Today on The Wrap. com, the first of a five part investigative piece by Johnnie L. Roberts, on the relationship between Michael Jackson and John Branca was published. The article is entitled "Michael Jackson and John Branca --a Major Wrap Series". This blog will review the three parts of the first piece released.First part: "How Michael Jackson Nearly Lost His Prized Music Catalog":
1. Author Roberts begins the piece by stating that Branca is overseeing the estate as he oversaw Michael Jackson's business affairs during his lifetime. Similarly, the author states that Branca is negotiating the ATV debt as he did while Jackson was alive.
Fiction. The estate status report, filed in October, 2010, pdf page 22 states that "the special administrators have recently completely successful negotiations with UBS to refinance the loan secured by the Estate's interest in Sony/ATV as well as extensive negotiations with Sony to complete the refinance negotiation....The negotiations resulted in an amended agreement with Sony to the great benefit the Estate and a new loan at a substantially lower interest rate for the Estate, which is locked in for the period of the loan." Therefore, the information from the author should have been updated to include the negotiations of the refinancing of Jackson's half of the ATV.
2. Roberts provides a somewhat obscure history of the relationship between Branca and Jackson, stating that it was "punctuated by moments of brilliance, such as when the lawyer orchestrated Jackson's purchase of the Beatles' song catalog, ATV music, perhaps the most important deal in Jackson's life.
Fact. John Branca, as we all know, did help Jackson acquire the ATV catalog.
3. Roberts then moves on to question Branca's loyalty to Jackson, stating that "...some might conclude that Branca is no hero at all. A deal in 2003 to sell Jackson's interests in the Beatles' and MIJAC catalogues to the investment bank Goldman Sachs will lead some to question Branca's role in Jackson's business affairs.
Fact. Many fans are suspicious of John Branca and whether he had Michael Jackson's best interests at heart.
4. Roberts then goes on to reiterate that the ATV loan needs to be renegotiated (see #1) and then erroneously places a comparison image of Jackson's signature; one from a letter firing Branca in Februrary 2003, and another that Jackson "authorized trustees to borrow $35 million from Bank of America".
I have a two part question for author Roberts. Up until this point, Roberts is writing about John Branca. In the midst of this subject, Robert interjects two signatures by Michael Jackson, that appear to be dissimilar. What does this have to do with John Branca? The image, which is later shown in full here, is part of the Bank of America loan which was originally $35 million but later was renegotiated for $70 million. Branca's name is mentioned once in this document, but the signatures required were that of Malnik and McClain, not Branca.
Jury's out on this one, I'm not a lawyer. (However, this document does prove that Jackson's firing letter to Branca, dated February of 2003, DID NOT TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF BRANCA FOR LONG. This document is dated in August of 2003, so Branca was in fact, employed by Jackson in late 2003.)
Next up: "Inside Secrets of the Goldman Deal"5. Roberts states that there was a deal between Michael Jackson and Goldman Sachs to get rid of Jackson's crushing $270 million debt. According to Roberts, "As the proposal evolved during more than a year, its fundamental flaw -- that Jackson all but surely would forfeit his songs -- remained clearly obvious to Branca. More than anyone, Branca knew that owning the songs was one of his client Jackson’s great passions and that the singer worried intensely about them slipping from his grasp....In a July 2003 missive on his firm’s letterhead, Branca essentially put Goldman on notice that it ultimately must assure certain of Jackson’s ongoing obligations -- “direct payment of this firm’s 5%” -- under certain circumstances if the proposal progressed."
Ultimately, the deal fell through. Roberts states that "as for Branca, by the time the deal collapsed, Branca was fired." However, later in the article, Roberts publishes the letter in its entirety here, and Branca CLEARLY outlines what should be expected in order to protect Michael Jackson's assets even though he is not working for Jackson any more.
Fantasy. My personal opinion is that the author baits the reader with innuendo and statements from Al Malnik, in order to create, once again, controversy within the Jackson fan base. Anyone who reads that letter will see that Branca had Jackson's best interests at heart, despite the fact that he had been fired. Roberts then states that "in case Michael wanted out of the venture, 'an exit strategy needs to devised for [him] to receive fair market value.' Skeptical of Goldman’s power grab, he insisted that 'Michael should have some control over the management and operation of the venture.'" This statement is an example of the contradictory
assertions on the part of author Roberts.
Third part: "The Secret Probe that Got Branca Fired"
6. Ahhhhh...the Interfor report. Roberts states that "Interfor’s investigation, 'found a tight business relationship between Branca and Tommy Mottola,' then-CEO of Sony Music, where Jackson was an artist, according to an excerpt from the firm’s final report. The excerpt added: 'Interfor has begun investigating the flow of funds from Jackson through Mottola and Branca into offshore accounts in the Carribean [sic].'" However, Roberts states that "The investigation, which apparently began in late 2002, provided no credible evidence to corroborate those and other assertions. And the probe may have been little more than part of an elaborate smear campaign intended to influence the beleaguered Jackson to fire Branca."
Fact! Branca was exonerated in the court of Jackson's opinion. Branca DID NOT put money into offshore accounts, period. At least Roberts got that right.
All in all, Roberts' article can be viewed in two ways. My personal opinion is that this article has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what many fans have been saying since Michael died; that Branca was, and still is looking out for Michael's interests and the interests of MJ3.
9 comments:
Hey justice I see you got the ball rolling, I read but I am so busy at work I will add my three cent later, our doing a great job for MJ legacy keep it up.
Thank you for this.
If you look at Joe Jackson's petition for removal of the co-executors, you will find a document in there from about April 2006 that proves that Michael and John Branca were still working together. Also, please have a close look at the "firing" letter. It states it was written in some place in Florida (> Al Malnik?), and it says sent by fax. Roger Friedman in some contemporaneous article said the "firing" letter was hand-delivered (I cannot recall the exact phrase now, I am not at the PC where my sources are on, but it definitely did not say "fax"). I highly doubt the authenticity of the "firing" letter as shown in several sources as such. Fact is, Joe Jackson himself adduces proof that the business relationship between Michael and John Branca continued into 2006. Also, Richard LeGrand during his testimony clearly stated there was no proof - that he would do John Branca a great injustice if he indicated otherwise.
I still need to analyze the Wrap articles myself in detail. You can find some more thoughts on this topic here:
http://insanity-x-livesx1.blogspot.com/2010/07/inxtigation-series-we-will-exploit-his.html
As much as I still remain distrustful of Branca, I for one would much rather have him overlooking the Estate than I would any member of the Jackson family. To be quite openly honest, I'm suspicious of a few Jacksons as to whether or not they were really trying to help Michael, or financially bury him. Just by looking at the "doo-doo" a few of them are in, it's common sense to cautiously wonder.
I totally agree with ladyaquarius. Michael's estate in the Jacksons hands would be a disaster. Branca however has to prove he is an astute executor and choose his moves very wisely in order to shake off of his person all the suspicions gathered over Michael's last years.
To me, the criterion is the Estate including ALL the assets (if not more) landing up safely and freed from any loan burdens to the kids' laps.
Hey justice have you read the other parts?
I just read the other parts and find the writer to be very disappointed, I wonder why know?he is not writing a constructive story about the whole story eg MJ and the buying of the ATV catalog, I have read " the long and winding road" and what this writer just right is not even 1% of the story, he his just telling bit and pieces of fact and fiction as you put it justice.
I did learn one thing don't know if it is really true,
"Fretting that the images might imply devil worship, Jackson, a Jehovah's Witness, reckoned he’d lose his spot in heaven. Ad-libbing, Branca conjured a tall tale about how Bela Lugosi had pre-empted a similar concern with a disclaimer on “Dracula,” explaining that he was merely acting in the film.
The gullible entertainer relented, releasing the full-length version of the “Thriller” video with a disclaimer penned by Branca. And a week later, it had fueled sales of the album by another million" I knew John tell MJ the tale but I did not know it was a lie?
Over all I found this writing lacking substantial reasonable information, I think it high time those journalist stop writing bull crop and really put the story into proper prospective,
They use tabloids- ish writing to lore person to read there fiction soap opera writing.
Why did he mention the 5% as a reason for John to be selling out MJ when that was not the case?
I did not leave a comment because I did not like his fact and fiction,
Justice, the agreement with BofA going from $35 million to $70 million - yes, calls for sigs of McClain and Malnik, and also signature of someone from Sony, and that signature is pretty illegible. Do you know whose signature that is? Go back to the Scribd part. And the firing letter from February 2003 from the place in Florida, that's Malnik's territory, Aventura, Florida; so whose idea was it at that particular time in that particular place for Michael Jackson to fire John Branca? I'm new to this part of the puzzle, just trying to get some answers. Thanks.
@justice don't wast your time on this fool, the article is disrespecting to all party he have no respect for Michael Jackson and today show it, I don't like him and he is not telling the whole truth,
This bring back something I hear a while back they don't know one he'll about MY affair be it personal or business's, they get one ounce and they add water to make many gallon, pure crop, his attitude is sorry for a "journalist"
For those who want to twist let because the more they twist the truth the more
fact come out,
I did learn one thing if it is true, AEG was worried about the contract MJ sign
using there own lawyer,
He may not be a tabloid writer but he just made him self one.
So that is how John was able to get them to change it after MJ died?
Very interested what do you think?
"If you look at Joe Jackson's petition for removal of the co-executors, you will find a document in there from about April 2006 that proves that Michael and John Branca were still working together. Also, please have a close look at the "firing" letter. It states it was written in some place in Florida (> Al Malnik?), and it says sent by fax. Roger Friedman in some contemporaneous article said the "firing" letter was hand-delivered (I cannot recall the exact phrase now, I am not at the PC where my sources are on, but it definitely did not say "fax"). "
^^^Hmmm... I just wanted to thank you for the heads up, if true, this is certainly very helpful.
Post a Comment