Latest on MJJC

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

krikzil said:
No, I'm not. My original comment had nothing to do with the Contract. I'm sorry I can't help you with your reading comprehension issues. Recap:

"The company had concluded the business had few growth prospects."

Comment posted: They sure changed their mind about that.

Me in response: Companies can't change their minds?

Cliff Note: The topic is Sony's opinion on the Catalog's growth potential.
Click to expand...

Rather than being insulting, you could have just left me with Sony had an opinion..which has nothing to do with what I was trying to find out from you about how this contract was constructed for Michael, and how it was constructed for Sony.
You could simply leave me with what kind of point you were trying to make. The topic is that the transaction happened. Perhaps YOUR topic is.supposedly, an opinion that sony supposedly had...which, again..is just an opinion. So you can make the effort to insult me,about my reading comprehension, which I have a problem with,(I clicked 'Thanks' on quite a few posts, which I comprehended, perfectly) or just tell me what your point was, and just leave it at that. You don't help your case by attacking me, personally. What..you don't think how sony thinks, influences how they make up a contract?
 
Last edited:
dancinmachine51 said:
On another note I hope someone can answer this....everyone hyped up Man In The Mirror which also lead to it selling over 30 million worldwide, we know that Michael did not write the song ....(which always bugged me to be totally honest, *not knocking it by the way* MITM grew to be a MJ anthem circa 2009 when infact Michael had many others that he wrote himself that ALSO could of been an 'MJ anthem' which would probably of been more meaningful').....
BUT he sang it with his entire soul which did indeed also lead to its success.
ANYWAY, what happens to that? As far as I know out of the commercially known songs Michael recorded MITM and Thriller (maybe just a few more) were not written by Michael so what happens there, where do those songs fall in to? Do they fall into MiJac even if lyrics not written by Michael or do they fall into sony/atv...
Click to expand...

I also want to know what happens to the songs MJ didn't write himself.
 
Princess nishea said:
I also want to know what happens to the songs MJ didn't write himself.
Click to expand...
I think it depends who the songwriters were signed with-I believe (and I could be totally wrong) that Siedah Garrett, and Glen Ballard, were signed to Quincy's production company-Quest-so their songs would go to whoever Quincy used for publishing. I don't know if Rod Temperton had created his own company at that point-he might have been signed to Quincy for those songs also.
Man in the Mirror is listed as Universal-but that's probably after 10 or 15 mergers. And I'm talking just songwriter's royalties, not the recordings themselves. That's totally separate.
 
MJMarty said:
I saw this in work earlier and my heart sank. God, Michael fought so hard for so long, he let himself fall into such cash flow problems in his final years just to hold onto the crown jewel of his investments and now it's gone in a flash so the executors can take a 10% share of a $750M deal.
Click to expand...

They don't make 10% share on matters related to the ATV catalogue or This Is It, this was discussed in the earlier pages of this thread.
 
ivy;4141333 said:
Inside Sony/ATV's Buyout of Michael Jackson's Estate -- And Why They Cashed Out

From pricey antiques to a sprawling ranch stocked with exotic animals, Michael Jackson made many investments of varying usefulness over the course of his career. Yet among all of them, ATV Music Publishing -- which he purchased for $47.5 million in 1985, merged with Sony in a joint venture 10 years later, and which his estate agreed to sell to Sony for $750 million in a deal announced March 14 -- was almost unquestionably the wisest.

Jackson was famously tipped off to the value of music publishing by Paul McCartney -- who never forgave Jackson when, with the assistance of longtime attorney John Branca, he purchased ATV: a 4,000-song catalog that controlled the rights to the Lennon-McCartney catalog, as well as songs by Bruce Springsteen, Cher, Elvis Presley, Hank Williams, Little Richard and The Rolling Stones. The loss of that friendship may be the one downside of the deal for Jackson, for which the singer put up just $11 million in cash, according to a source, and used debt to finance the rest of the deal.

Jackson’s first big payoff from the purchase came in 1995, when he joined forces with Sony to form Sony/ATV, acquiring 50 percent of the merged entity and a $110 million payout: A decade after he bought ATV, Jackson already had doubled his initial investment.

Over the years, Sony/ATV grew exponentially, etc. etc. etc.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7262961/inside-sony-atvs-buyout-michael-jackson-estate
Click to expand...
I know this has nothing to do with the Sony buyout of Michael's share of the catalog but I had to call Billboard and several other media outlets out last night when I read these articles-I am so sick and tired of people continuing to push the myth that Michael outbid Paul for that catalog in 85 and their friendship crashed and burned because of it.
Of course, Paul is to blame for a lot of that, because he gave a lot of "whiny" interviews about it in the beginning-

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

To this day, I see people trouncing Michael left and right for "stealing" the songs away from Paul (who had the money to buy 10 of those catalogs back then) and articles like this don't help.
 
redfrog said:
I don't mix them up I just wanted to know where the other 280m went.
What's your source? Link?
Click to expand...

I already mentioned the sources. The leaked Sony emails, accounting documents and media articles.

Here showing the gross revenues and operating income

i1a4vr.jpg


Here is showing guaranteed income

29vj86t.jpg


Here is the debt payment from accounting document

2mzzcq9.jpg


and this is what the press release said . You'll need to do some math. 750 - 733 = 17 Million

The MOU calls for total payments of 750 million U.S. dollars, which includes a lump sum payment by SCA of approximately 733 million U.S. dollars as well as distributions previously committed to by Sony/ATV to be paid to the Estate.
 
barbee0715 said:
I know this has nothing to do with the Sony buyout of Michael's share of the catalog but I had to call Billboard and several other media outlets out last night when I read these articles-I am so sick and tired of people continuing to push the myth that Michael outbid Paul for that catalog in 85 and their friendship crashed and burned because of it.
Of course, Paul is to blame for a lot of that, because he gave a lot of "whiny" interviews about it in the beginning-

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

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

Yeah, unfortunately it's a topic that a lot of people on both sides don't understand the full details of.

Michael Jackson didn't steal the songs from Paul McCartney and co., and Paul McCartney/Yoko Ono didn't buy as they were solely interested in the music of the Beatles. Sure, he could've bought the entire catalog but we've all refused to buy something big because we were only interested in one or two things in it.

As for the Paul interviews, at the beginning he wasn't entirely happy (and while Michael was in the right, I can see Paul's side) but going off interviews he gave, by the close of the 1980s he was pretty much over it and continued to catch up with Michael a few times (i.e. Michael caught up with Paul backstage on one of his late 80s tours [pic], Paul and his wife also met Michael on set of the BoW short film [pic]).

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

Does this development mean the Estate can soon close then? As far as I know that depends on the outstanding debts and lawsuits. Is that right? Now all debts are paid. I know there are some lawsuits still ongoing. Does the Robson/Safechuck lawsuit affect the possibility of the closing of the Estate since those lawsuits are now against MJ's companies, not the Estate. In Probate Court the creditors claims have been thrown out, so they will not have any claims against the Estate (unless they successfully appeal, but we have not heard about them appealing).

Other than that there is the Thome trial that I know of and a couple of other legal disputes. Once those are done can the Estate close?

ETA: My bad. I forgot about the IRS. That's a pretty big thing to resolve, so until that happens it cannot be closed.
 
The more details about the deal I read the more I understand – Michael really was a genius and a fighter.

The deal we have now is possible because he managed to buy and to keep that catalog.
The reason he kept it was not just “I have to have it” thing, IMO. It was reasonable to hold it until the moment it could help in the future. That is what we have now.

I do not know what Michael would want or do, I form my opinion from the reality we have now.

Nothing can stay the same. Things have to change.

We need to take care of Michael’s legacy and it has nothing to do with songs of Beatles or anyone else. It was an investment and it did its job fine, as we see. Now there will be other investments!

Life goes on, whether we agree with things or not.

MiJac catalog is safe and NOW stronger than ever because executors do not follow emotions making their decisions.

Now when the genius is gone and there will never be new era with Michael.

The new era of the debt free Michael Jackson Estate is coming. It is the second best thing that can happen and for me it means the world!!!
And at that point, I can care less about Beatles and who owns THEIR songs.

I agree with Princess nishea and dancinmachine51, we need more information how things work with Michael’s songs.

…It is difficult to take into count all changes that are going to take place when there is no debt.
In all honesty, I did not expect it to be so soon.

Now I hate all lawsuits even more.
 
Yeah spill bubs! LOL dont tell me its i hate sony ?

Serious note is my concern over IRS. Settle that or lose and here comes we had no choice,selling mijac was our only option. Also now theres liquid assets does it effect possible compensation in robson and other suits as they will see how much more cash money the estate has. Add finally the continuas bleeding of the estate by the family.havibg a large cash asset is not the best thing imo

Yes the estate got approx 40 years worth of payments for the cat. But how many years before all that money dwindles down to nothing and ontop of the loss of many parts of mjs legacy /history is gone there wont even be any money to show for it.
 
As for the probate close the next big hurdle will be the Estate tax dispute with IRS. They need to resolve that. IF they lose and end up with a huge tax bill it might take them years even decades to pay and need to stay in probate. Under probate there is only El-Amin/Bain and Tohme cases. Regardless of probate versus civil most cases scheduled from 2016 to 2017. Assuming IRS Estate tax is resolved and cases end without major delays, probate can close as early as 2017. But it will all depend on the taxes and the legal disputes.
 
ivy said:
As for the probate close the next big hurdle will be the Estate tax dispute with IRS. They need to resolve that. IF they lose and end up with a huge tax bill it might take them years even decades to pay and need to stay in probate. Under probate there is only El-Amin/Bain and Tohme cases. Regardless of probate versus civil most cases scheduled from 2016 to 2017. Assuming IRS Estate tax is resolved and cases end without major delays, probate can close as early as 2017. But it will all depend on the taxes and the legal disputes.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

In case the Estate had opted for more debts to pay out Sony and take over their $750 milllion share that would have probably meant the Estate could not come out of probate for decades, right? As long as they don't pay back all debts.
 
mjchris said:
Prove it! you can not prove your opinion. opinion is different to fact. huge different!
Click to expand...
Addicted people take drugs they don't need. Dependent people take drugs they have to have. The only drugs in Michael's system at autopsy were the ones the dr. freely admitted putting there.
Michael had a horrific amount of pain when he started those scalp surgeries. Not to mention dance injuries. The only time he misused drugs is when the Chandler accusations started. Maybe with the Arvizo ones.
 
respect77 said:
Thanks.

In case the Estate had opted for more debts to pay out Sony and take over their $750 milllion share that would have probably meant the Estate could not come out of probate for decades, right? As long as they don't pay back all debts.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if any new deals they make now would fall under probate. But they would have at least need to pay the original debt , the debt existed when MJ died.

According to WSJ it still had $250 Million outstanding balance. How long it would take them to pay it would depend on how much they could and did pay. They paid the other $250 M in 7 years - but they had higher revenues in the earlier years. That would mean to pay $36 Million each year. Assuming they put everything they got from sony (The $23 Million not accounting for any expenses etc. ) to debt payment it would have taken 11 years. So long story short paying the debt would have taken them several years.
 
The facts from murrays trial showed mj wasnt addicted to anything at the time of death. Infact he was under using the highly addictive meds murray was prescribing probably out of concern of what they could cause. The only thing in him was murray give that night. everyone knows and mj freely admitted the problems he had in 93 and the early 00's that had nothing to do with what happened in 09. and to try to make mj out to be some recreational crack head is factually misleading and wrong. Its just a shame ppl didnt bother looking at the facts back in 09 so they arent misleadng others now or being mislead themselves

Anyway back to the thread discussion
 
The estate has top business/financial/legal experts working for them, so I'm sure they did all the calculations to determine that selling was the better option.
 
144 said:
Companies can't change their minds? What's the use of a contract, then? Why not just put it on toilet paper. Contracts are made because people like to change their minds. You have to stick to it, and hope someone as corrupt as Sony doesn't pull a Kesha.
Click to expand...

Please don't bring Ke$ha into this conversation. She can't be a bigger liar than she is. It's disgusting to talk about MJ's real problems with Sony Music and her money grab, made up "problems" with them. It's really unfair and wrong to even mention her when talking about MJ.
 
barbee0715 said:
Addicted people take drugs they don't need. Dependent people take drugs they have to have. The only drugs in Michael's system at autopsy were the ones the dr. freely admitted putting there.
Michael had a horrific amount of pain when he started those scalp surgeries. Not to mention dance injuries. The only time he misused drugs is when the Chandler accusations started. Maybe with the Arvizo ones.
Click to expand...

ok, this would go to far in the direction off topic. so i dont want to start with 'propofol' and other things.
and like i said we dont know what really happen. only the things that was said in the trial. and after that we have known that mj and his docs used it not like it should be. Amen
 
InvincibleTal said:
Actually, you can't prove yours either. And you were the one who was making a claim in the first place.
Click to expand...

not a claim, an opinion. an opinion based on some facts. and one is that mj was addicted for a, i call it, at least a period of time. and how long that is, only mj and his personal docters know.
 
Bubs;4141384 said:
******s:
He could have at least says something about MJ but no:no:
Click to expand...

Why would he? He knows MJ would never have sold the catalogue to them. He knows he has John Branca, John McClain and Karen Langford to thank for the catalogue.

MJ would have wanted to keep that:
Sony/ATV is and remains the world’s leading music publisher and these past 12 months have been another great year both creatively and financially for the company.
Click to expand...


People are all talking about how much money the Estate will make from this, but the catalogue wasn't just about money for Michael. It was about OWNING those songs. Masterpieces were priceless to him, but I guess only a true artist like MJ could see it this way. To the executors, it's just an investment which can be replaced by another. Michael is no longer here now, but his children are and it seems nobody bothered to ask them if they felt the same way that Michael did about the catalogue. This was the gift Michael wanted to leave them.The executors are only considering money and not the sentimental value that the catalogue and Neverland might have for his children. How would you feel if someone just decided against your will to sell all the keepsakes that your parents left you and then told you "look at all the cash we made from the sell!" Cash can never replace what was given to you by your parents. If they sell it now, the children will never get another chance to get it back even if they want to. Gone forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top