Britney Spears "has no estate" so what is the deal with Britney Brands?

[Ghoulia]

3 hours ago, mocha latto said:

I read this and feel slightly more confused. How does she have no estate?? This is Britney Spears. What happened to all these random trusts and companies? Im so livid

Sorry, I kind of dropped that link and didn't follow up.  There have been some good explanations already, but my understanding is that the conservatorship essentially split Britney from controlling her money as well as her personal life.  In terms of the court, Britney (the person) has been reunited with her estate (money & valuable stuff) and her personal freedom. For 13+ years, she had been unable to make decisions based on the money her own performances, products, appearances, etc generated.  Now Judge Penny has acknowledged that Britney is a fully-fledged person with the right to argue, through her attorney, that she should or should not pay certain fees.  

I took it as slight bit of sass from the judge and I LOVE it.  

[mocha latto]

36 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Sorry, I kind of dropped that link and didn't follow up.  There have been some good explanations already, but my understanding is that the conservatorship essentially split Britney from controlling her money as well as her personal life.  In terms of the court, Britney (the person) has been reunited with her estate (money & valuable stuff) and her personal freedom. For 13+ years, she had been unable to make decisions based on the money her own performances, products, appearances, etc generated.  Now Judge Penny has acknowledged that Britney is a fully-fledged person with the right to argue, through her attorney, that she should or should not pay certain fees.  

I took it as slight bit of sass from the judge and I LOVE it.  

Im living for it too! 

 

My concern with all of this is just that it doesn't seem like the conservatorship ending means things would just flip back to how they were years ago. The power Jamie Spears had while in the conservatorship gave him the power to do damage control in the case that it we're to be over.

As the performer in the music industry, you aren't necessarily guaranteed full legal right to everything with your face and name on it automatically. (unless you put in the work to do it yourself waaaaaay in advance) Jamie established Britney Brands in 1999 before she even legally had her own rights to her money.

Theres an alarming grey area with the ownership of her brand as it was under the C-ship. If he took over ownership over whatever entity controls her brand (this could effect something as simple as the username @britneyspears on instagram) there is no saying how much control she currently has over her affairs. 

Miley Cyrus had to fight a similar fight. Her company Smiley Miley Inc (that SHE is the CEO of) trademarked her name in a legal situation starting in 2014. 

 

Quote

The case goes back to 2014 when the 28-year-old singer's company Smiley Miley Inc. sought to trademark MILEY CYRUS before the EUIPO for audio and video discs, mobile phone cases, e-books, electronic board games, calendars and other goods. British Virgin Island-based Cyrus Trademarks Ltd [whomst?!] , which registered the mark CYRUS in 2010, however opposed the application for some of the products.

The EUIPO backed part of its argument, citing the likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks. Smiley Miley appealed but failed to convince the Board of Appeal last year and subsequently took its case to the CJEU.

The Court decided to overrule the EUIPO's decision, dismissing its arguments that the brands could be confused and that the name Miley Cyrus had no conceptual meaning.

"The mark applied for, MILEY CYRUS, has a clear and specific semantic content for the relevant public given that it refers to a public figure of international reputation, known by most well-informed, reasonably observant and circumspect persons" the CJEU said.

We haven't seen Britney reclaim the rights to her brand like Miley did. 

Hypothetically, Jamie Spears would have control over the trademarks. Not to mention what else that could give him control over. Including the several institutions he seems to have built around her that have no clear purpose. 

[Bigno]

3 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

To be fair! I am one of the people that speculates that the CONs stole B’s IP in Britney Brands. BUT I also know there is no way to prove this speculation with the publicly available info. BUT I 💯% believe if the CONs stole valuable IP we will be getting a long notes app post from B with lots of these emojis: 🖕🖕😘🍑

There are lots of sketchy practices with IP and naming rights. Remember Prince changed his name to The Artist (formerly known as Prince), and then to a symbol, and then back to Prince? IMO the name changes  were all about IP disputes and naming rights.

so it’s def true that Britney is free and there is no estate (bc estates are for dead people). BUT it’s entirely possible that the CONs did something sketchy with Britney’s naming rights and somehow are still profiting from her name (ie through Britney Brands).

I just want to clarify "estates" are not just for dead people or people in conservatorships. The word refers to the sum of a person´s assets, whether dead or alive. 

 

[mocha latto]

7 minutes ago, mocha latto said:

Im living for it too! 

 

My concern with all of this is just that it doesn't seem like the conservatorship ending means things would just flip back to how they were years ago. The power Jamie Spears had while in the conservatorship gave him the power to do damage control in the case that it we're to be over.

As the performer in the music industry, you aren't necessarily guaranteed full legal right to everything with your face and name on it automatically. (unless you put in the work to do it yourself waaaaaay in advance) Jamie established Britney Brands in 1999 before she even legally had her own rights to her money.

Theres an alarming grey area with the ownership of her brand as it was under the C-ship. If he took over ownership over whatever entity controls her brand (this could effect something as simple as the username @britneyspears on instagram) there is no saying how much control she currently has over her affairs. 

Miley Cyrus had to fight a similar fight. Her company Smiley Miley Inc (that SHE is the CEO of) trademarked her name in a legal situation starting in 2014. 

 

We haven't seen Britney reclaim the rights to her brand like Miley did. 

Hypothetically, Jamie Spears would have control over the trademarks. Not to mention what else that could give him control over. Including the several institutions he seems to have built around her that have no clear purpose. 

See Elle "The Radical Honesty Of Miley Cyrus"

 

Quote

"I was just like, I can be on Disney! Yeah, I want to do it! My name was Miley on my show, but I didn't own my name—we didn't think about that. Like, Yeah, you can use my name on your show, sure! My mom started understanding how many people take advantage of a child, so she hired smart people to protect me in that way. I'm happy that when I was younger, people protected me and put me in a position where I can now control my music." Miley Cyrus, Elle Magazine

 

[kgid]

1 hour ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Yes, but the ownership structure has never been public info…like if there are 100 theoretical shares of the company, who owns each share? 
^^this is one of my major frustrations with the CON and private companies in general.

If Britney Brands we’re a publicly traded company (and you could buy/sell shares on the stock market) it would be a legal requirement to disclose any entity that owns more than 5% of shares (in order to prevent theft, power plays, etc).

but because all of these corporations are privately held (for Britney and for all musicians in general), it creates a breeding ground for theft and corruption because there are no disclosure requirements about operations and ownership.

Did you just poorly explain the difference between private company ownership and public trading?  Lol... this is literally what I do for a living.

 

Even private companies have CEOs or singular or majority holders and they have to be made public (the title holders).  The earnings are what can be kept private in and among the owners/operators. 

 

And Britney Brands has three owners/operators, meaning they hold the entirety of the company.  Those three are, Wallet, J. Spears operating under Tri-Star.  This is all highly visible public information.  Looking at their ~public~ profile, it appears to have all the hallmarks of a shell company to move money through.  

 

IE it's registered in two separate states, with notoriously lax tax laws (Louisiana (which, makes some sense) and Tennessee (which doesn't)) it's a PO box for it's regular mailings.  It hasn't moved transactions since 2014 - SUS to be sure given the milestones of Britneys major releases - AND Tri-Star's affiliation, which operates almost exclusively in LA.  

 

This is not a mystery.  

Shady?  Hell yes!  Mysterious, hell no.

Sorry

[Ghoulia]

33 minutes ago, mocha latto said:

Im living for it too! 

 

My concern with all of this is just that it doesn't seem like the conservatorship ending means things would just flip back to how they were years ago. The power Jamie Spears had while in the conservatorship gave him the power to do damage control in the case that it we're to be over.

As the performer in the music industry, you aren't necessarily guaranteed full legal right to everything with your face and name on it automatically. (unless you put in the work to do it yourself waaaaaay in advance) Jamie established Britney Brands in 1999 before she even legally had her own rights to her money.

Theres an alarming grey area with the ownership of her brand as it was under the C-ship. If he took over ownership over whatever entity controls her brand (this could effect something as simple as the username @britneyspears on instagram) there is no saying how much control she currently has over her affairs. 

Miley Cyrus had to fight a similar fight. Her company Smiley Miley Inc (that SHE is the CEO of) trademarked her name in a legal situation starting in 2014. 

 

We haven't seen Britney reclaim the rights to her brand like Miley did. 

Hypothetically, Jamie Spears would have control over the trademarks. Not to mention what else that could give him control over. Including the several institutions he seems to have built around her that have no clear purpose. 

🚩🚩Miley & Britney have a certain manager/lawyer in common - Larry Rudolph. His legal specialty is IP and copyright. 

[mocha latto]

20 minutes ago, kgid said:

Did you just poorly explain the difference between private company ownership and public trading?  Lol... this is literally what I do for a living.

 

Even private companies have CEOs or singular or majority holders and they have to be made public (the title holders).  The earnings are what can be kept private in and among the owners/operators. 

 

And Britney Brands has three owners/operators, meaning they hold the entirety of the company.  Those three are, Wallet, J. Spears operating under Tri-Star.  This is all highly visible public information.  Looking at their ~public~ profile, it appears to have all the hallmarks of a shell company to move money through.  

 

IE it's registered in two separate states, with notoriously lax tax laws (Louisiana (which, makes some sense) and Tennessee (which doesn't)) it's a PO box for it's regular mailings.  It hasn't moved transactions since 2014 - SUS to be sure given the milestones of Britneys major releases - AND Tri-Star's affiliation, which operates almost exclusively in LA.  

 

This is not a mystery.  

Shady?  Hell yes!  Mysterious, hell no.

Sorry

You are a GODSEND 

[mocha latto]

2 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

🚩🚩Miley & Britney have a certain manager/lawyer in common - Larry Rudolph. His legal specialty is IP and copyright. 

I feel like if I was manipulated into "supporting" the bad people by convincing me that I was supporting Britney J Spears, I should somehow be entitled to financial compensation.

[RebellionSparkles]

54 minutes ago, kgid said:

Did you just poorly explain the difference between private company ownership and public trading?  Lol... this is literally what I do for a living.

This is what I do for a living!! Are you one of the hedge funds bros that spoke with Kevin Wu ~3 weeks ago??? If yes I will s.hit my pants in happiness.
The NY fnce crowd was very interested in the B story…bc it’s interesting…but the financials are so corrupt they couldn’t follow. And obvs no money to be made on a short of a private company. BUT Britney’s story has fascinating read through for the COTY and Kylie deal.

**and ALSO I DID NOT POORLY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BTW PRIVATE AND PUBLIC COMPANIES. Respect your ELDERS, son.

[S jones]

5 hours ago, mocha latto said:

I am deeply disturbed by this information. Most everyday people do not know this.

Jamie could potentially use this brand to continue to cash out from Britney, and wouldn't HE be the one with her trademarks in this case? It's my understanding that Britney established Britney Rules, LLC to serve the same purpose. It was dissolved i think in like 2009 and replaced by Britney Brands from what it looks like.

He can’t! Legally when an artist release an album or go on a tour, it is usually under an LLC or a shell company! So I’m case of lawsuit, that company looses bit protect the existing property of a celebrity..for example taylor swift net worth is $400m, she goes on a tour under an LLC, if a lawsuit is filed and she looses, whatever that your makes under that company would be used for payoff and would protect T.S net worts..this is very common parctice! Also once an LLC is deadlocked they don’t have to pay payroll taxes etc

[mocha latto]

14 minutes ago, Sourab Patodi said:

He can’t! Legally when an artist release an album or go on a tour, it is usually under an LLC or a shell company! So I’m case of lawsuit, that company looses bit protect the existing property of a celebrity..for example taylor swift net worth is $400m, she goes on a tour under an LLC, if a lawsuit is filed and she looses, whatever that your makes under that company would be used for payoff and would protect T.S net worts..this is very common parctice! Also once an LLC is deadlocked they don’t have to pay payroll taxes etc

Not accurate 

[mocha latto]

6 hours ago, MadameFreedom said:

There is a new trust and that old doesn't exist anymore. It was all mentioned during November termination Hearing and judge Penny gave some additional temporary rights to John Zabel to handle the trust and to move all the assets from the old trust to new one.

Britney has a fully new Trust and previous one dissolved.

Sorry that I'm late to the party, but do you have a case number or some media reference to exactly which date this hearing was so I can read up on it? 

[MadameFreedom]

9 hours ago, 3IsACharm33 said:

I mean there’s a reason we get a new perfume every month without a involvement from Britney…even when she was locked away in the facility.

 

9 hours ago, GirlOnTheMoon said:

This is also my confusion...Same with the new Monopoly Britney branded game...Who gets the money, who manages her brand (not talking about her personal money, home, whatever...I'm talking about Britney branded products)?? If Britney is the owner of all companies that were under Jamie's name then why is his name still showing and not hers? 

 

9 hours ago, 3IsACharm33 said:

I just wish exhale wasn’t afraid of the truth, it seems we created our own version of the truth just to relieves yourselves of all the stress the #freebritney movement put us through. But the battle is not over Britney is gonna be in court for years trying to get justice and all her property returned so much was stolen from her. Most of what was stolen wasn’t documented besides the 600milion that JUno lou gave to Lou Taylor…rosengart still has a lot of discovery to do involving the accounting.

Well when it comes to new perfumes or monopoly I think they are coming out due to a singed contract. Most likely they were the deals that Jamie singed on behalf of Britney as her conservator.

In order to stop it it would be needed to break a contract but it would mean Britney would have to pay a lot of money as a penalty.

So why to break the contract when you can just keep it going and earn money?

It's better to let the contract expire and then make a new decision how to handle business.

[MadameFreedom]

3 hours ago, mocha latto said:

Sorry that I'm late to the party, but do you have a case number or some media reference to exactly which date this hearing was so I can read up on it? 

Yeah. November 12th Hearing and I think it was further discussed during January Hearing.

Britney's conservatorship case numer is BP108870.

[Britney'sBish]

Who is Michael Caine though?

and I'm not talking about the actor.

[Wayne]

11 hours ago, mocha latto said:

I am deeply disturbed by this information. Most everyday people do not know this.

Jamie could potentially use this brand to continue to cash out from Britney, and wouldn't HE be the one with her trademarks in this case? It's my understanding that Britney established Britney Rules, LLC to serve the same purpose. It was dissolved i think in like 2009 and replaced by Britney Brands from what it looks like.

I don’t think he can. He would need permission from her to use her name/likeness which she would decline. If he did without her permission she can sue. 

[Britney671]

I just want to know where all the money from her brands that "do not exist" is going.

 

[kleinbritney]

I think she still doesn't own the trademark rights to her name and probably never had them herself.

 

That's why your fortune is so small.

[DuranDuran]

1 hour ago, Britney'sBish said:

Who is Michael Caine though?

Michael Kane was handpicked by James to replace Tri Star in 2020. Though most likely Kane was handpicked not by Jamie, but by the Jeryls, since they have a good work relationship with him for years in MJ's case. And I'm sure Kane was brought by them in B's case to cover up their gray money schemes.

[kgid]

7 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

This is what I do for a living!! Are you one of the hedge funds bros that spoke with Kevin Wu ~3 weeks ago??? If yes I will s.hit my pants in happiness.
The NY fnce crowd was very interested in the B story…bc it’s interesting…but the financials are so corrupt they couldn’t follow. And obvs no money to be made on a short of a private company. BUT Britney’s story has fascinating read through for the COTY and Kylie deal.

**and ALSO I DID NOT POORLY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BTW PRIVATE AND PUBLIC COMPANIES. Respect your ELDERS, son.

CaPsLoCk aNgEr BuZzWoRdS iNsUlTs

Nope.  Sit down, friend.  The story of corruption, she'll companies, mismanagement, bad financial actors is NOT routinely interesting in finance law.  Because it is so common place.  But I can see you be like troll so, yes, I am aware I'm wasting my breath.