rogifan said:

I hate that WB labels all of their sites “Prince Official”. It’s confusing. That’s one thing I wish the estate would finally get resolved - one place for all of his stuff from beginning to end, not here’s a WB site and YouTube channel that only focuses on the Purple Rain remaster right now.

Ive just come from there...

Its clear they are trying to Make their Dollars, but reading the comments, Everybody is happy..The "Prince Official" makes

them feel secure that nothings going to go missing...

but..I agree with you

laurarichardson said:

morningsong said:

This Claire person is boring as heck. What does all that crap have to do with Prince?

The court needs to charge her for wasting everyone's time.

I thought the court did not have to acknowledge her documents anymore. Was it a mistake for them to accept these name change and marriage docs?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

SpinsterSister said:

personally I don't think it is. imagine if there are sanctions waged against him for defying that order - that is just more publicity for him in the future. there will be people who will hire him for just that alone, the recklessness disguised as valiant effort for the estate/client.

I want to know how/why Prince fired him....and I am surprised that his family doesn't know about that history before retaining him as their rep. Of course, they could've just fallen for his pitch without bothering to look at his relationship (objectively) with their brother beforehand.

The siblings initially did not retain Lonny it was Bremer who hired him.

If you remember, Lonny had a connection to an attorney for Bremer and that is how he got the job.

To answer Rogifan, Lonny does not represent the Estate, and is not in a fiduciary position for the Estate. His own attorney in court filings said he is only the business advisor for SNJ and is not working in the capacity of an attorney. Of course his attorney stated he was not working for SNJ as an attorney because Lonny has violated ethical provisions that all attorneys are under, and for which he violated, as Lonny directly contacted UMG executives (clients), instead of going through UMG's attorney. A direct violation of our code of ethics.

Additionally, he violated the Judge's protection order by specifically spelling out provisions from the WB 2014 agreement with P. If you also recall there was a fight between Comerica and Lonny's attorney as to whether he would permitted to have access to the agreement.

Warner Bros may have an action against Lonny for violating the confidentiality provisions of the agreement by discussing these provisions with the executives of UMG. UMG executives were not included in the protective order to have access to specifics of the WB agreement, only their attorneys were permitted to review the document.

I wonder if this fact played a roll in Tyka ditching Bremer? Since McMillan worked for Bremer and had a connection within Bremer, that could make it difficult to get him fired, so she went to Comerica.

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

Correspondence from Atty Joseph Cassioppi, dated July 5, 2017:

.

In particular, Mr. McMillan's continued interactions with UMG have not only failed to persuade UMG that his representations during the negotiation of the UMG Agreement were accurate, but have affirmatively caused further damage to the Estate's relationship with UMG, not to mention violated the Court's Protective Order.

.

Unfortunately, Mr. McMillan crossed the line in his attempts to preserve the UMG Agreement and his own commission. Rather than assist the Estate, he has exasperated UMG and destabilized an already volatile situation. On June 23, 2017, Mr. McMillan wrote to UMG executives directly, without the knowledge or consent of UMG's counsel. In his emailv Mr. McMillan discussed the specific terms of, and quoted language from, the 2014 WBR Agreement, both in violation of the Court's Protective Order, which authorized disclosure of the 2014 WBR Agreement only to UMG's counsel on an attorneys-eyes-only basis. Mr. McMillan also disclosed to non-attorneys at UMG details of confidential business negotiations between WBR and the Estate. Mr. McMillan's violation of the Protective Order is particularly concerning because in one of his growing number of public statements regarding the Estate, on the same day the parties held a confidential hearing regarding rescission, Mr. McMillan stated his intention not to comply with his confidentiality obligations to the Estate.

.

http://www.mncourts.gov/m...d-Ex-C.pdf

.

.

I mean, whoa, whoa and another whoa!!

When is someone going to go to the bar association about his behavior. I think some thing is really wrong with him.

Laura, I totally agree.

tmo1965 said:

laurarichardson said:

The court needs to charge her for wasting everyone's time.

I thought the court did not have to acknowledge her documents anymore. Was it a mistake for them to accept these name change and marriage docs?

.

I think the Court was just asking for documentation/proof of marriage/name change in order to proceed with her claims. She does not seem to want to give up.

tmo1965 said:

tmo1965 said:

I wonder if this fact played a roll in Tyka ditching Bremer? Since McMillan worked for Bremer and had a connection within Bremer, that could make it difficult to get him fired, so she went to Comerica.

Bremer was a temporary appointment, 6 months initially I believe, then extended for another 3 months. Tyka did suggest them because they worked with Prince for many years. I think Bremer wanted out before the extension ran out and said so. She and the other sibs had to come to agreement on who to go with. They all agreed on Comerica and the judge appointed Comerica as the new estate advisor. Londell was not re-appointed nor was Koppelman (but they have to answer for the UMG fiasco as does Bremer...the judge did not completely discharge any of them yet due to pending resolution for this problem).

tmo1965 said:

I thought the court did not have to acknowledge her documents anymore. Was it a mistake for them to accept these name change and marriage docs?

The Judge does not have to acknowledge her filings any longer.

It is an efiling document.

Anyone can efile.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

SpinsterSister said:

personally I don't think it is. imagine if there are sanctions waged against him for defying that order - that is just more publicity for him in the future. there will be people who will hire him for just that alone, the recklessness disguised as valiant effort for the estate/client.

I want to know how/why Prince fired him....and I am surprised that his family doesn't know about that history before retaining him as their rep. Of course, they could've just fallen for his pitch without bothering to look at his relationship (objectively) with their brother beforehand.

The siblings initially did not retain Lonny it was Bremer who hired him.

If you remember, Lonny had a connection to an attorney for Bremer and that is how he got the job.

To answer Rogifan, Lonny does not represent the Estate, and is not in a fiduciary position for the Estate. His own attorney in court filings said he is only the business advisor for SNJ and is not working in the capacity of an attorney. Of course his attorney stated he was not working for SNJ as an attorney because Lonny has violated ethical provisions that all attorneys are under, and for which he violated, as Lonny directly contacted UMG executives (clients), instead of going through UMG's attorney. A direct violation of our code of ethics.

Additionally, he violated the Judge's protection order by specifically spelling out provisions from the WB 2014 agreement with P. If you also recall there was a fight between Comerica and Lonny's attorney as to whether he would permitted to have access to the agreement.

Warner Bros may have an action against Lonny for violating the confidentiality provisions of the agreement by discussing these provisions with the executives of UMG. UMG executives were not included in the protective order to have access to specifics of the WB agreement, only their attorneys were permitted to review the document.

I guess you are a attorney?

laurarichardson said:

DD55 said:

While LLM’s actions do indeed appear to be fishy from the outside. And I do agree he seems to be greedy and not acting in keeping with perserving P’s legacy, I don’t think the ‘Prince fired him’ is necessarily a good argument on why he could be dishonest. After all, Prince fired practically everyone at one point or another… anyone who said 'no' to him. We don’t know if he produced documents to show the family which outlined the history he had with Prince and why he no longer represented P.

.

.

different topic but still estate related.... What is Claire Elliott trying to say in her letter?

[Edited 7/7/17 9:01am]

Not fishy but unethical and not professional. I would love to know why he got let go. You can also see the in the courts docs that The Jacksons had bad things to say about him and this judgement against him for $540,000

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/conten...144feabdc0

Barclays wins case over loans to law firm partners Read next The Big Read Worldpay emerges as a winner in the war on cash AN HOUR AGO Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 0 Save JUNE 9, 2015 by: Jane Croft Barclays has won a High Court lawsuit against a leading US entertainment lawyer relating to the collapse of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf. The bank sued L Londell McMillan, who has represented music legends such as Prince and Stevie Wonder, for repayment of a $540,000 loan as it sought to recoup money from partners at the failed firm. Barclays had $56m of outstanding loans to 220 partners of Dewey when it collapsed in 2012. More than 184 have since repaid the money. Lawyers often take out loans towards working capital at law firms when they are elevated to partners. If Barclays had lost the case it could have made banks more reluctant to lend to law firm partners, who are usually viewed as good credit risks. Tony Williams, the founder of legal consultancy Jomati and a former managing partner of Clifford Chance, said: “This was a case closely watched by the banks because if Barclays had lost it could have pushed up the pricing of such loans or made them less available to law firm partners. “These loans are low margin and quite long term, but banks like them as they are seen as a safe asset class.” he added. Dewey filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2012 with liabilities of $315m, making it one of the biggest collapses of a US law firm. It was created in 2007 through the merger of Dewey Ballantine — a mergers and acquisitions adviser — and LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae, known for its insurance and energy work. After the merger it expanded aggressively and lured new partners by handing out multimillion-dollar guarantees. About 100 partners were on such guarantees, according to its 2012 bankruptcy filing. Mr McMillan joined Dewey as head of its entertainment and sports practice in 2007 and was one of four former partners to fight the case against Barclays. Three settled before the High Court trial began. L Londell McMillan said he looks forward to defending himself in the US Mr McMillan had argued that he had no obligation to repay, claiming it was in fact a loan to the firm, not to him personally. He also claimed it was part of a programme whose terms were negotiated with the firm, not the individual partners. Giving his ruling in favour of Barclays, Mr Justice Popplewell found that Mr McMillan was “unwilling to accept what was plain on the face of the documents and seemed to me to have convinced himself of a version of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous record”. Mr McMillan was “not a naive or vulnerable consumer” in signing the loan documents, he concluded. In a statement, Mr McMillan said: “Certainly, I differ with the feelings and ruling by the judge in the UK courts. I never received loan proceeds from Barclays and my capital was paid in full. I look forward to defending myself in the US.” Barclays said: “We are pleased with the court’s decision and reasoning, including the indemnity costs award. The vast majority of partners have repaid the sums owed already. Barclays will continue to robustly pursue those partners whose loans remain outstanding”. The fallout from Dewey is continuing. Last month, a Manhattan prosecutor opened a criminal trial of three former executives accused of conspiring to hide the true nature of the firm’s finances from its banks and other creditors. Former Dewey chairman Steven Davis, ex-executive director Stephen DiCarmine and ex-chief financial officer Joel Sanders deny any wrongdoing in the trial, which could last six months. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 0 Save Latest in UK Business & Economy The Big Read Worldpay emerges as a winner in the war on cash AN HOUR AGO WEF pushes for pension saving over student loan repayment 3 HOURS AGO fastFT UK GDP growth expected to improve slightly in Q2 – NIESR Wimbledon tennis fans join ‘The Queue’ for tradition Poor figures for May point to weaker UK growth

I rate the estate's attempts at keeping McMillan's antics in check a 7 out of 9 - as in 7 of 9 . The amount of jostling over the estate is now nearly borg-esque in proportion. Resistance is seemingly futile...

And to think at the start is was mere hi-jinks, before that is, the nelsons decided tragedy doesn't have to unite families.

W.r.t. the LLM fiasco:

this will delay future releases of music.

We can all blame LLM for that.

.

IOW: had UMG gotten a good deal they would have started releasing music as soon as reasonably possible.

Now recission has not yet happened so it can take another while until these rights are on the market again.

WB has no plans for any release soon. (and we know the PR deluxe issues)

So that is it for now.

.

Wrong?

Astasheiks said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

The siblings initially did not retain Lonny it was Bremer who hired him.

If you remember, Lonny had a connection to an attorney for Bremer and that is how he got the job.

To answer Rogifan, Lonny does not represent the Estate, and is not in a fiduciary position for the Estate. His own attorney in court filings said he is only the business advisor for SNJ and is not working in the capacity of an attorney. Of course his attorney stated he was not working for SNJ as an attorney because Lonny has violated ethical provisions that all attorneys are under, and for which he violated, as Lonny directly contacted UMG executives (clients), instead of going through UMG's attorney. A direct violation of our code of ethics.

Additionally, he violated the Judge's protection order by specifically spelling out provisions from the WB 2014 agreement with P. If you also recall there was a fight between Comerica and Lonny's attorney as to whether he would permitted to have access to the agreement.

Warner Bros may have an action against Lonny for violating the confidentiality provisions of the agreement by discussing these provisions with the executives of UMG. UMG executives were not included in the protective order to have access to specifics of the WB agreement, only their attorneys were permitted to review the document.

I guess you are a attorney?

Yep

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Astasheiks said:

I guess you are a attorney?

Yep

Bravo Disch, a perfert summation of what many of us want to see

disch said:

I'm having trouble following that logic.

If he wanted his relatives to get his money/estate, great. He could have made that clear with an estate plan. If he wanted to put conditions on their inheritance, he could have indicated that too.

-

If he didn't want his relatives to inherit, he could've also arranged for that. He could have left money to the charities that he allegedly cared a lot about (as of now, nothing from his estate is legally earmarked for charity, as far as we know).

-

Leaving the whole thing to descend into a time- and money-sucking court battle, with an uncertain outcome? I can't see any logical reason for him (or anyone) to do that.

mnfriend said:

disch said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

*it's not that dramatic to me 'he was crazy like a fox' rather, there is an in between of: 'let the chips fall where they may, disarray either way' he knew without a spouse or any children, it would be left to these siblings, so...

disch said:

BUT he could have chosen to leave each legal heir a certain amount (which they would forego if they contested the will), left specific bequests to favorite and/or underfunded charities, made sure PP would be both a museum and an internationally recognized center of musical learning and creativity and still have lots left over for the JW's, genetic research institutes,even drug counseling centers. Instead, the fed and state governments as well as relatives he was not close to at all will get millions while making a travesty of the aura of dignity he tried to project his entire life.

Bodhitheblackdog said:

Bodhitheblackdog said:

BUT he could have chosen to leave each legal heir a certain amount (which they would forego if they contested the will), left specific bequests to favorite and/or underfunded charities, made sure PP would be both a museum and an internationally recognized center of musical learning and creativity and still have lots left over for the JW's, genetic research institutes,even drug counseling centers. Instead, the fed and state governments as well as relatives he was not close to at all will get millions while making a travesty of the aura of dignity he tried to project his entire life.

He had plans for Paisley to be a museum and it is a museum right now. So what is the problem?

He may have donated millions to charity while he was alive and well. He may have placaed some funds in a trust which we the public will never know about. If you go back and read the courts documents concerning his Dad's death you will see the sibs were fighting back then. I am sure whatever way he left things some one would have been contesting so having contracts which may be airtight has allowed him to have his way in the end outside of probate court.

[Edited 7/9/17 14:48pm]

disch said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

Although I do some probate cases in my practice they are not nearly as comlex as P's.

I dont think P ever had a will drafted during his life time other than the handwritten wills he mentioned to his ex's which were probably not valid.

The majority of people just dont have wills.

Most attorneys I have talked to do not have a will either, and they are in P's age bracket.

I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

So P may have been superstitious and thought if he had a will drafted he would be "inviting trouble" which is the most plausible reason why he did not have a will.

If P wanted to cause chaos and disorder after his passing he achieved his goal.

Have we forgotten that Prince did not like contracts?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

disch said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

Although I do some probate cases in my practice they are not nearly as comlex as P's.

I dont think P ever had a will drafted during his life time other than the handwritten wills he mentioned to his ex's which were probably not valid.

The majority of people just dont have wills.

Most attorneys I have talked to do not have a will either, and they are in P's age bracket.

I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

So P may have been superstitious and thought if he had a will drafted he would be "inviting trouble" which is the most plausible reason why he did not have a will.

If P wanted to cause chaos and disorder after his passing he achieved his goal.

Did his wife's say the wills were hand written or that they knew that he had wills and that they were in them?

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

Not fishy but unethical and not professional. I would love to know why he got let go. You can also see the in the courts docs that The Jacksons had bad things to say about him and this judgement against him for $540,000

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/conten...144feabdc0

Barclays wins case over loans to law firm partners Read next The Big Read Worldpay emerges as a winner in the war on cash AN HOUR AGO Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 0 Save JUNE 9, 2015 by: Jane Croft Barclays has won a High Court lawsuit against a leading US entertainment lawyer relating to the collapse of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf. The bank sued L Londell McMillan, who has represented music legends such as Prince and Stevie Wonder, for repayment of a $540,000 loan as it sought to recoup money from partners at the failed firm. Barclays had $56m of outstanding loans to 220 partners of Dewey when it collapsed in 2012. More than 184 have since repaid the money. Lawyers often take out loans towards working capital at law firms when they are elevated to partners. If Barclays had lost the case it could have made banks more reluctant to lend to law firm partners, who are usually viewed as good credit risks. Tony Williams, the founder of legal consultancy Jomati and a former managing partner of Clifford Chance, said: “This was a case closely watched by the banks because if Barclays had lost it could have pushed up the pricing of such loans or made them less available to law firm partners. “These loans are low margin and quite long term, but banks like them as they are seen as a safe asset class.” he added. Dewey filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2012 with liabilities of $315m, making it one of the biggest collapses of a US law firm. It was created in 2007 through the merger of Dewey Ballantine — a mergers and acquisitions adviser — and LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae, known for its insurance and energy work. After the merger it expanded aggressively and lured new partners by handing out multimillion-dollar guarantees. About 100 partners were on such guarantees, according to its 2012 bankruptcy filing. Mr McMillan joined Dewey as head of its entertainment and sports practice in 2007 and was one of four former partners to fight the case against Barclays. Three settled before the High Court trial began. L Londell McMillan said he looks forward to defending himself in the US Mr McMillan had argued that he had no obligation to repay, claiming it was in fact a loan to the firm, not to him personally. He also claimed it was part of a programme whose terms were negotiated with the firm, not the individual partners. Giving his ruling in favour of Barclays, Mr Justice Popplewell found that Mr McMillan was “unwilling to accept what was plain on the face of the documents and seemed to me to have convinced himself of a version of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous record”. Mr McMillan was “not a naive or vulnerable consumer” in signing the loan documents, he concluded. In a statement, Mr McMillan said: “Certainly, I differ with the feelings and ruling by the judge in the UK courts. I never received loan proceeds from Barclays and my capital was paid in full. I look forward to defending myself in the US.” Barclays said: “We are pleased with the court’s decision and reasoning, including the indemnity costs award. The vast majority of partners have repaid the sums owed already. Barclays will continue to robustly pursue those partners whose loans remain outstanding”. The fallout from Dewey is continuing. Last month, a Manhattan prosecutor opened a criminal trial of three former executives accused of conspiring to hide the true nature of the firm’s finances from its banks and other creditors. Former Dewey chairman Steven Davis, ex-executive director Stephen DiCarmine and ex-chief financial officer Joel Sanders deny any wrongdoing in the trial, which could last six months. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 0 Save Latest in UK Business & Economy The Big Read Worldpay emerges as a winner in the war on cash AN HOUR AGO WEF pushes for pension saving over student loan repayment 3 HOURS AGO fastFT UK GDP growth expected to improve slightly in Q2 – NIESR Wimbledon tennis fans join ‘The Queue’ for tradition Poor figures for May point to weaker UK growth

I rate the estate's attempts at keeping McMillan's antics in check a 7 out of 9 - as in 7 of 9 . The amount of jostling over the estate is now nearly borg-esque in proportion. Resistance is seemingly futile...

And to think at the start is was mere hi-jinks, before that is, the nelsons decided tragedy doesn't have to unite families.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

disch said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

Although I do some probate cases in my practice they are not nearly as comlex as P's.

I dont think P ever had a will drafted during his life time other than the handwritten wills he mentioned to his ex's which were probably not valid.

The majority of people just dont have wills.

Most attorneys I have talked to do not have a will either, and they are in P's age bracket.

I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

So P may have been superstitious and thought if he had a will drafted he would be "inviting trouble" which is the most plausible reason why he did not have a will.

If P wanted to cause chaos and disorder after his passing he achieved his goal.

.

This says it all: I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

.

After all the chaos with two divorces, and his fight with WB.....he was done with contracts and lawyers!

cloveringold85 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Although I do some probate cases in my practice they are not nearly as comlex as P's.

I dont think P ever had a will drafted during his life time other than the handwritten wills he mentioned to his ex's which were probably not valid.

The majority of people just dont have wills.

Most attorneys I have talked to do not have a will either, and they are in P's age bracket.

I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

So P may have been superstitious and thought if he had a will drafted he would be "inviting trouble" which is the most plausible reason why he did not have a will.

If P wanted to cause chaos and disorder after his passing he achieved his goal.

.

This says it all: I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

.

After all the chaos with two divorces, and his fight with WB.....he was done with contracts and lawyers!

I think that Prince was selective about contracts. In order to tour and use various venues, I imagine that he would have to sign a contract. He isgned the contract in 2014 with Warner Brothers in order to earn back his masters. So he signed contracts, but he was selective about what he signed, I imagine.

Thanks ISaidLifeIsJustAGame! It's really hard to know what exactly he was thinking by not having a will -- but perhaps he just didn't like to think about his own death. I think that's why many people don't have wills; it forces you to think about your own mortality.

-

What do you think about an LLC as an estate-planning tool? One theory here is that because his business assets were in an LLC he wouldn't need any other estate-planning tools.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

disch said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the efficacy Prince's estate "planning," as it were (if you feel versed enough to offer an opionion).

-

There's a theory by some orgers that state of his estate showed that Prince was basically "crazy like a fox" -- that the fact that he had his music in an LLC provided all necessary protection for those assets, and perhaps the court wrangling, lack of tax minimization etc. was part of some master plan of his (because he wanted to make life difficult for his relatives, he wanted maximum dollars going to state/fed governments etc).

-

As you can tell by my tone Im highly skeptical of all of that -- it strikes me that he simply didn't put together any kind of appropriate plan for the size and complexity of his estate and that the result will be wasted time and money and perhaps people doing things with his assets that he wouldn't have wanted (altough it's hard to know everything he would have wanted).

-

But I would love to hear from an estate-planning expert about these topics! Maybe my skepticism is misplaced.

Although I do some probate cases in my practice they are not nearly as comlex as P's.

I dont think P ever had a will drafted during his life time other than the handwritten wills he mentioned to his ex's which were probably not valid.

The majority of people just dont have wills.

Most attorneys I have talked to do not have a will either, and they are in P's age bracket.

I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

So P may have been superstitious and thought if he had a will drafted he would be "inviting trouble" which is the most plausible reason why he did not have a will.

If P wanted to cause chaos and disorder after his passing he achieved his goal.

[Edited 7/9/17 21:39pm]

206Michelle said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

This says it all: I read an article recently with an ex-employee of Ps and this person discussed with P the issue of him not having health insurance and he responded "Why invite trouble?'

.

After all the chaos with two divorces, and his fight with WB.....he was done with contracts and lawyers!

I think that Prince was selective about contracts. In order to tour and use various venues, I imagine that he would have to sign a contract. He isgned the contract in 2014 with Warner Brothers in order to earn back his masters. So he signed contracts, but he was selective about what he signed, I imagine.

.

Yes, "selective" is a good way to describe his business dealings. I will never understand why he wanted to work with WB again, because I don't think he ever really got his masters back.