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

I thought this was a good move from the start.

If I'm in two minds about things though, I always have a look at what side the conspiracy theorists are on. If I'm on the opposite side to them, then I know I chose correctly.

Having read various threads, and had a look at other areas of the rampant social media world we live in, I am now convinced it was a good move.
 
... Bit of an odd comment from staff? This is probably the biggest thing to happen in ages, of course people are going to want to discuss it at length- especially as people keep posting new articles, and the fact we have learned that Paul has the wheel's in motion to get the songs, and the fact that Paris has weighed in.

There is plenty to discuss!

Okay i get the point you are right.
 
Re: Sony buys what MJ owns of their music for 750 million.

Well, hell.
I'm glad they have MIJAC and EMI separate. I thought they were merged with Sony/ATV for some reason.

On another note, 42 million dollar investment just sold for 750 million-that's quite the profit.

Very proud of Michael and that acquisition. Then and now.


I say the best thing that could have every happen to the Estate it a good deal. It a good thing he does still have that.
 
Annita;4142958 said:
How does Lynton Guest comes to still 500 Mio. on Sony/ATV ? I think it`s established the Estate has 250 Mio. debts on the catalog

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ 17 Std.vor 17 Stunden

The ****** : Lynton Guest provides insights to Sony/ATV purchase - http://dailymichael.com/news/322-lynton-guest-provides-insights-to-sony-atv-purchase …

Why is this guy's information worth more than any other information? Actually, his numbers seem to be wrong. Eg.:

Contrary to what you might read elsewhere, he then sold 50% of that company to Sony for between 40 and 50 Million dollars.

As far as I know MJ sold his half of the catalogue in 1995 for $90-100 million. It's the first time I hear it was $40-50 million. Where does he take this number from?

And like you pointed out he also seems to be wrong about how much debt there was still on the Sony/ATV catalog. $500 million was in 2009. Last we heard was $250-280 million.

This is wrong again and you only need to pay attention to the timeline of events to know it's wrong:

When Michael was accused originally in 90s in the child molestation of Jordan Chandler. Sony started to get cold feet about their association with Michael. They couldn’t do a lot about it at the time but at the end of Michael’s trial in the 2000s Sony saw a chance to be able to get ahold of this whole catalog.

The Chandler allegations were in 1993. Sony bought half of ATV in 1995. So why would they get into a 50-50% business with MJ in 1995 if they supposedly got cold feet about their association with MJ because of the Chandler case - which was two years before they actually acquired half of the catalog?
 
He merged the cat in 95. He didnt sell half of it. Yes at the time they said 100 mill guest doesnt have the best rep considering his book
 
Why is this guy's information worth more than any other information? Actually, his numbers seem to be wrong. Eg.:?


Yes, I would also him not consider as a expert. His book was also full speculation. If I remember correctly, he wrote that Sony had a first byuing- right for Michaels 50% for only 200 million.
 
as I wrote, I welcome any information. We operate on limited available information. So any new information is appreciated by me.
 
I was alittle confuse for a moment but after looking at the the posts i gut the picture.
 
It is interesting "The revenue will primarily be used to pay off the estate's $500 million in debt, with the remainder to be placed in trust for Jackson's children. The deal is slated to be completed by late-2016 or early-2017."

Then divide that by 3 and you get $83 million for each of Michael's children. Not a bad chunk of change!


mike-paris-and-prince-prince-paris-and-blanket-jackson-11092538-504-594.jpg
 
I am confused a bit… maybe I just missed something, but I always thought the main reason for Michael’s debts was Invincible.

So I understand why he did not work much to pay out after it, there was too much for him to work on anything. He needed time.

But if the history of debt starts with Bad, Michael had chances to pay it, right? Or did he pay it out by little? Or it was not that big before Invincible?
 
You dont get 250-500 debt from vince. I doubt anyone knows the facts from where it came from even his useless bleepers of accountants etc. There was talk he had invested alot in businesses right before 9/11and after that alot of things crashed. I always remember reading about when al fayed sold harrods for a billion pounds or dollars. that 600 mill of that went back to the banks to repay loans He had with them. Maybe mj was like al fayed and everyone else during the boom years.the banks were Handing out loans of ridiculous amounts that helped lead to the crash. And because of how mjs life panned out from 03 onwards he had no chance to pay them back unless he sold an asset like al fayed did.
 
The $500 million debt wasn't just from Vince.
There were shady accountants like Myung Ho Lee who gave bad advice
made Michael lose tons of money and of course failed projects that didin't pan out financially,
like the KINGDOM entertainment project with the Saudi Prince in 1997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LxRAweU7Fs&hl=en-GB&gl
 
Last edited:
There are no 500 Mio. debts.

Correct. The $500 million debt that was there, at the time of Michael's passing, has already been paid off, quite some time ago. So $500 million dollars won't be deducted from the $750 million that the Estate will receive for its share of Sony/ATV. There are still commitments for the Estate to meet, though, such as financing the lawsuits that are continuing into next year. Once all lawsuits have been completed and all debtors paid (including any tax debt - amount yet to be decided), all remaining funds will be poured into the Trust Fund for the heirs. We should not forget, that, as per Michael's Will, 20% still goes to his favourite charities. Still a LOT of money for Michael's children, no matter how one looks at it....but they won't receive it all at once. They have to reach certain age milestones and thus receive portions of their inheritance slowly, as they grow older and pass through their lives.
 
There are no 500 Mio. debts.

The $750 million sale of Jackson's half of Sony/ATV Music will go in part to finish paying off the massive $500 million debt the singer had accrued at the time of his death in 2009. After taxes, fees and expenses, the remaining money will be put into a trust for Jackson's three children.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...of-sony-atv-publishing-20160314#ixzz457DdQQs4
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
 
The $750 million sale of Jackson's half of Sony/ATV Music will go in part to finish paying off the massive $500 million debt the singer had accrued at the time of his death in 2009. After taxes, fees and expenses, the remaining money will be put into a trust for Jackson's three children.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...of-sony-atv-publishing-20160314#ixzz457DdQQs4
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Only it's not correct. The debt was $500 million when MJ died. Now it's about $250 million.
 
Only that you are not correct. The article does not say it is now 500 million. Where did you get that 250 million figure? Is that another pure speculation that you state as nothing but fact? How about the loan for the IBM catalogue ? That's alone hundreds of millions. But of course your figure could be true if we were to assume that Branca paid all the loans against ATV. But then again that would unfortunately invalidate all your arguments about the necessity behind the decision to sell the catalogue. Not that I am expecting you to admit you are wrong.
 
Soundmind;4144355 said:
Only that you are not correct. The article does not say it is now 500 million. Where did you get that 250 million figure? Is that another pure speculation that you state as nothing but fact? How about the loan for the IBM catalogue ? That's alone hundreds of millions. But of course your figure could be true if we were to assume that Branca paid all the loans against ATV. But then again that would unfortunately invalidate all your arguments about the necessity behind the decision to sell the catalogue. Not that I am expecting you to admit you are wrong.

Well, the only article that says it's $500 million is this Rolling Stone article and it seems to me they just took the figure from when MJ died (''$500 million debt the singer had accrued at the time of his death in 2009"). 7 years have passed since and we know for a fact that the Estate has been paying back loans every year (last year $17 million) - we know that from their accounting -, so just based on that fact it is very unlikely that it's still $500 million.

This article from Billboard from this year says the debt is $250 million now:

The deal will also allow the Jackson estate to pay off an estimated $250 million in debt, leaving it debt free, sources say.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7262961/inside-sony-atvs-buyout-michael-jackson-estate

This seems to be in correlation with a Forbes article from 2012 that said then, in 2012, the loan on Sony/ATV was about $280 million. Which would make the $250 million figure today just about correct:

There are still some business debts left for Jackson, namely a loan that FORBES estimates at $280 million, connected to the Sony/ATV publishing catalog.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackoma...aid-off-just-in-time-for-bad-25/#12cece6b4855


And BTW, if the loan is still $500 million then I think it's more argument in the support of the sale. Because if the loan has not gone down one bit since MJ's death despite of the Estate paying Sony/ATV back millions and millions each year (due to high interest rates or how come it did not go down despite of the Estate paying back? - as far as I know the Estate actually managed to negotiate a more favourable interest rate with Sony than before) then it really is time to get rid of it because then it will never go down otherwise.

Oh yeah, here is the info about the interest rate regarding the loan on Sony/ATV:

But the loan’s interest rate of 2.9%, negotiated down from 5.8% shortly after the singer’s death, seems innocuous enough

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackoma...aid-off-just-in-time-for-bad-25/#12cece6b4855

Now, if you argue the EMI buy (I guess that's what you mean by "IBM catalog") took the Estate's debt up again to $500 million then that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for keeping the catalog either IMO. Because it would just show that Sony can force the Estate in all kind of big debts any time they want to buy something to expand the catalog which is not a very good position to be in for an Estate IMO.

If it the debt went down to half of it indeed in 7 years that is great, but please notice that most of that sum went down in the 1-2-3 years after MJ's death when the Estate made a lot of money due to MJ's death (that's when they made all these deals with Cirque, Sony, there was This Is It etc.). Such a cash-in is a one off. If the debt went down only $30 million in the past couple of years ($280 million to $250 million since 2012) then it shows a significant slowing down in the rate how the Estate is able to pay back the loan. And this is about the normal rate they will be able to pay in the future. And if they had bought Sony's share it wouldn't just be the current $250 million but an additional $750 million debt as well that they should pay back.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying how much the debt is now. Frankly I do not care any more. All I am saying please stop giving answers to matters you have no idea about. Certain members have a tendency to answer every question and make it seem like they do know what they are talking about, be it law or business or whatever. And never do they learn to slow down even when many of the things they say turn out to be wrong. As far as I am concerned Branca could come out now and say we still have 700 millions in debt and some of you would do everything in your power to claim that is very plausible. Whenever it suits some the debt is almost paid but the very next day for another argument the debt goes back to where it was years ago. MJ has died, his assets are being sold and his kids should make sure to get proper education because at this stage there is zero quarrantee they will have anything to rely on in 10 to 20 years.
 
I am not saying how much the debt is now. Frankly I do not care any more. All I am saying please stop giving answers to matters you have no idea about. Certain members have a tendency to answer every question and make it seem like they do know what they are talking about, be it law or business or whatever. And never do they learn to slow down even when many of the things they say turn out to be wrong. As far as I am concerned Branca could come out now and say we still have 700 millions in debt and some of you would do everything in your power to claim that is very plausible. Whenever it suits some the debt is almost paid but the very next day for another argument the debt goes back to where it was years ago. MJ has died, his assets are being sold and his kids should make sure to get proper education because at this stage there is zero quarrantee they will have anything to rely on in 10 to 20 years.

I am sorry but you are not the one to tell me or anyone here what to discuss and what to reply to and what not. If you are not interested you are free to leave this thread alone.

I have given my sources and my thoughts on why I think the $500 million claim is inaccurate. In fact, the very article that was quoted from Rolling Stone says that was the debt when MJ died. And we know for a fact that debts have been paid back since (see the Estate's accounting). Those are facts. If you have better informtion to demonstrate as to why the $500 million is still the case you are free to present that argument. Ad hominem attacks won't do, I am sorry.

Of course, much of our information (on BOTH sides of the argument) come from media reports which are either accurate or not. It is possible that the claim that MJ had $500 million debt when he died is not true (maybe it's less, maybe it's more), but then let's not quote anything from the media to discuss anything because everything is unreliable - including that Rolling Stone article that AliCat quoted and which I only replied to.
 
Last edited:
Are not you the one who wrote the article was wrong for claiming the debt is 500 million? Well, the article does not say that. It says it was at the time of his death and the estate will " finish paying it" using the money coming from selling the catalogue. You do not need to write an essay after essay to prove something both of us know you have no idea about. That 250 figure is nothing but speculation. You simply do not know.
 
Are not you the one who wrote the article was wrong for claiming the debt is 500 million? Well, the article does not say that. It says it was at the time of his death and the estate will " finish paying it" using the money coming from selling the catalogue. You do not need to write an essay after essay to prove something both of us know you have no idea about. That 250 figure is nothing but speculation. You simply do not know.

If you had actually followed the course of the conversation in this thread instead of flying into attack mode immediately you would have seen that there were posts in which people were discussing before me if that $500 million debt is recent or not and there WERE suggestions that it's the current debt. I was simply replying to that conversation. I am sorry but you won't stop people from discussing whatever they want to discuss and if they want to discuss it in "essays" that's their prerogative too. No one needs your permission.
 
Last edited:
you have no idea about. That 250 figure is nothing but speculation. You simply do not know.

not quite. sure we don't know everything for certain but there is some basis to opinions - there is also the accounting documents.

The $320 Million debt on Sony/ATV is known since 2006 - when Stabler sued MJ. Later on it became public that Mijac at $70 Million debt, $36 M in creditor claims, $5-6 Million debt for Hayvenhurt+Condo and around $30 Million debt to AEG. Add that and all the other small unknown stuff, it would give a debt around $500 Million.

Accounting documents and news stories also mentioned personal debts being paid - those included Mijac, most of creditor claims, mortgages on hayvenhurst and condo, debt to AEG and so on. It's why it was announced that the personal debts were paid off.

There was still the business debts - aka Sony/ATV debt. (The articles mentioning personal debt was being paid of mentioned the business loans). We know it started at $320 Million. Accounting documents showed payment for that. I think it was about $46 Million (10+10+10+16) by the end of 2013. Add to that payment done in 2014 and 2015 it's quite possible the current debt on Sony/ATV is around $250 Million.

That's would be the only remaining MJ debt the Estate will be responsible for - as far as the probate goes.

Sure there is also the probably $200 Million + EMI loan but that isn't a concern for probate.
 
Sony Music Rivals Said to Seek EU Action on Michael Jackson Deal
Kristen Schweizer
April 20, 2016 — 1:18 PM




Sony Corp.’s planned purchase of the late Michael Jackson’s stake in a heavyweight music-publishing business is drawing opposition from rival music companies asking European regulators to intervene, according to people familiar with the matter.


Warner Music Group and a group of independent record labels have approached the European Commission, saying the $750 million agreement would give Sony too much power over pricing and deal terms, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named discussing private conversations. Bertelsmann’s BMG Rights Management is considering contacting the commission with similar complaints, another person said.
Sony already owns half of the publishing venture, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which controls a catalog of artists from the Beatles and Taylor Swift to Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones. This week it signed a definitive agreement to buy the rest from the Jackson estate, after a preliminary deal in March.


A key concern is that Sony, already the largest music-publishing business, will have more leverage when negotiating licensing deals with the likes of Spotify Ltd. and Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube in an online music market worth $6.9 billion in revenue last year.


Impala, a lobbying group representing independent labels, wants the regulators to block the deal or to force Sony to divest worldwide rights to some artists and catalogs, in line with previous steps they took when Sony and Universal bought EMI Group in 2012.


“It’s difficult to imagine how the Sony/ATV deal could get any kind of green light from the European Commission,” said Helen Smith, Impala’s executive chair. “Just three years ago the EC effectively set a limit when it already said Sony was too big and had to divest assets.”


Lawyers for Warner Music met with European regulators this month to discuss the deal, according to people familiar with the matter.
Spokesmen for Warner Music, BMG and Sony declined to comment. The European Commission declined to comment.


Licensing Heft
The growth of digital streaming services has lifted the value of publishing rights because it gives music fans one-click access to millions of songs. Songwriters and other rights holders receive publishing royalties when the tunes are played back.


Sony/ATV controls almost 30 percent of the music-publishing market, according to Music & Copyright, a trade publication. Sony is also the second-largest music recording company, after Universal Music Group. Universal isn’t planning to lobby against the Sony purchase, according to another person familiar with the matter.
While the EU can clear a deal within six weeks of filing, it can open a more extensive, four-month investigation if it has concerns the deal could reduce consumer choice or increase prices. Analysts say regulators are likely to examine music charts in a number of European countries to see how much share each music publisher holds.
Universal, which bought the recorded-music rights of EMI for 1.2 billion pounds ($1.7 billion) four years ago, was forced to sell the record labels of artists including Black Sabbath, Coldplay and Depeche Mode. Sony had to offload worldwide rights to artists including Ozzy Osbourne, Lenny Kravitz and Robbie Williams to get approval for its $2.2 billion acquisition of EMI’s music-publishing business.


Simon Dyson, a music industry analyst at Ovum in London, said it was unlikely opponents would succeed in persuading regulators to block the deal outright.


“There’s no case where the EU has stopped consolidation in the music industry and they seem to be more keen to get the deal through,’’ he said. It is more likely that regulators would require Sony to divest assets, he said.
Any divestitures required by European regulators would likely extend to the worldwide rights of artists and song catalogs.


Selling the stake in Sony/ATV would let the Jackson estate clear a mountain of debt accumulated by the late King of Pop before his death in 2009 at age 50. The deal calls for a lump-sum payment of $733 million as well as future distributions.


The Jackson family will retain Michael Jackson’s master recordings as well as the Mijac music catalog, which includes songs from Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin and Sly and the Family Stone.
Michael Jackson bought music-rights catalog ATV in 1985 for $41.5 million, which included most songs of The Beatles. Sony later bought half of ATV and last September began talks with the Jackson estate to buy the rest.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aid-to-seek-eu-action-on-michael-jackson-deal
 
“It’s difficult to imagine how the Sony/ATV deal could get any kind of green light from the European Commission,” said Helen Smith, Impala’s executive chair. “Just three years ago the EC effectively set a limit when it already said Sony was too big and had to divest assets.”

"Sony had to offload worldwide rights to artists including Ozzy Osbourne, Lenny Kravitz and Robbie Williams to get approval for its $2.2 billion acquisition of EMI’s music-publishing business."

I wonder what is going to happen? Sony's Emi deal was much bigger and they had to offload some ww rights, so wouldn't they do just the same this time?
 
Always wondered if this would get brought up. Maybe off load some songs to the estate
 
Back
Top