Sony emails hack/leak

[ivy]

Adding: Ivy, question please: do you know if Michael's ownership in Mijac was 100% on the first Estate accounting?

yes and actually while I'm looking for this I found very useful info. In the first accounting assets MJ Estate owned are listed as:
-100 % interest in MIJAC
- ownership of MJ's master recordings which are subject to a distribution agreement and a joint venture agreement with Sony

so this to me shows that MJ had ownership over his masters (and MIJAC) even in 2009 and Sony had temporary control over releasing them. So I don't think Sony could have sold something they did not own.

If so, I am inclined to believe Sony (who was rumored to desire a percentage in Mijac) would offer Michael funding through their joint venture with Cowell, Syco, because Mijac was leveraged as well.

You mean they wanted to buy a portion of Mijac and planned to make (or made) an offer? That I would agree as a possibility.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, good find! It seems Michael's masters reverted to him July 2009!

So I don't think Sony could have sold something they did not own.

Remember, Sony could not sell Michael's masters and we see Sony had no ownership of Mijac which is grand!

You mean they wanted to buy a portion of Mijac and planned to make an offer? That I would agree as a possibility.

I agree as well! However; they would do so through Syco (Sony/Cowell).

This is the type of fruitful discussion that can occur between posters when the focus is understanding the information in Sony's leaked emails instead of posters focusing on erroneously labeling each other as anti-Estate and/or conspiracy inclined.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, how would Michael, as co-owner of Sony/ATV fund acquisitions if not through loans? As a private individual and co-owner, Michael never had to fund an acquisition?

Let me try with an example

I go to a bank and get a $5,000 personal loan from a bank. I have to pay it back from my own pocket.
I go to a bank and get $5,000 business loan to buy an oven for my bakery. I make and sell pies. I pay back my loan from my sales revenues. I don't use the money in my pocket.

is what I'm trying to say clear now? The same document that I got the graph from shows this too. sony/atv brings $500Million in gross revenues, they pay expenses , they pay songwriters, they pay debt from this. So what I'm trying to say that this is a business loan that's being paid from business revenues.

You have seen the accounting. What personal expenses are worth half a billion?

I have posted the accounting documents publicly. They weren't itemized but I can post the 1999 monthly expenses for you.

Documents filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in September of 1999 show that Jackson spent $95,700 on the gardening alone to maintain the sprawling Neverland Ranch. Security costs totaled another $51,900. Upkeep on his famous zoo/amusement park was another $66,200 and housekeeping/PR expenses stood at around $60,200 bringing the grand total monthly household expense to an astonishing $358,600. When it came to personal expenses, the court documents show Jackson reportedly forked out $178,100 on legal services, $120,000 on personal/property insurance, $25,600 on medical needs, $42,600 on gifts -- but only $100 a month on entertainment. Overall, his personal expenses were estimated at $1,420,600 monthly. In addition, MJ spent $85,500 on transportation and a further $475,200 on MJJ Productions and Optimum Productions.
Overall, it would cost $2,339,300 to live the life of Michael Jackson for just one month. And that would likely put anyone in debt.

Sony could sell a portion of Mijac provided they owned such portion.

Per 1st accounting, it doesn't look like they did.and seems like we agree.

This is the type of fruitful discussion that can occur between posters when the focus is understanding the information in Sony's leaked emails instead of posters focusing on erroneously labeling each other as anti-Estate and/or conspiracy inclined.

I agree and don't forget the other side as well. I'm not talking about you personally and I want to make that clear. If posters came to this thread calm and respectful to discuss and only to discuss, it could be a productive discussion. But if people come to such threads all angry, disrespectful, attacking and accusatory and unwilling to listen to anything, it doesn't help the discussion.

 

[Bubs]

Bubs, the logic in these statements is extremely difficult to follow. I must ask: what logic makes you believe the statement regarding Katherine is proof of anything? Michael’s manager was Tohme and Phillips brought Dileo back. Michael's lawyers were Dennis Hawk and Peter Lopez and Phillips brought Branca back. I never insinuated that Phillips brought Branca back; I clearly stated several times Phillips brought Branca back.

As for the Estate’s statement regarding Mijac: that was to quell some fans’ fear that the catalog was being sold to Sony/ATV. Sony/ATV was only administering the catalog.
---------------------------------------------------

Phillips brought back Dileo and Branca

Delio says MJ called him and asked to come back, and MJ asked him to contact on Branca, so I don't think Phillips brought anyone on the fold. If you have receipts to prove otherwise, until then I take your post as stale internet conspiracy.

About statement, nothing was sold and it doesn't look like they need to,and they put out the statement that they are not going to sell, so there is no point to even argue over something that hasn't happened and most likely doesn't happen. Lets get back to it when it actually happen.

 

[barbee0715]

I have posted the accounting documents publicly. They weren't itemized but I can post the 1999 monthly expenses for you.

Documents filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in September of 1999 show that Jackson spent $95,700 on the gardening alone to maintain the sprawling Neverland Ranch. Security costs totaled another $51,900. Upkeep on his famous zoo/amusement park was another $66,200 and housekeeping/PR expenses stood at around $60,200 bringing the grand total monthly household expense to an astonishing $358,600. When it came to personal expenses, the court documents show Jackson reportedly forked out $178,100 on legal services, $120,000 on personal/property insurance, $25,600 on medical needs, $42,600 on gifts -- but only $100 a month on entertainment. Overall, his personal expenses were estimated at $1,420,600 monthly. In addition, MJ spent $85,500 on transportation and a further $475,200 on MJJ Productions and Optimum Productions.
Overall, it would cost $2,339,300 to live the life of Michael Jackson for just one month. And that would likely put anyone in debt.

The interest alone on those loans would have been crushing. That debt wasn't just out of control spending. I have no doubt it was interest.

I agree and don't forget the other side as well. I'm not talking about you personally and I want to make that clear. If posters came to this thread calm and respectful to discuss and only to discuss, it could be a productive discussion. But if people come to such threads all angry, disrespectful, attacking and accusatory and unwilling to listen to anything, it doesn't help the discussion.

Now this was an interesting discussion.

 

[ivy]

I want to clarify something,

I personally would not place Michael as the originator of the scenario you are suggesting here

I'm not saying Michael is the originator as well. I was talking more about Tom Barrack.

First this was mentioned on an early June document, I would think we will all agree that the discussion about it probably was going on for several months before that.

Then let's recap what we know : Neverland was in foreclosure and "saved" by Barrack. Barrack also look over MJ's finances. Hayvenhurst was in trouble (actually was about to go into foreclosure on June 2009), loans on Sony/atv ($320M) and on Mijac ($70) was to mature by the end of 2010. It's mentioned a lot that the assets were leveraged to the max (the $70Mloan on $75M worth Mijac) which made future financing options almost impossible. Barrack is on record (at MJ Inc) stating that he mentioned MJ what his options are : bankruptcy, selling some assets, going back to work. I would also think we will all agree that this is why MJ agreed to do TII - to bring income.

We also learned that Neverland deal wasn't necessarily a mortgage but a deal to sell it. There's also the cancelled at the last minute auction. So it looks like Barrack's plan could consist of selling some stuff and going back to work. That's what I was talking about. I wasn't saying in that scenario MJ came up with it on his own. No, I was thinking about Barrack. Also think about the financial side of it. you sell 1/3rd of Mijac, use that money to pay 1/3rd of the debt and suddenly you are in a good shape - it is no longer leveraged to the max. Debt is being paid, a good portion of it is paid and you can arrange a new refinancing in 2010 in better terms and then hopefully pay that off from the income you are bringing from your comeback. I understand how the idea of selling any portion of any catalog is undesirable to the fans but also think if it could have meant keeping the catalog in the long run rather than losing it at an involuntary defaulting on the loan situation.

The interest alone on those loans would have been crushing. That debt wasn't just out of control spending. I have no doubt it was interest.

Well I didn't see those items are out of control spending. Sure they were high but not something I would consider to be extreme or unneeded. You are also right that those list doesn't show interest etc and that was a significant issue. The interest rates were high and got higher with every new refinancing. I believe whatever money the catalogs were bringing were only enough to cover the interest and therefore the principal of the loan remained pretty much the same.

 

[barbee0715]

Well I didn't see those items are out of control spending. Sure they were high but not something I would consider to be extreme or unneeded. You are also right that those list doesn't show interest etc and that was a significant issue. The interest rates were high and got higher with every new refinancing. I believe whatever money the catalogs were bringing were only enough to cover the interest and therefore the principal of the loan remained pretty much the same.

No, I agree that the itemized expenses were definitely reasonable and probably less than most people expect or would spend. It's just always a common misconception that Michael was an out of control spendthrift. I'm really not sure how that rumor got started-I always found it quite idiotic.

I remember reading that as well-that all revenue was going straight to the interest on the loans, which of course, just made the situation worse by the day. One of the best accomplishments by the Estate was to renegotiate those loans to a reasonable rate-

 

[Tygger]

I go to a bank and get a $5,000 personal loan from a bank. I have to pay it back from my own pocket.
I go to a bank and get $5,000 business loan to buy an oven for my bakery. I make and sell pies. I pay back my loan from my sales revenues. I don't use the money in my pocket.

Ivy, I understand the difference between personal and business loans. Your example is not a partnership. I realize I was not clear previously: the only method that is logical to me is if acquisitions loans carried both partners’ names, i.e., Sony and Michael. I cannot envision a scenario where Michael only enjoyed the benefits (an asset he leveraged) and not the risks of being a partner in the Sony/ATV catalog. This is why I assumed his personal loans may have included acquisition costs. Surely the acquisition loans were in both partners' names.

but only $100 a month on entertainment.

Interesting. I appreciate the detail. I can also envision the monthly millions scaling downward and upward depending on the circumstances of a given year. It is well known the loans were not negotiated in Michael’s favor by those he placed in authority to handle such matters. Unfortunately, much of Michael’s personal expenses became public through lawsuits; however, the details are mostly unknown despite being public record. Unfortunately, carrying debt can accompany a stigma which allows for judgment by the public which included some of Michael's fans. Please note I am not suggesting that judgment is occurring in this thread.

I'm not saying Michael is the originator as well. I was talking more about Tom Barrack.

I would disagree. Sony successfully offered a similar deal to Michael in 2005 as per the NYT excerpt I previously posted. Sony did not need Barrack’s encouragement four years later as they desired Mijac and saw Michael’s distress as an opportunity to gain interest in the catalog. Provided Barrack fancied such a situation, why would Barrack seek Sony (in a joint venture with Cowell) as opposed to Warner Chappell where Mijac was being administered by Michael’s choice?

About statement, nothing was sold and it doesn't look like they need to,and they put out the statement that they are not going to sell, so there is no point to even argue over something that hasn't happened and most likely doesn't happen. Lets get back to it when it actually happen.

???

Bubs, I have no clue where you are retrieving information regarding Michael calling Dileo. Dileo inserted himself conveniently into the AGE deal and the AEG deal without Michael. Evidence showed Michael would allow Dileo to act on his behalf “only when instructed.”

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Ivy, I understand the difference between personal and business loans. Your example is not a partnership. I realize I was not clear previously: the only method that is logical to me is if acquisitions loans carried both partners’ names, i.e., Sony and Michael. I cannot envision a scenario where Michael only enjoyed the benefits (an asset he leveraged) and not the risks of being a partner in the Sony/ATV catalog. This is why I assumed his personal loans may have included acquisition costs. Surely the acquisition loans were in both partners' names.

Sony/atv isn't a partnership, it's a limited liability company. Therefore there is limited liability protection for the owners' debts associated with the company.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, I understand the difference between personal and business loans. Your example is not a partnership. I realize I was not clear previously: the only method that is logical to me is if acquisitions loans carried both partners’ names, i.e., Sony and Michael. I cannot envision a scenario where Michael only enjoyed the benefits (an asset he leveraged) and not the risks of being a partner in the Sony/ATV catalog. This is why I assumed his personal loans may have included acquisition costs. Surely the acquisition loans were in both partners' names.

acquisition loan was by Sony/ATV - the company- not the individual partners. Plus it looks like they got the loan from Sony Corp. I don't know why you treat this like a loan from a third party that the individual partners had to secure with their own assets. I don't think that's the case. I think this is a situation of Sony/ATV going to their parent company, getting money to acquire more catalogs and paying it back from the revenues of the company. There's also a risk for the partners - if the company can't generate enough revenues to pay back the loan but that didn't happen. Anyway I think I expressed what I think.

I would disagree. Sony successfully offered a similar deal to Michael in 2005 as per the NYT excerpt I previously posted. Sony did not need Barrack’s encouragement four years later as they desired Mijac and saw Michael’s distress as an opportunity to gain interest in the catalog. Provided Barrack fancied such a situation, why would Barrack seek Sony (in a joint venture with Cowell) as opposed to Warner Chappell where Mijac was being administered by Michael’s choice?

Sure, Sony could have made an offer too. That's a possibility too. But just they made an offer, doesn't mean the other party would sell. You tell me what you thought about the information on the document. Did it sound like "we will try to buy a portion of the catalog" or did it sound more certain such as "we are getting it". The reason I suggested perhaps there was a plan by Barrack to sell some assets / portions of assets was because you portrayed the situation as a done deal which only didn't happen because MJ died unexpectedly. If you believe it sounded like a done deal, then wouldn't it mean that MJ was willing to sell a portion? You can't buy something if the owner isn't willing to sell. Making offers wouldn't change that.

and if you think this was an offer by sony then there isn't much to discuss right? Sony sees an advantage, "oh michael is in a bad shape financially, let's offer to buy a portion of his catalog", Michael says "nope, no way". The end. or they didn't have the chance to take the offer to MJ and/or Estate so it remained just a discussion among Sony. The end. Or they took the offer to the Estate after MJ's death but Estate said no. The end. Am I missing anything?

 

[Tygger]

Sony/atv isn't a partnership, it's a limited liability company. Therefore there is limited liability protection for the owners' debts associated with the company.

Bonnie Blue, thank you. This is the business structure that was eluding me in previous posts.

The reason I suggested perhaps there was a plan by Barrack to sell some assets / portions of assets was because you portrayed the situation as a done deal which only didn't happen because MJ died unexpectedly. If you believe it sounded like a done deal, then wouldn't it mean that MJ was willing to sell a portion? You can't buy something if the owner isn't willing to sell. Making offers wouldn't change that.

Ivy, I was speaking aloud attempting to understand the information as you were. I previously believed Sony was selling a third to Cowell however; I now know they fortunately did not have any ownership of Mijac. Provided Sony had ownership, yes, I believe they would have pursued the sale of that third to Cowell and Michael’s passing would have hindered that sale due to the public’s perception. Depending on their percentage of ownership, Sony may not have needed Michael’s approval.

and if you think this was an offer by sony then there isn't much to discuss right? Sony sees an advantage, "oh michael is in a bad shape financially, let's offer to buy a portion of his catalog", Michael says "nope, no way". The end. or they didn't have the chance to take the offer to MJ and/or Estate so it remained just a discussion among Sony. The end. Or they took the offer to the Estate after MJ's death but Estate said no. The end. Am I missing anything?

Since Sony fortunately does not have ownership, I believe they saw an opportunity to gain ownership interest with this offer through Syco. This offer mimics Sony’s successful offer to Michael in 2005. Fortunately, Michael did not exercise the option to sell half of his half of Sony/ATV. His heirs maintain a 50% share instead of 25%.

I personally do not know if this offer was presented to Michael. Provided it was, I do not know if Michael considered Syco’s offer. Simply presenting an offer does not mean Michael would be willing to sell. What I do know is Michael never allowed Sony/ATV to administer his catalog during his lifetime; he remained with Warner Chappell. The offer could have been presented to his Estate and maybe they rejected the offer. After his passing however, his Estate allowed Sony/ATV to administer Michael’s catalog in exchange for more favorable terms on Michael’s debt as per their statement below. By the way, Michael did not choose to work with Sony for Thriller25. He had no choice; Sony owned his masters at the time.

The current Sony team is the one Michael chose to work with on the Thriller 25 release and they are good partners. As stated in the recent court filings, they worked with us to refinance the burdensome debt that had been placed on Michael’s interest in Sony/ATV to very favorable terms, an important achievement which insures that Mijac and Michael’s masters remain secure for the benefit of Michael’s children for years to come.

 

[ivy]

Since Sony fortunately does not have ownership, I believe they saw an opportunity to gain ownership interest with this offer through Syco. I personally do not know if this offer was presented to Michael. Provided it was, I do not know if Michael considered Syco’s offer. Simply presenting an offer does not mean Michael would be willing to sell.

well one thing we can probably conclude is that given that this didn't happen, michael did not sign on it. so for me the rest - if they made an offer or not, if it was considered or not and so on- pretty much becomes a moot point.

Michael did not choose to work with Sony for Thriller25. He had no choice; Sony owned his masters at the time.

I would partially disagree with this. Yes while sony could have released an anniversary version without MJ's approval, Michael actually signed a deal with Sony in which Michael agreed to give them remixes and promote the release and in turn got paid millions by Sony. This is pretty much established in Bain and Tohme lawsuits. So to me that's a choice - choosing to get involved with the release, doing additional work and getting extra payment for it.

 

[Tygger]

well one thing we can probably conclude is that given that this didn't happen, michael did not sign on it. so for me the rest - if they made an offer or not, if it was considered or not and so on- pretty much becomes a moot point.

You asked me several questions and I politely responded. If the discussion is rendered moot because of a dislike of my response, so be it.

I would partially disagree with this. Yes while sony could have released an anniversary version without MJ's approval, Michael actually signed a deal with Sony in which Michael agreed to give them remixes and promote the release and in turn got paid millions by Sony. This is pretty much established in Bain and Tohme lawsuits. So to me that's a choice - choosing to get involved with the release, doing additional work and getting extra payment for it.

If Michael wanted to celebrate his Thriller with a re-release, he had NO choice but to do so with Sony as they owned his masters. I do not understand why you continually repeat Michael was paid millions for Thriller25 in several threads as if Michael did not earn those millions and it was not part of the contract between him and Sony. Sony did not give Michael extra payment of millions just because; it was Michael's due. Michael received millions for Thriller25 and I am sure Sony received millions more.

 

[ivy]

If the discussion is rendered moot because of a dislike of my response, so be it.

chill, I did not say such thing and had no dislike of your post. I was merely stating as any sale of Mijac did not happen, the specifics doesn't matter much for me. you are free to speculate as much as you want.

If Michael wanted to celebrate his Thriller with a re-release, he had NO choice but to do so with Sony as they owned his masters.

this part I agree - hence what I meant by "partially" agree/disagree in the previous post

I do not understand why you continually repeat Michael was paid millions for Thriller25 in several threads as if Michael did not earn those millions

never said such thing. he did the work, he should and did got paid for it. and I clearly mentioned this in my latest post by stating he was paid "in turn" for the remixes and the promotion.

and it was not part of the contract between him and Sony.

it was a part of a NEW contract with Sony. and that has been my point all along. signing or not signing a NEW contract was his choice. you stated he had "no choice", I'm saying being involved with it, doing additional work, doing promotion was his choice. so this was what I "partially disagreed" with you in the previous post. Release with sony - no choice, being involved in that release - his choice.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, it is a bit illogical to state a discussion is mute after one responds to the questions you posed. Maybe your questions were rhetorical and you were remiss in mentioning so.

I do not see Michael deciding to let the anniversary of his Thriller achievement go unnoticed so that was Michael’s choice. For Michael to celebrate his own achievement he had to work with Sony which we agree was not a choice for Michael. For Thriller to be celebrated with a re-issue, Michael had no choice but, to sign a new contract with Sony because they owned his masters. I believe it was also Sony’s idea for the remixes, not Michael’s. Promotion is part of the contract, not a choice.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, it is a bit illogical to state a discussion is mute after one responds to the questions you posed.

actually check and you will see I wrote "if this is the case there is not much to discuss" in my original post. so it wasn't after your responses. and again let me repeat this got nothing to do with your responses. in a situation when something did not happen, I do not find long discussions of could have, should have, would have as much productive. but that's me, like I said everyone is free to discuss as much as they want.

For Thriller to be celebrated with a re-issue, Michael had no choice but, to sign a new contract with Sony because they owned his masters. I believe it was also Sony’s idea for the remixes, not Michael’s. Promotion is part of the contract, not a choice.

to re-release thriller did not require a new contract. Sony had been repackaging and releasing his songs for years without any new contract or cooperation by Michael. while remixes and promotion could have been sony's choice, signing the new contract was michael's. it's apparent we won't agree and also "he did not want this and that but he signed a contract" doesn't make much sense to me especially with the side argument of "he did not want to work with Sony". if he did not want to work with them, if he did not want remixes or promotion, he could have said "no frigging way" when T25 contract was brought up to him. You stated he refused the 2005 catalog offer even if he wasn't in a good financial place. So apparently MJ had the ability of choice and ability to say "no" to any offer he did not like or want. But anyway I don't plan to continue with this any longer, so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, you also wrote the below in the same post - the latter after you listed several scenarios - but I will not persist.

You tell me what you thought about the information on the document.

Am I missing anything?

signing the new contract was michael's.

We do agree but you are creating an anti-Sony discussion unnecessarily.

For Michael to celebrate his Thriller with a re-release was his choice. The re-release however could not be done with anyone except Sony. Michael could not choose who to do his re-release with.