Zitat von fairie777

ist schon erstaunlich, dass nun wieder 1 Jahr gewartet wird, bis da entschieden wird ...

1 Jahr wird es nun ja hoffentlich nicht mehr dauern bis die Labor-Kommission die Entscheidung trifft, denn diese sollte nun tatsächlich bald kommen. Diese ist unabhänig vom Prozess in einem Jahr, hat aber weitreichende Bedeutung für de weiteren Handlungsmöglichkeiten vom Estate gegenüber Tohme und die Prozessinhalte.

Nach 20 langen Monaten und mehreren Nachfragen vom Nachlassgericht hat die Labor-Kommission endlich ihre Entscheidung bekanntgegen. Die Labor-Kommission entschied, dass Tohme nicht als Talent-Agency lizensiert war in der Zeit für die er für Michael arbeitete. Zu den Neverland-Vemittlungsgebühren wurden bereits vor einigen Monaten entschieden, dass diese nicht von der LABOR-Kommssion behandelt werden können und ein Prozess ist für Mai 2016 angesetzt.
Labor-Kommission entschied das es sowohl legale als auch illegale Aktivitäten von Tohme für Michael gab. Die Labor-kommission betitelt Tohmes Vertragsverhandlung zum TII-Deal als nicht legal, da er nicht als Talent-Agent lizensiert war. Da die TII-Konzerte nie stattfanden meint die Labor-Kommission sei Tohme nie berechtigt gewesen für eine Provision aus den Konzerten. Und jetzt das seltsame. Allerdings stimmt die Labor-Kommission nicht mit der Estate-Argumentation überein, dass Tohme dann auch nicht berechtigt ist für eine Provsion aus dem TII-Film. Labor-Kommission sagt es gab keinen Vertrag zu Proben und Aufnahmen dazu und es sei zu spekulativ anzunehmen, dass der Film nie stattgefunden hätte, wenn es den Deal zu den TII-Konzerten nie gegeben hätte. Zum Thema wie viel Provision soll Tohme dann erhalten. Tohme forderte bekanntlich 15%, Labor Kommission gesteht im 7,5% zu mit dem Argument 50% seiner Handlungen waren legal, 50% illegal.

Estate ist nicht einverstanden und hat bereits in einer 10-Tage-Frist Berufung eingelegt. Ein Berufung zu einer Entscheidung der Labor-Kommission ist offensichtlich nicht vergleichbar mit einer Berufung zu einen sonstigen Gerichtsentscheid. Offensichtlich besteht wenn hier eine Partei Berufung einreicht die Verpflichtung das Ganze vollkommen neu vor Gericht bringen zu können ohne das der Entscheidung der labor-Kommission irgendwelche Bedeutung beigemessen wird.

Dokumente zur Labor-Kommission-Entscheidung sind ebenfalls beigefügt.

http://www.dailymichael.com/la…bor-commissioner-decision

MJ Estate v. Tohme - Labor Commissioner Decision

ivy
Estate v. Tohme
22 July 2015
Hits: 1550

JoomShareBar

Background

Tohme filed a complaint against MJ Estate asking for fees he’s owed. These were 10% from Neverland refinancing, 10% from any future transaction about Neverland, $35,000 per month plus 15% of income from services he provided (plus interest when applicable). Estate petitioned Labor Commissioner based on California’s Talent Agency Act to cancel three agreements MJ had with Tohme. The three agreements are Neverland finder’s fee agreement, services agreement (management agreement) and indemnity agreement. Labor Commissioner heard this petition on late 2013 and took it under submission. Late 2014 Tohme requested to put Neverland finder’s fee agreement issue on calendar and judge lifted the stay for that issue on January 2015. Parties have filed their initial motions about the Neverland Finder’s Fee. A tentative trial date for Neverland Finder’s fee is set for May 2016.

Labor Commissioner Determination

Document here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/272…Commisioner-Determination

After 20 months of waiting, Labor Commissioner has finally finalized their decision for Estate’s petition to cancel MJ - Tohme agreements based on CA Talent Agency Act.

Labor Commissioner determines that Tohme was not licensed to work as a talent agency during the period he worked for Michael. Labor Commissioner focuses on the TII concert deal.

During Labor Commissioner hearing Randy Phillips described Tohme as a “hard negotiator”. Tohme negotiated AEG deal included $5 Million advance ($3 Million of it to be paid to Sheikh Abdullah for the settlement 2 Seas lawsuit), a $100,000 advance a month to rent a house in Bel-Air and an optional advance of $15 Million to purchase a specifically identified house in Las Vegas. In his defense in front of Labor Commissioner, Tohme argued he was a just a messenger between Michael and AEG. However Labor Commissioner did not believe this argument as it went against Tohme’s previous depositions at other lawsuits and his previous claims that he played “central role” in TII agreement. Therefore Labor Commissioner determines Tohme was directly involved in AEG TII concert deal and this is in violation of the Talent Agency Act. Labor Commissioner determines TII concert deal to be illegal procurement of employment for an artist under Talent Agency Act. (Note: TAA requires any manager/agent to be licensed to secure performance engagements for artists)

Labor Commissioner then discusses the potential remedy for these illegal activities under TAA. Labor Commissioner states the agreement between MJ and Tohme was not just about Tohme securing artistic contracts for Michael. It also included purpose of reviving MJ’s career and restructuring business and personal affairs. Based on this Labor Commissioner lists Neverland deal, settling the case with Sheikh Abdullah and getting Sony to pay $10 Million that they are withholding (details will be mentioned later) as successful services Tohme provided to Michael. Based on this Labor Commissioner determines there have been both legal and illegal activities done by Tohme.

Labor Commissioner then discusses if revenues from illegal activities can be separated from revenues from legal activities and they think it can be. (Estate argued against any kind of separation). Labor Commissioner argues the main illegal activity was the TII concerts deal. However as the concerts did not happen and Michael did not get paid for the concerts, Labor Commissioner thinks Tohme never became entitled to any commission for TII concerts. Estate argued Tohme not to be paid anything for TII movie as well. However Labor Commissioner rejects Estate’s position and states that there wasn’t a contract about rehearsals and recording of the rehearsals. Labor Commissioner finds Estate’s argument that these recordings and TII movie would have never happened if it wasn’t for the TII concert deal as too speculative. So Labor Commissioner doesn’t exclude TII revenues from being subject to commission for Tohme.

The last issue is to determine how much commission Tohme is entitled. Tohme is asking for 15% but the Labor Commissioner states around 50% of the activities Tohme provided as illegal under Talent Agency Act so it cuts the commission payable to Tohme to 7.5%.

As for the remaining two agreements, Labor Commissioner has stated long ago that Neverland Finder’s Fee agreement doesn’t fall under their area and therefore it was put back on calendar. As for the indemnity agreement Labor Commissioner rules that it is illegal and unenforceable.

So overall Labor Commissioner decision means indemnity agreement is null and void, Tohme gets paid 7.5% commission fee due to his legal services and Neverland Finder’s Fee issue needs to resolved by Superior Court.

Estate has filed an appeal notice by the Superior court based on Labor Code 1700.44 and asking a trial de novo. In other words, Estate is appealing to LA Superior Court asking them to reconsider this dispute with no consideration to the Labor Commissioner proceedings as if it wasn’t held.

The document provides some new information and confirms some stuff that we knew before:

- The document states that Michael was paid over $10 Million for the re-release of Thriller (aka Thriller 25). Tohme claims Sony was withholding this money and he got Sony pay it to Michael.

- MJ – AEG negotiations timeline also becomes clearer. AEG and Jackson representatives had negotiations about a tour in 2007. By February 2008, Michael decided he did not want to tour. The idea was revived around September 2008. Colony Capital owner Tom Barrack called AEG owner Phil Anschutz. Anschutz told Randy Phillips to meet with Tom Barrack and Richard Nanule. After this meeting, Nanule arranged Phillips to meet with Tohme. There have been several meetings; first two only had Phillips and Tohme, Paul Gongaware attented to the third meeting. Michael attended the 4th meeting with Phillips and Tohme. Michael, Tohme, Phillips and Anschutz attended to a subsequent meeting.

Note: There is also the misconception that Tohme lawsuit is sealed, it isn’t sealed. Only some documents referring Executor John McClain’s health were sealed. Rest of the documents are publicly available.

Legal explanations

Labor Code 1700.44 states “In cases of controversy arising under this chapter, the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo.”
A Trial de Novo is a new trial or a criminal retrial in which the entire case is presented as if there had been no previous trial. In a trial de novo, new evidence and witness testimony can be presented “without deference to the initial judgment”- meaning that the outcome of the previous trial is not considered.

Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ 8. Sep.

Info Estate asked (Tohme didn't answer) include Tohme's financial status when he met MJ,his past&present relationship with CC incl. payments
Estate fragte danach Tohmes (dieser hatte nicht geantwortet) finanzielen Status als er MJ traf einzubeziehen und seine Beziehung zu Colonial in der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart incl. der Bezahlungen

12 Retweets 4 Favoriten
Ivy ‏@Ivy_4MJ 8. Sep.

A lot of discovery dispute at MJ Estate v. Tohme Case. Estate filed motion to compel against Tohme and Colony Capital.
Viel Ermittlungsstreit zwischen MJ Estate und Tohme. Estate stellte Antrag Auskünfte von Tohme und Colonial Capital zu erzwingen.

Richter Beckloff hat in weiten Teilen dem Antrag vom Estate zugestimmt Tohme Forderungs bzgl. Neverland-Gebühr und Anteile am Cross-Einkommen zu erhalten zu streichen und genehmigte den Antrag im Ganzen. Allerdings lehnte er die Verneinung der Klage ab und gibt Tohme eine 10-Tage-Frist seine Klage zu überarbeiten. Ein Prozess ist für den 3. Mai angesetzt.

Judge Allows Michael Jackson's Ex-Manager to Amend Complaint Against Estate
The late King of Pop's former manager says he's owed a share of gross receipts and a finder's fee for a Neverland Ranch bank loan.

The late King of Pop's former manager says he's owed a share of gross receipts and a finder's fee for a Neverland Ranch bank loan.
Michael Jackson's Estate and his former manager Tohme Tohme will see another day in court, after a judge granted the estate's motion to
strike in its entirety but gave Tohme's attorneys ten days to amend their complaint.

The motion to strike centers on attorneys fees, which Tohme argues he's entitled to under an indemnity agreement with Jackson. The estate holds that clause only applies to Tohme defending against or investigating third-party claims relating to powers of attorney.

"Tohme cannot possibly use the Indemnity Agreement to recover attorneys' fees in a dispute with Jackson or his heirs or executors wherein Tohme seeks compensation for services he allegedly rendered to Jackson,"writes Howard Weitzman in the motion.

Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Mitchell L. Beckloff largely agreed with the estate and granted the motion to strike, but denied a
demurrer on the issue.

The legal battle began in 2012 with dueling lawsuits debating whether Tohme's work in the final years of Jackson's life was for the pop icon's
benefit or his own.

Tohme contends he is entitled to 15 percent of Jackson’s gross receipts, including money the estate earned after the performer’s death, and also a 10 percent finder’s fee for a loan buyout connected to Neverland Ranch.

Jackson’s Estate paints Tohme as inexperienced and self-serving and claims Jackson fired him months before his death.

Proceedings were put on hold while the California Labor Commissioninvestigated claims that Tohme was acting as an agent, not a manager, in violation of the Talent Agencies Act.

In February 2015, Beckloff partially lifted the stay and put the proceedings concerning Neverland Ranch back in motion.

In July the Labor Commission found the management agreement between Jackson and Tohme is partially illegal and severance of the illegal
portion of the agreement would cut Tohme’s commissions in half.

Trial is scheduled to begin May 3.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...manager-878811

Der Richter hat den Antrag vom Estate Tohmes Gegenklage abzuweisen abgelehnt. Ein Prozess beginnend ab 5. Februar soll nun klären, ob Tohme berechtigt ist 2,3 Mi. Provision für die Vermittlung des Neverland Deals zu Colony Capital zu erhalten. Der Vertrag, der damals mit Michael geschlossen wurde sagt dies wohl aus.


Manager says he helped save Michael Jackson’s Neverland, and now he wants estate to pay up
https://www.ocregister.com/201…e-wants-estate-to-pay-up/

By City News Service | citynewsservice@scng.com |
January 4, 2018 at 11:32 am
Tohme Tohme says he was instrumental in saving the Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos from foreclosure when the singer was still alive, and now the former manager for the King of Pop says Jackson's estate owes him $2.3 million. (File photo by the Associated Press)
Tohme Tohme says he was instrumental in saving the Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos from foreclosure when the singer was still alive, and now the former manager for the King of Pop says Jackson’s estate owes him $2.3 million. (File photo by the Associated Press)
SANTA MONICA — A Los Angeles judge has cleared the way for trial of a lawsuit brought against Michael Jackson’s estate by one of his former managers, who alleges he’s owed money for his work in preventing a foreclosure on the singer’s Neverland Ranch in 2008.
Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said there are triable issues as to whether Tohme Tohme’s services to Jackson were those typically done by a real estate broker and whether the plaintiff was required to be licensed to perform such work.

Tohme Tohme says that in 2008 he discovered that a promisary note on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch was in default and that the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings. He claims to have brokered a private-equity deal that allowed the singer to keep the property. (File photo by the Associated Press)
Tohme Tohme says that in 2008 he discovered that a promisary note on Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was in default and that the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings. He claims to have brokered a private-equity deal that allowed the singer to keep the property. (File photo by the Associated Press)
Beckloff, who heard arguments on the estate’s motion to dismiss the case on Dec. 18 before ruling nine days later, said the agreement between Jackson and Tohme called for the plaintiff to receive a finder’s fee if he performed obligations under the deal.
Tohme says he found out in 2008 that the promissory note on Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County was in default and that the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings. Tohme says he introduced Jackson to Tom Barrack, CEO for the private equity firm Colony Capital LLC.
“As a result of my efforts, Colony Capital agreed to advance funds to pay off the promissory note which … resulted in a cancellation of the foreclosure proceedings against Neverland Ranch,” Tohme says in a sworn statement.
According to Beckloff, the terms of the contract between Tohme and Jackson called for the former manager to receive $2.3 million as compensation upon identifying and introducing Jackson to a Colony Capital representative.
Trial of Tohme’s lawsuit is scheduled for Feb. 5.
Jackson died in June 2009 at age 50 of a drug overdose. His estate is run by entertainment lawyer John Branca and longtime music executive John McClain.
Colony Capital is the same company that entered into talks in October to buy some or all of the assets of the Weinstein Co. in the midst of revelations of sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, but the negotiations ended a month later when the two sides could not agree on a price.