BJS Kids & Family Trust : A Research Thread

[Steel Magnolia]

39 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Petitioners allege that Britney intended to transfer all of her property to the Trust. The interests have not been formally transferred to the trust. Mr. Taback, one of the petitioners and Britney's estate planning counsel declares that this was Britney's intent as indicated in the assignment." --> What does this say about Taback?  Is this in Britney's best interest? From his perspective, I think it does make sense for a guardian to have control over the various entities, but I'm not sure.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1To6q7HEVesIoszylISYN4EDCb2Igc6M8/view?usp=sharing - Taback through Byam February 2011 request to adjust investment strategies.  This doesn't seem nefarious, but I might be missing something. 

Perhaps Taback had been left with the impression that Britney was,

a) Susceptible to undue influence (Lutfi), and
b) Mentally incapacitated (Spar/Ingham)

...and was therefore under the impression that he was just doing his job?

If anything, it seems his resignation when it came to the BJS Kids & Family Trust is an indicator of how he felt about the situation?

[RebellionSparkles]

5 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

Yes, and Ivan Taback wrote articles about the connections between estate planning and probate conservatorships.  

Ivan Taback's current employment bio: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/t/taback-ivan

"Mr. Taback's practice extends to matters involving all aspects of sophisticated planning and wealth preservation for families and individuals. He has extensive experience in the preparation and administration of wills and trusts, and the formation and reorganization of closely held corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies."

2007 interview with Ivan Taback https://ccbjournal.com/articles/ways-reduce-tax-bite

"The concentration of my practice is in the federal estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer tax areas. I counsel clients in connection with their personal estate planning, particularly planning with privately held business interests."

 

 

 

@RebellionSparkles mentioned something about being a fly on the wall listening to Team Con's plotting. 

I think Ivan Taback WAS a fly on the wall, listening in on phone conversations from his office in NYC. He wrote or co-wrote each of these articles. I pulled out a few quotes that seemed relevant.

The Disappearing Billions (Feb 2011) Jan. 1, 2010 marked a day that most trusts-and-estates practitioners never thought they would see and one they had repeatedly told their clients would never come. On that day, the door opened for the heirs of some of the wealthiest individuals in the United States to receive billions of dollars worth of inherited assets entirely estate tax-free.

"Macabre Result?
As a new year commences and researchers begin to collect and analyze data about 2010 deaths in the United States, what will that data show? At the end of 2009, the estate planning community feared that if Congress failed to act, the lack of estate tax in 2010 might incentivize some wealthy Americans to hasten the course of nature to maximize estate tax savings. Or worse, that the family members of the elderly and infirm would make such a decision for them. Under the Act, the fear was lessened (somewhat), as only those with estates over $5 million still had something to lose. In 2009, however, over 8,500 of the approximate 15,000 estates that filed federal estate tax returns were valued at over $5 million. So, assuming a similar rate, how many people may have considered an untimely death to save taxes? It's a macabre thought, surely, but not one unsupported by historical evidence."

Private Life, Public Death (June 2011) Relatives of reclusive millionaire heiress, Huguette Clark, allege improper influence by attorney and accountant

"Undue Influence Alleged
Other than Pierre, Clark’s only regular contacts in the outside world appear to have been her attorney, Wallace “Wally” Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler, both of whom are suspected by certain of Clark's relatives to have exerted undue influence on Clark in her later years. In fact, it has been reported that Clark’s relatives were so suspicious that in September 2010, they filed a petition in the Supreme Court, New York County, for the appointment of a guardian over the property and person of Clark."

A Touchy Dilemma (Feb 2012) What do you do if your client is suffering from diminished capacity? There are no bright line rules an attorney can rely on. I think this article might be throwing some shade at Ingham! At the very least, it highlights how much responsibility Ingham had to protect the interests of his client. 

"Most attorneys lack neurological or psychological training, yet they're expected to analyze the cognitive abilities of their clients."

"Above all, the attorney should speak with a client alone to encourage her to be honest and forthright."

"The attorney must be sure that a client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm before she reveals any information to family members or other third parties."
 

 

These are fantastic articles! I forgot about the zero estate tax thing in 2010. 
ivan sounds more/less like a good guy…like someone who is actually doing his job and not trying to prey on clients.

someone like Ivan probably sees something like Britney’s situation all the time. Britney’s case is only unusual because of her age.

i 😍 these articles 

[Ghoulia]

1 hour ago, RebellionSparkles said:

These are fantastic articles! I forgot about the zero estate tax thing in 2010. 
ivan sounds more/less like a good guy…like someone who is actually doing his job and not trying to prey on clients.

someone like Ivan probably sees something like Britney’s situation all the time. Britney’s case is only unusual because of her age.

i 😍 these articles 

I thought they were fascinating! You’ve confirmed my assessment of Ivan as well -  a guy trying to do his job. He had three kids all born in the early 2000s and their social media shows dad still has an active role in their lives even though they’ve left the nest and gone to college. So I think he was busy doing his job! Not enriching himself. 

[Ghoulia]

3 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Perhaps Taback had been left with the impression that Britney was,

a) Susceptible to undue influence (Lutfi), and
b) Mentally incapacitated (Spar/Ingham)

...and was therefore under the impression that he was just doing his job?

If anything, it seems his resignation when it came to the BJS Kids & Family Trust is an indicator of how he felt about the situation?

When did he resign? Do we know a specific date for this?

[Steel Magnolia]

15 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

When did he resign? Do we know a specific date for this?

Here's what I have for that time period:

=======================

Aug. 16, 2017 - TMZ reports the conservators have filed court documents asking to change Britney's Will so her sons cannot access the entire SJB Revocable Trust at the age of 18. "Our sources say the new estate plan creates a trust for the kids..."

Aug. 23, 2017 - Bryan Spears is served probate court documents including a "Notice of Hearing Re Petition for Substituted Judgement."

Dec. 17, 2017 - Jamie Lynn Spears requests to be named sole trustee of the SJB Revocable Trust. She is to replace Ivan Taback. Around this time the SJB Insurance Trust is assigned a new trustee; The name of the new trustee is currently unknown.

[RebellionSparkles]

excerpts from the Trust documents 2010/2011

source--> Britney Spears - court document - 20101013 - BP109096 - Trust - investment powers and strategy

September 21, 2010 Bryan Spears resigns as Trustee (9 days before the Court's September 30, 2010 Investment Order) Link to Text

UBS team will have the Direct Investment Responsibility over the liquid assets of the the SJB Trust and a portion of the Conservatorship assets Link to Text

In addition to the liquid assets of the SJB Trust, there are significant liquid assets in the CONservatorship. 

The Trustee concurs with the Co-Conservators that in addition to managing the investment of the SJB Trust assets, UBS should manage the investment of a portion of the Conservatorship assets...

(Because of the unified investment plan) SJB Trust assets would have a higher allocation to equity/growth-styled assets due to its longer time horizon

Link to text

 

source-->Britney Spears - court document - 20110210 - BP109096 - Trust - clarification of courts orders

Generally, the only thing that changes is the investment advisors move from UBS to Merril Lynch. 

Ivan Taback, as Trustee of The SJB Revocable Trust dated July 26, 2004 (the "SJB  Trust") respectfully brings this verified Ex Parte Petition for Modification and Clarification of the Court's September 30, 2010 Investment Order

0.99% investment fees -->with this, I think I can figure out how much $$ was in SJB Link to Text

Purpose of unified invest strategy is to minimize duplication and overlap

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

When did he resign? Do we know a specific date for this?

Bryan resigns September 21, 2010

as for Ivan, BJS SWAT Team just says between 2017/2018  

 

[RebellionSparkles]

7 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

For example, the minute order from January 14th, 2010:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ykXmQosZ-ke_fL_f_Oe0lhTSHRh798wT/view?usp=sharing 

This feels very relevant: Co-CONS transfer Britney Touring into the CON estate (this was while the WEG case was ongoing)

On March 10, 2008, the co-Tees assigned to Andrew Wallet and James Spears, in their capapcities as co-conservators ofBrintney's estate, all of the Trust's right, title and interest in Britney Touring, Inc.

source--> Britney Spears - court document - 20090923 - BP109096 - Trust - minute order re transfer of assets into SJB trust

[Ghoulia]

7 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

This feels very relevant: Co-CONS transfer Britney Touring into the CON estate (this was while the WEG case was ongoing)

On March 10, 2008, the co-Tees assigned to Andrew Wallet and James Spears, in their capapcities as co-conservators ofBrintney's estate, all of the Trust's right, title and interest in Britney Touring, Inc.

source--> Britney Spears - court document - 20090923 - BP109096 - Trust - minute order re transfer of assets into SJB trust

From Britney's side, did the implementation of the conservatorship make it any easier to handle this lawsuit? If so, in what way? I mean, she would have had attorneys to litigate this for her no matter what. 

I guess my bigger question is, did Britney Touring, Inc need to be an asset included in the estate for the purposes of litigating the WEG lawsuit or was this for another purpose?

[RebellionSparkles]

1 minute ago, Ghoulia said:

I guess my bigger question is, did Britney Touring, Inc need to be an asset included in the estate for the purposes of the WEG lawsuit or was this for another purpose?

I don’t think being a CON asset shielded B Touring in anyway (bc the company continued to be a defendant in the WEG case, even after becoming a CON asset).

I suspect the CONs wanted B Touring to be a CON asset bc this was the big money making Corp.

The CONs owning B Touring might have even been required for them to make B do the Circus Tour. There are prob insurance and other contracts in place with B Touring.

[Steel Magnolia]

2 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

From Britney's side, did the implementation of the conservatorship make it any easier to handle this lawsuit? If so, in what way? I mean, she would have had attorneys to litigate this for her no matter what. 

I guess my bigger question is, did Britney Touring, Inc need to be an asset included in the estate for the purposes of litigating the WEG lawsuit or was this for another purpose?

There were four branches of Britney Touring, Inc.

The branch that was named in the WEG lawsuit was the Louisiana branch.

The branch that sued the Onyx Hotel insurers (and likely received the payout check) was the New York branch.

According to Wright Entertainment Group:

"Upon information and belief, SPEARS and BTI concealed from WEG a series of negotiations and agreements for otherwise commissionable Gross Receipts payable to WEG, thus diverting those commissions to SPEARS directly or indirectly, or to corporate entities without the knowledge, consent, or agreement of WEG, both before and after the termination Agreement."

[Applejack]

On 6/5/2022 at 12:09 AM, Ghoulia said:

I think Ivan Taback’s articles may have been inspired by the morbid conversations he was having with Team con!!  The article about billionaires who died in 2010 as “the year of no estate tax” was chilling.

Is that why there were rumors of a second breakdown in 2010? And the filing in late 2009 referring to Britney as “deceased”?? 
 
 

 

I know it's minor, but just want to add this: I think the deceased filing was just an error on the lawyers' part. Notice how they got the judge and courtroom wrong as well. I think they were just copying and pasting and forgot to update these fields.

What's creepy is that Britney's estate was involved in a legal proceeding that's usually reserved for deceased people, but...that's not new.

[RebellionSparkles]

47 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

The branch that was named in the WEG lawsuit was the Louisiana branch.

The branch that sued the Onyx Hotel insurers (and likely received the payout check) was the New York branch.

So do you think that Britney Touring being a CON asset shielded BTI from liability? 

My main point being, my guess is that the CONs wanted Britney Touring as a CON asset, they didnt necessarily transfer this asset to protect it from the WEG lawsuit--but this is just a guess.

[Ghoulia]

18 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

There were four branches of Britney Touring, Inc.

The branch that was named in the WEG lawsuit was the Louisiana branch.

The branch that sued the Onyx Hotel insurers (and likely received the payout check) was the New York branch.

According to Wright Entertainment Group:

"Upon information and belief, SPEARS and BTI concealed from WEG a series of negotiations and agreements for otherwise commissionable Gross Receipts payable to WEG, thus diverting those commissions to SPEARS directly or indirectly, or to corporate entities without the knowledge, consent, or agreement of WEG, both before and after the termination Agreement."

So they wanted control of the business entities in order to continue enriching themselves through diversion of commissions, among other things. First entity that was requested to be absorbed into the estate was all of the iterations of Britney Touring, Inc.

Britney Touring, Inc branches would be the ones which had existing relationships/contracts with insurers, merchandisers, equipment rental, Ticketmaster and other vendors, and whatever else is connected to creating a worldwide pop star tour.  

Sorry to slow down the process, I've been trying not to get sucked into the B-anon conspiracy theory vortex.  One thing that stands out to me are the questions on page 3 of the January 14th 2010 minute order: https://stanaudit.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Britney00000319.html

Are these the answers?  From page 2:

[Steel Magnolia]

4 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

So do you think that Britney Touring being a CON asset shielded BTI from liability? 

My main point being, my guess is that the CONs wanted Britney Touring as a CON asset, they didnt necessarily transfer this asset to protect it from the WEG lawsuit--but this is just a guess.

I don't think it was about shielding BTI from liability...My guess is that they were trying to shield people from liability. My guess is that they hired Tri Star to try to figure out how to un-divert the commissions so as not to get caught for whatever was going on prior to the CON. 

James and Wallet created a number of new LLC's after the CON and began using those instead of the LLC's that were part of the SJB Revocable Trust (e.g. Atara Tours, LLC and Bellatori Tours, LLC) so it appears as if they didn't need BTI in their possession in order for Britney to tour.

[Ghoulia]

35 minutes ago, Applejack said:

I know it's minor, but just want to add this: I think the deceased filing was just an error on the lawyers' part. Notice how they got the judge and courtroom wrong as well. I think they were just copying and pasting and forgot to update these fields.

What's creepy is that Britney's estate was involved in a legal proceeding that's usually reserved for deceased people, but...that's not new.

I assume it was an innocent mistake as well.  I've been trying to get the whole document but the LA court website keeps giving me error messages when I select that file 

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, Ghoulia said:

Sorry to slow down the process, I've been trying not to get sucked into the B-anon conspiracy theory vortex.  One thing that stands out to me are the questions on page 3 of the January 14th 2010 minute order: https://stanaudit.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Britney00000319.html

Are these the answers?  From page 2:

I think page 3 questions are the pending issues that need clarification. At the bottom of page 3 it says "JTD" "Judge to Determine"--my read is that these notes are questions and page 2 is background info.

[Applejack]

Just a small heads-up to try to help in anyway. IMO BTI was the company that clearly was handling the finances and payrolls and, therefore, people would naturally sue BTI -- I think I saw a 2008 article a long time ago discussing that actually. But among these lawsuits, the Sketchers one and the Onyx Hotel Tour Merchandise one are really funny because it sounds exactly the same scheme as the WEG and Brand Sense lawsuit 

 

https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/britney-sued-by-bodyguards-20060331-ge21td.html

(this is 2006 though)

 

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/britneys-feeling-skechy

(this is 2003 - the sketchers lawsuit)

 

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/06/prweb132164.htm

(this is 2004 - the onyx merchandise lawsuit - no, sorry, this one is another thing LOL It doesn't have anything to do with anything)

 

https://www.mtv.com/news/1534071/britney-spears-sued-by-paparazzo-over-2004-incident/

(another 2006 lawsuit)

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

My guess is that they were trying to shield people from liability.

This feels right.

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

James and Wallet created a number of new LLC's after the CON and began using those instead of the LLC's that were part of the SJB Revocable Trust (e.g. Atara Tours, LLC and Bellatori Tours, LLC)

This is where it gets super confusing. What assets were part of the CON, what assets were part of the Trust? The CONs arent supposed to have access to trust assets, but they clearly do.

[RebellionSparkles]

4 minutes ago, Applejack said:

IMO BTI was the company that clearly was handling the finances and payrolls and, therefore, people would naturally sue BTI

This makes sense! In the WEG lawsuit, Johnny Wright was paid from the SJB Trust--meaner or LFB said that SJB was used for paying expenses to employees throughout the CON despite all these new corps being created.

So it doesnt matter what the name of the corp is (BTI, Atara)...the money is always coming from SJB Trust.