Katherine Jackson has lost the fight against Michael Jackson’s estate.
The mother of the late pop icon, who died in 2009, had been embroiled in a legal dispute with his estate over his extensive and historic catalog.
A California appeals court has issued a final ruling that Michael Jackson’s estate can proceed with a $600 million sale of the singer’s catalog to Sony Music, rejecting objections from his mother that aimed to block the deal.
A month after the appeals court issued a tentative ruling against Katherine Jackson, the court finalized that decision on Wednesday – ruling that the estate’s executors (John Branca and John McClain) didn’t violate the terms of Michael’s will when they inked the gargantuan deal with Sony
“The will gave the executors broad powers of sale, with no exception for the specific assets at issue in this case,” the court wrote. “As such, [a lower judge] did not err in concluding that it was Michael’s intent to allow the executors to sell any estate assets, including those at issue in the proposed transaction.”
In the new 19-page opinion, the three-judge panel described the confidential deal as a transaction that involved “transferring a significant portion of the estate’s assets to a joint venture between the estate and a third party, in exchange for a large cash payment and an interest in the joint venture.”
Katherine opposed the deal on the grounds that it violated the terms of her son’s will, specifically a provision that says all of the estate’s assets must be distributed to the trust naming his children and mother as beneficiaries once probate closes.
In her appellate filings, Katherine argued that allowing the estate’s “single most valuable asset” to be transferred to a “new company” owned “only party by the estate” was fundamentally inconsistent with Michael’s wishes. She said the deal made it “impossible” for executors to transfer the “entire estate” to the trust. The appellate judges rejected that position.
“Were the effect of the court’s order to ‘give’ an estate asset to a third party, we might agree that the order violates the will,” the three judges in California’s Second District Court of Appeal said. “But the proposed transaction is not a gift or distribution of estate assets — it is an asset sale, pursuant to which the estate receives a significant monetary payment and interest in a joint venture in exchange for the transfer of assets.” The judges said the deal “neither diminishes the estate’s value nor impairs the executors’ future ability to transfer the estate’s assets to the trust.”
According to an appellate brief previously filed by the executors, the asset sale was negotiated to take advantage of a market that was “by far” the “hottest it had ever been.” The deal, which closed amid Katherine’s appeal, lets the estate maintain “effective control over Michael’s music” while diversifying its range of assets, the filing reads.