isn't that current assets or stuff that could be sold quickly vs. liabilities? Yes he had assets worth more than his debt but unless Michael or Estate is planning to sell his assets to cover the debt they wouldn't have enough current assets to cover the debts.
Your definition of solvency certainly appears to be unique, it sounds like you believe it means that the execs need to pay off all the debts. It's not, it's whether a business can meet its monthly/yearly debt and interest repayments out of its liquid assets and also whether its total equity is more than its total debt. Yes to both for mj's estate - unless you know different and the estate are reneging on their loan repayments.

What you mention about easily liquid current assets v current liabilities is the acid-test ratio, (not current ratio which is all current assets to be 2 x current liabilities), and it just needs to be >1 to show solvency. It doesn't mean all liabilities have to be paid by these liquid assets, just current ones, ie meeting the repayment schedule of loans.

Well they are required to cover the expenses of the beneficiaries regardless of the debt. Probate doesn't require them to starve the beneficiaries.
That's not true in the case of insolvent estates - the creditors' interests come first before those of beneficiaries. The execs wd be in breach of their fiduciary duties if they were paying out massive sums to beneficiaries if the estate is insolvent and can't pay its debts - i doubt branca wd be doing that.

passy said:
Those are my sentiments exactly. Most people (including myself) are spending money on the estate projects with the understanding that the money will go mostly to MJ kids. However if the perception that somehow the money is going to the entire clan persists, the estate may have a hard time convincing people to buy into their projects no matter how cool they are. In which case the kids will lose out.
I suppose if the irs win their lawsuit with the estate, we can all rest easy that our money will be going to the irs instead.
 
Last edited:
Your definition of solvency certainly appears to be unique, it sounds like you believe it means that a company needs to pay off all its debts. It's not, it's whether a company can meet its monthly/yearly debt and interest repayments out of its liquid assets and also whether its total equity is more than its total debt. Yes to both for mj's estate - unless you know different and the estate are reneging on their loan repayments.

What you mention about easily liquid current assets v current liabilities is the acid-test ratio, (not current ratio), and it just needs to be >1 to show solvency. It doesn't mean all liabilities have to be paid by these liquid assets, just current ones, ie meeting the repayment schedule of loans.

the reason for why you consider it to be unique or why this solvency debate doesn't make sense to me is due to the probate process. Probate does require them to pay all debts so it's not my belief but the law. So yes as far as the probate goes I do look to their ability to pay all debts.
 
Honestly!, I am not interested wheter PPB will be billionaires or not.
My interest is the fact that there is no penny for charity because there are unpaid debts during a lot of money goes to Michael's birth-family.

Michael has left a will and in this will there is clear to read that the money from the "Katherine Jackson Trust" should be for her "care, support, maintenance, comfort and well-being".
Certainly Michael understand not under 'well-being' that his mother runs to the lawyers for actions who damage his name and his legacy.
This immens amount for K. Jackson could be used for debt liquidation.

With all my respect to Mr. Branca: The way "Peace for Money" ist the wrong way.
Michael ordered in his will:
"As soon as reasonably practical after the dead of Trustor, the Trustee shall distribute a summ equal to twenty percent (20%) of Trustors gross estate, as valued for federal estate tax purposes, to one ore more charities for the benefit and/or children's causes..."

I am sure, Michael did NOT mean the children and grand-children from his mother with his order.


Ok, why does not Katherine set up a children charity and ask the estate to give it 20 % of the estate? Branca should consider this option as I'm afraid his creativity on how to go around MJ's wishes , might fail him this year.
 
Ok, why does not Katherine set up a children charity and ask the estate to give it 20 % of the estate? Branca should consider this option as I'm afraid his creativity on how to go around MJ's wishes , might fail him this year.

That is truly scary idea Soundmind!
If KJ sets up children's charity, it means the money would go to her grown up children.
Hell no! Better if executors select the children's charity that MJ supported while alive (other than that fake HTWF).
 
I dont think he would be so slack in appeasing katherine if it was his money instead of mjs.
 
I am in deep respect for Mr. Branca's reputation and for his work in Michael's Estate. That is not the point.
The third accounting document is openly and so it must be allowed criticism.


Today I have googled after the high from the apanage for Queen Elizabeth II: She gets about 60 millions USD per anno and in UK there is criticsm about the summ is too high....
Now, from what I read in the accounting is the Matriarch from the First Royal Family from muzik on the best way.... (that was polemic. But I am really very angry.)
We should not forget the indirect costs which she is/was caused (for example: HTWF/Melissa Johnson).

I am aware that there is no money for charity to this time because the Estate is in debts.
(Please, Question an Ivy: Is the long-term debts on the Sony/ATV excluded from this order? I think so but I'm not sure.)

My resumee is: If the costs (especially the cost for K.J.) will stick in this enormous high we will not get a charity.
For the IRS the Estate will get new debts in unkwon high.
 
I dont think he would be so slack in appeasing katherine if it was his money instead of mjs.

Yeah...i am so disgusted by this I haven't even bothered reading the 3rd accounting document. Just vile the way they are cutting corners to appease the family.

until Katherine Jackson kicks the bucket, I will not spend a penny on anything that benefits the estate.

no more.
 
I expect Havendurst to be sold once KJ dies. unless the kids decide to live there.

Not if Jermaine have any say:
Jermaine Jackson ?@jermjackson5 25 Feb 2012
HAYVENHURST IS NOT BEING SOLD. I can assure you that Mother's position remains the same and I'm told the Estate (cont) http://tl.gd/g47l6m

:cheeky:

Paris said in one interview that she preferred to live in Havenhurst than in Calabasas, so she might moves there. If she does, she should change the locks.

Today I have googled after the high from the apanage for Queen Elizabeth II: She gets about 60 millions USD per anno and in UK there is criticsm about the summ is too high....
Now, from what I read in the accounting is the Matriarch from the First Royal Family from muzik on the best way.... (that was polemic. But I am really very angry.)
We should not forget the indirect costs which she is/was caused (for example: HTWF/Melissa Johnson)

In a few years time, KJ's allowance will match with Queen E, if she keeps running to executor begging mo' money.
The estate should make her to pay attorney costs for cases she and Joe has caused, or do some sort of deduction on her allowance. One thing seems to be sure, there is no money going on charity in KJ's life time.

Yeah...i am so disgusted by this I haven't even bothered reading the 3rd accounting document. Just vile the way they are cutting corners to appease the family.

until Katherine Jackson kicks the bucket, I will not spend a penny on anything that benefits the estate.

no more.

Very understandable. I makes me sick to think about if I buy product that estate put out, I would be supporting Joe and cubs, and my money is not used to paying back MJ loans, or supporting his charity.
It would be lovely if we could choose were the money would go, but unfortunately that is not the case.


Next year Junior will be 18, so at least KJ will not be controlling his allowance from the estate any more, and Paris following year. That should reduce the amount KJ is distributing to those hangers-on.
 
Next year Junior will be 18, so at least KJ will not be controlling his allowance from the estate any more, and Paris following year. That should reduce the amount KJ is distributing to those hangers-on.

I can not see that Prince or Paris will do anything against Kathrine or have intrest to reduce her allowance.
I think they will support her until her death. It will be intresting to see how things will developing in apsect of the relationship to the family after Kathrines death.

until Katherine Jackson kicks the bucket, I will not spend a penny on anything that benefits the estate.
no more.

Sad. People will only say there is no intrest in MJ anymore.
 
I can not see that Prince or Paris will do anything against Kathrine or have intrest to reduce her allowance.
I think they will support her until her death. It will be intresting to see how things will developing in apsect of the relationship to the family after Kathrines death.


Sad. People will only say there is no intrest in MJ anymore.

What I meant by my post that until kids are underage, it has been KJ who controls their allowance money (3 million) and how it is spent, but once kids come to age, kids gets an allowance directly to themselves and their bank account. There would be no longer middlemen such as Ribeira or KJ. Of course that wouldn't stop KJ going to kids begging money if her own millions are spent to Joe and cubs.

PPB will grow up like any other kids and they will find friends outside of the family, get on with their own lives , get married etc. KJ will be in their back burner by then.

Yes, I can imagine:bugeyed:what is going to happen when KJ passes away and how family will carry on. I wonder who they are going to kidnap then?
 
Last edited:
Bubs, it's a scary thought what the family will do when Katherine passes.
 
I think you're all way too harsh on branca's doling out the $$$ in allowances etc. To us it all seems like gigantic sums of money, but to the jacksons it's small fry as they are fixated on the 40% trust fund set up in mrs j. As far as they are concerned they see the will as allowing mrs j to have up to 40% of mj's estate and so are continually pressuring for a massive lump sum before she dies, i don't think a few million is what they see as such a sum. So the large amounts of money going to the family are really a compromise - branca's probably giving out as little as he can to win over some of the less militant jacksons, avoid kidnappings, avoid disruption for the children who will be used as pawns in any battles like they were in hwt, and a provide a little bit of a united front for projects like cirque etc.

I also don't share any optimism that all this hankering after the $$$ of mj's estate will subside when mrs j passes. Instead i think the entitlement and desire for help with biz ventures, and requests for estate jobs,etc etc will be directed at ppb once they start getting into their inheritance. If an outsider who's a ruthless, canny top us attorney has to bend and dole out huge sums of $$$ to family, how on earth are some young adults who have been brought up by that family and can be emotionally manipulated by and feel obligated to going to cope? We can hope that ppb will be independent and not spend their lives wrapped up in the 'jackson family' mythology, but it's a bit early to be really confident.
 
Last edited:
Your definition of solvency certainly appears to be unique, it sounds like you believe it means that the execs need to pay off all the debts. It's not, it's whether a business can meet its monthly/yearly debt and interest repayments out of its liquid assets and also whether its total equity is more than its total debt. Yes to both for mj's estate - unless you know different and the estate are reneging on their loan repayments.

You must be confused. There is a fine line between solvency and liquidity.

solvency refers to a business ability to meet all its debts, including both short and long terms.

whereas liquidity refers to a business ability to meet it's short term or daily debts. so a business is said to be liquid if it's got enough cash at hand or short-term assets it can easily convert into cash to pay off its short term debts.

Given this, it's not unreasonable to assert that MJ estate is solvent because its assets (long and short terms) outweigh its liabilities (long and short terms). however until all liabilities (both long terms and short terms) are paid, its assets cannot be distributed to the respective beneficiaries. That is the law.

Similarly it's not unreasonable to posit that the MJ estate is liquid because its current (short-term) assets outweigh its current liabilities, meaning the estate has enough cash at hand and other current tangible assets to pay off all its current liabilities (i.e operational expenses).
 
I really think the Estate does a wonderful job!
 
I also don't share any optimism that all this hankering after the $$$ of mj's estate will subside when mrs j passes. Instead i think the entitlement and desire for help with biz ventures, and requests for estate jobs,etc etc will be directed at ppb once they start getting into their inheritance. If an outsider who's a ruthless, canny top us attorney has to bend and dole out huge sums of $$$ to family, how on earth are some young adults who have been brought up by that family and can be emotionally manipulated by and feel obligated to going to cope? We can hope that ppb will be independent and not spend their lives wrapped up in the 'jackson family' mythology, but it's a bit early to be really confident.
===================================================================

very true. i just hope like with mj the kids only really care for kj and once shes gone they will have the strength to say no. but its abit diff with the kids than with mj becasue you have all the second generations who want to be their best friends and no doubt will be sniffing around.at least with mj siblings most of them blew their cover with granny napping or with what mj had already told jr
 
Any hint at the paying for archiving/ restoration of MJ films or videos? I know this was in the initial accounting. I hope they found some good stuff.
 
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif-->Regarding Nile Acquisition LLC (Sony/ATV-EMI deal)

Attached are selected notes from Sony Corporation financial statements for fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. They relate to Michael&#8217;s estate, which is partner for two entities : Sony/ATV (the estate&#8217;s main asset), and Nile Acquisition LLC (purchase of the EMI publishing catalogue). I added some details that I guess (in blue).

Some of you will perhaps be able to explain a fact that remains mysterious to me. The estate account current for 2012 mentions an ending value of $50,208.00 for the investment in Nile Acquisition LLC (schedule I, ref 51), when it should be MILLIONS, considering that it has to be a 25.1% interest (Sony&#8217;s being 74.9% as described in note 5, for $320 millions, the estate&#8217;s 25,1% should have a value of $107 millions). Anyone has a clue ?


Note 5 - Relates party transactions
[...]
On June 29, 2012, an investor group which included a wholly-owned subsidiary [Sony Corporation of America] of Sony Corporation completed its acquisition of EMI Music Publishing. To effect the acquisition, the investor group formed DH Publishing, L.P. (&#8220;DHP&#8221;) which acquired EMI Music Publishing for total consideration of 2.2 billion U.S. dollars. Sony invested 320 million U.S. dollars in DHP, through Nile Acquisition LLC, for a 39.8% equity interest. Nile Acquisition LLC is a joint venture with the third party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] of Sony&#8217;s U.S. based music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV] in which Sony holds a 74.9% ownership interest. In addition, DHP entered into an agreement with Sony&#8217;s U.S. based music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV] in which the subsidiary provides administration services to DHP. Sony accounts for its interest in DHP under the equity method. DHP was determined to be a variable interest entity as described in Note 23.
[...]

Note 23 - Variable interest entities

[...]
Sony&#8217;s U.S. based music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV] is a joint venture with a third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] and has been determined to be a VIE. The subsidiary [Sony/ATV] owns and acquires rights to musical compositions, exploits and markets these compositions and receives royalties or fees for their use. Under the terms of the joint venture, Sony has the obligation to fund any working capital deficits as well as any acquisition of music publishing rights made by the joint venture [Sony/ATV]. In addition, the third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] receives a guaranteed annual dividend of up to 23.1 million U.S. dollars through December 15, 2016. Based on a qualitative assessment, it was determined that Sony has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the VIE&#8217;s economic performance, as well as the obligation to absorb the losses of the VIE due to its obligation to provide funding to the joint venture. As a result, it has been determined that Sony is the primary beneficiary. At March 31, 2014, the assets and liabilities that were included in Sony&#8217;s consolidated balance sheets were as follows [currency : Yen in millions] :
Assets :
Cash and cash equivalents 6,495
Accounts receivables, net 3,315
Other current assets 26,226
Property, plant and equipment, net 1,330
Intangibles, net 61,269
Goodwill 15,570
Other noncurrent assets 6,395
Total assets 120,600
Liabilities :
Accounts payable and accrued expenses 42,329
Other current liabilities 9,498
Other noncurrent liabilities 3,136
Total liabilities 54,963
[&#8230;]
In connection with the July 2013 refinancing of the debt obligation of the third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] in the music publishing subsidiary described above [Sony/ATV], Sony has issued a guarantee to a creditor of the third-party investor in which Sony has agreed to repay the outstanding principal plus accrued interest up to a maximum of 290 million U.S. dollars to the creditor should the third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] default on its obligation. The obligation of the third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] is collateralized by its 50% interest in Sony&#8217;s music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV]. Should Sony have to make a payment under the terms of the guarantee, Sony would assume the creditor&#8217;s rights to the underlying collateral [Michael Jackson Estate&#8217;s 50% interest in Sony/ATV]. The assets of the third-party investor [Michael Jackson Estate] that are being used as collateral were placed in a separate trust [MJ ATV Publishing Trust ? New Horizon Trust ? New Horizon Trust II ?] which is also a VIE in which Sony has significant variable interests. Based on a qualitative assesment, it was determined that Sony is not the primary beneficiary as Sony does not have the power to direct the activities of the trust. The assets held by the trust consist solely of the third-party investor&#8217;s [Michael Jackson Estate&#8217;s] 50% ownership interest in the music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV]. At March 31, 2014, the fair value of the assets held by the trust exceeded 290 million U.S. dollars.
[...]
As described in Note 5, on June 29, 2012, an investor group which included a wholly-owned subsidiary [Sony Corporation of America] of Sony Corporation completed its acquisition of EMI Music Publishing. To effect the acquisition, the investor group formed DH Publishing, L.P. (&#8220;DHP&#8221;) which acquired EMI Music Publishing. In addition, DHP entered into an agreement with Sony&#8217;s U.S. based music publishing subsidiary [Sony/ATV] in which the subsidiary provides administration services to DHP (the &#8220;Administration Agreement&#8221;). DHP was determined to be a VIE as many of the decision making rights for the entity do not reside within the entity&#8217;s equity interests, but rather are enbedded in the Administration Agreement. Under the terms of the Administration Agreement, the largest non-Sony shareholder [Mubadala Development Company PJSC] has approval rights over decisions regarding the activities that most significantly impact DHP, including the acquisition and retention of copyrights and the licensing of songs. These approval rights result in Sony and the largest non-Sony shareholder [Mubadala Development Company PJSC] sharing the power to direct the activities of DHP, and as such, Sony is not the primary beneficiary of the VIE. At March 31, 2014, the only amounts recorded on Sony&#8217;s consolidated balance sheet that relate to the VIE is Sony&#8217;s net investment of 324 million U.S. dollars and a net receivable balance of 12 million U.S. dollars. Sony&#8217;s maximum exposure to losses as of March 31, 2014 is the aggregate amounts recorded on ots balance sheet of 336 million U.S. dollars. [...]
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/FY13_Consolidated_Financial_Statement.pdf
 
Thanks for sharing this. Mj estate is making money and Michael is not here anymore to enjoy it.That's what I feel sad about but glad to know the estate is making a profit.
 
Back
Top