Jackson's share of Beatles catalog in doubt

[estranged4life]

LOS ANGELES - As jurors weigh Michael Jackson's guilt in his child molestation trial, music industry executives and bankers have been weighing a separate, but related question: Will Jackson have to sell his $500 million stake in the Beatles' music catalog?

Jackson bought the publishing rights to the catalog for about $48 million two decades ago at the height of his career.

But these days, according to testimony at his trial, the self-proclaimed King of Pop is deep in debt at a time when investment interest in the income-spinning property of his storied collection of song rights is strong, industry experts said.

Many believe that Jackson will have to sell his stake in the catalog if he is found guilty and say even an acquittal could prove to be a catalyst for a deal.

The Beatles songs are jointly owned by Jackson and Sony Corp. through Sony/ATV Music Publishing company.

Jackson attorney John Branca and his adviser, music publisher Charles Koppelman, did not return calls seeking a comment.

The Sony/ATV catalog also includes songs like Bob Dylan's classic "Blowin' in the Wind" and the works of artists such as Joni Mitchell and Stevie Nicks.

A spokeswoman for Sony ATV declined to comment, but many industry observers expect Sony is waiting for the opportunity to buy out Jackson. One source close to Sony, however, said no deal appeared to be imminent.

Jackson and former Beatle Paul McCartney collaborated during the 1980s on various songs when the pop star got the idea to buy the copyrights.

Conglomerate ATV in 1969 had purchased Northern Songs, a publishing company established by the Beatles. The catalog included some 4,000 songs, including more than 200 Beatles tunes, worth an estimated two-thirds of the catalog's value.

ATV was then owned by the late Australian tycoon Robert Holmes a Court, whose company, Bell Group, negotiated with Jackson for 10 months before striking a deal in August 1985.

In 1995, Jackson cut his stake to 50 percent after merging ATV with Sony's publishing. Jackson also has a 50-percent stake in new songs added to the catalog.

"I've heard the rumors he's trying to raise cash and Sony probably would have the right of first refusal and would be first in line to buy if he chose to sell," said Owen Sloane, an entertainment lawyer who was involved in the original 1985 deal on behalf of ATV.

Accountant John Duross O'Bryan testified for the prosecution at Jackson's trial that the 46-year-old entertainer had steadily borrowed against his holdings and not paid his share of Sony's continuing investment. Jackson would have to pay off about $200 million in loans securing the catalog, he said.

Those loans, first provided by Bank of America, were sold in the past month to New York private equity fund, Fortress Investment Group, sources familiar with the matter said.

Fortress was unavailable for comment, but if Jackson defaulted on the loans, the fund would be in a position to seize control of Mijac, the company that controls copyrights to Jackson's songs.

While physical CD sales have been declining with the explosion of digital distribution, publishing rights have grown in value as songs are being licensed for everything from movies to cell-phone ringtones to video games.

"One of the things that is going on is that investment bankers are getting more into the field, because music publishing is one of the few assets - it is an annuity - that's not going away and only getting more valuable with ringtones and such," said Mike Sigman, president of Major Songs, a music publishing company.

[Johnny Stew]

I never wish ill on anyone (Pat Robertson doesn't count ;) ), but I seriously hope Sony buys him out.
The idea of him making even a DIME on any of the Beatles' or Stevie's songs, just bugs the crap out of me.

[estranged4life]

I never wish ill on anyone (Pat Robertson doesn't count ;) ), but I seriously hope Sony buys him out.
The idea of him making even a DIME on any of the Beatles' or Stevie's songs, just bugs the crap out of me.

is the fact Sony/ATV owning some of Stevie's catalog could have influenced her choice of songs on her tours? Wished I knew a music business related lawyer who could answer that question.

[Jessica Leigh]

I never wish ill on anyone (Pat Robertson doesn't count ;) ), but I seriously hope Sony buys him out.
The idea of him making even a DIME on any of the Beatles' or Stevie's songs, just bugs the crap out of me.


ditto.... i am a beatles fan since early childhood- i remember my dad telling me when i was 9 that michael jackson (whom i hated then and hate now) outbid paul mccartney for the ownership of a bunch of beatles songs... i didn't fully understand what it meant but to me it kind of meant that michael jackson stole paul mccartney's songs... and that sucks...

[irishgrl]

Michael Jackson sucks. pun intended.

[SuzeQuze]

He has claimed that catalog is part of the conspiracy between the judge and others to lock him up so they can get it. He's nucking futs.

[GardenStateGirlie]

ditto.... i am a beatles fan since early childhood- i remember my dad telling me when i was 9 that michael jackson (whom i hated then and hate now) outbid paul mccartney for the ownership of a bunch of beatles songs... i didn't fully understand what it meant but to me it kind of meant that michael jackson stole paul mccartney's songs... and that sucks...

Just think of it this way...Paul McCartney has enough money now to buy the catalogue a few times over :nod: I think he'll end up getting them back and hopefully it's sooner rather than later. I always thought it was a crap thing for Jackson to do.

[cliffdweller]

i didn't fully understand what it meant but to me it kind of meant that michael jackson stole paul mccartney's songs... and that sucks...

Yes it does, and what sucks even more is that, at the time of the sale, they were friends and collaborators :distress:.

[darklinensuit]

I always thought it was a crap thing for Jackson to do.

So does Paul.

- Jake

[GardenStateGirlie]

So does Paul.

- Jake

No kidding. Especially since they'd just collaborated with one another when he did it. They were effectively stolen from right under his nose. Boy, he has a great friend in Michael.

[seeker007nmss]

No kidding. Especially since they'd just collaborated with one another when he did it. They were effectively stolen from right under his nose. Boy, he has a great friend in Michael.

I don't know, there is something strange when you see "under his nose" and "Michael Jackson" together. :eek:

[Mari]

There's something strange when you see Michael Jackson, period.

*drumroll*

[dissention]

I never wish ill on anyone (Pat Robertson doesn't count ;) ), but I seriously hope Sony buys him out.
The idea of him making even a DIME on any of the Beatles' or Stevie's songs, just bugs the crap out of me.

Don't forget about Falwell, he's infinitely worse than Robertson. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Don't forget about Falwell, he's infinitely worse than Robertson. ;)True, true! I pretty much lump all of those whacked-outta-their-gourds televangelists together though, and just say "Pat Robertson" to save myself from having to type all of their names. :laugh: After all, they share one brain cell between them, so why not one name?

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe I should refer to them as "Pat Phelpswell." That'll cover all my bases! :laugh:

[sparky]

True, true! I pretty much lump all of those whacked-outta-their-gourds televangelists together though, and just say "Pat Robertson" to save myself from having to type all of their names. :laugh: After all, they share one brain cell between them, so why not one name?

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe I should refer to them as "Pat Phelpswell." That'll cover all my bases! :laugh:

I think I prefer PATTY Sorum-Phelpswell.

[sparky]

On a business related note, people say he isn't in financial trouble because of the outrageous numbers involved. If he is worth, say 550 million, and his debts are about 300...that isn't a good ratio. Not when his overhead is 24 million a year.

[goldustboi]

I never wish ill on anyone (Pat Robertson doesn't count ;) ), but I seriously hope Sony buys him out.
The idea of him making even a DIME on any of the Beatles' or Stevie's songs, just bugs the crap out of me.


Why shouldnt MJ make money from the Beatles, Stevie etc? If he owns the catalogue, which he does, as a result of a fair and square business deal, then so he should earn money from them. The crap only gets bugged out of you purely because its Michael Jackson and you're therefore, as most other people are on this board, only too quick to judge him. Would u be so angry if Stevie signed a business deal that resulted in her earning money from MJ? I think not, I'm guessing you'd be pleased that she was making money from him.

It baffles me as to why people have this innate hatred for Michael Jackson - fair enough if you dislike his music and blah blah but the way people talk about him is as though he's pure evil. (Who cares if he's in the Guiness Book Of Records for being the celbrity whose donated most money to charity). As it stands, the man is innocent until proven guilty so you and everybody else should stop acting as though he's been convicted.

[sparky]

It baffles me as to why people have this innate hatred for Michael Jackson - fair enough if you dislike his music and blah blah but the way people talk about him is as though he's pure evil.

Michael never bugged me until....

1) He mutilated a perfectly handsome face with extreme and freakish surgical procedures

2) I became aware that he, as a grown man, shares his bed with adolescent males not related to him.

On count one, he clearly has self image problems that plague him to the point of psychosis. Okay, kind of pitiful. But, he isn't alone there.

On point two, I think men who have young boys in their beds are up to no good. Period. Unless it is your kid after he had a nightmare, there is trouble brewing.

I have plenty of friends who love kids. They babysit, they take friend's kids to the zoo, to the movies. They don't have sleepovers in their bedrooms - bedrooms that are full on equipped with security cameras, and doors with alarm code locks.

Michael used to make some kind of cool music. Now he has turned himself into a freak, and he is quite likely a criminal. Even if he never molested those boys, the fact that he is arrogant enough to continue with his behavior further confirms a kind of mental illness that demands treatment. If he gets off, and I think he will, I think he will be off to a country where his behavior is legal.

[Johnny Stew]

Why shouldnt MJ make money from the Beatles, Stevie etc? If he owns the catalogue, which he does, as a result of a fair and square business deal, then so he should earn money from them. The crap only gets bugged out of you purely because its Michael Jackson and you're therefore, as most other people are on this board, only too quick to judge him. Would u be so angry if Stevie signed a business deal that resulted in her earning money from MJ? I think not, I'm guessing you'd be pleased that she was making money from him.

It baffles me as to why people have this innate hatred for Michael Jackson - fair enough if you dislike his music and blah blah but the way people talk about him is as though he's pure evil. (Who cares if he's in the Guiness Book Of Records for being the celbrity whose donated most money to charity). As it stands, the man is innocent until proven guilty so you and everybody else should stop acting as though he's been convicted.In all actuality, I was a pretty big Michael Jackson fan up through 'Bad.'
Owned the albums, some maxi-singles, had MJ stickers, t-shirts, etc., etc.

For the reasons Michael fell out of favor in my eyes, see Sparky's post... he did a good job of summing up my feelings, too.

And you're right, he is innocent until proven guilty. But if he is guilty, then he is "pure evil" in my eyes, for having committed what I consider to be the most unforgivable thing a person could do -- harming a child.
Millions of dollars to charities means diddly-squat to me, if you've harmed a child.

[dudden22]

In all actuality, I was a pretty big Michael Jackson fan up through 'Bad.'
Owned the albums, some maxi-singles, had MJ stickers, t-shirts, etc., etc.




I liked him through bad too. I still love "Billy Jean". It is hard to hear any of his music anymore though without immediately associating with what is going on. I just can't listen to it anymore. :distress:

[Johnny Stew]

I liked him through bad too. I still love "Billy Jean". It is hard to hear any of his music anymore though without immediately associating with what is going on. I just can't listen to it anymore. :distress:My favorites were always "Don't Stop 'Till You Get Enough," "Thriller," "Smooth Criminal" and "Leave Me Alone."
I try to disassociate the songs from the specifics of his personal life -- but it is tough.

And, when I was a kid, I used to defend M.J. until I was blue in the face, when someone would call him "weird." :laugh:

[Moony]

Why shouldnt MJ make money from the Beatles, Stevie etc? If he owns the catalogue, which he does, as a result of a fair and square business deal, then so he should earn money from them. The crap only gets bugged out of you purely because its Michael Jackson and you're therefore, as most other people are on this board, only too quick to judge him. Would u be so angry if Stevie signed a business deal that resulted in her earning money from MJ? I think not, I'm guessing you'd be pleased that she was making money from him.

It baffles me as to why people have this innate hatred for Michael Jackson - fair enough if you dislike his music and blah blah but the way people talk about him is as though he's pure evil. (Who cares if he's in the Guiness Book Of Records for being the celbrity whose donated most money to charity). As it stands, the man is innocent until proven guilty so you and everybody else should stop acting as though he's been convicted.

...Hmmm...maybe it's because he IS A FREAK!!!!!!!!

:shrug:

[GateandGarden]

And, when I was a kid, I used to defend M.J. until I was blue in the face, when someone would call him "weird." :laugh:Me too! :laugh: Lots of people critcized me for being a fan, and that was before...everything. I wore out Thriller and Bad. Damn, he was cute then. :(