Paris Jackson Criticizes Estate Executors Over $464M Fortune

Paris Jackson is continuing her legal battle against the executors of her father Michael Jackson’s estate in the wake of a setback she suffered last week.

On Tuesday, Paris, 27, filed an objection in Los Angeles Superior Court in which she called out the estate’s delayed accounting for the 2021 calendar year.

In documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Paris expressed concern over how she and her brothers — Prince, 28, and Bigi, 23 — only received the accounting documents in September of this year, around four years later.

In addition to taking issue with the four-year delay in receiving the records, Paris shared concerns about the ‘enormous sums of cash’ that executors John Branca and John McClain had allegedly failed to invest in that period, while also taking issue with other ‘highly speculative and risky entertainment projects’ that the two had gotten involved with ‘despite their apparent lack of competency or experience.’

The filing also notes the songstress’ trepidation over payments made to the executors, which she said dwarfed the sums that had been paid out to her and other surviving family members.

Paris’ objection stated that she is ‘increasingly concerned the Estate has become the vehicle for John Branca to enrich and aggrandize himself, rather than serve the beneficiaries’ best interests and steadfastly preserve her father’s legacy.’

She also raised concerns that Branca’s inexperience with film production may have contributed to the tens of millions of dollars spent on reshoots for an upcoming biopic about her father.

The Daily Mail has contacted representatives for Paris Jackson, as well as for John Branca and John McClain, but hasn’t yet received a response. 

While speaking to People, a source close to the Jackson estate claimed that the filing was ‘another misguided attempt by Paris Jackson’s attorneys to provide themselves cover.’ 

‘The fact is Paris Jackson’s lawyers lost their latest case against the Estate and have been ordered to pay the Estate’s attorneys’ expenses,’ they continued. ‘All the beneficiaries are well taken care of by the Estate. This is a weak attempt to change the narrative of their loss.’

Paris’ filing claims that the executors, as well as Branca’s law firm, had been paid over $10 million in 2021, which was ‘more than double the amount distributed to any beneficiary from the family allowance.’

On top of that, the executors have allegedly been paid more than $148 million from 2009 to 2021.

The objection adds that attorneys for the estate were paid $4.5 million in 2021, while they appeared to have also received $750,000 more in unapproved ‘bonus’ payments.

Paris was particularly incensed over the estate’s alleged failure to invest $464 million in cash, which had allegedly earned only 0.1 percent in interest.

However, she claims that the funds could have generated around $41 million (or a 9.2 percent gain) if properly invested.

Paris also reiterated a concern from her previous filing, noting that the executors are almost five years behind schedule in filing mandatory disclosure forms, so she and her siblings have no idea what has gone on with the estate’s funds since 2021.

In one jab, Paris’ filing suggests that the executors have a greater financial interest to fund a biopic about her father than to properly invest the estate’s funds, as they are entitled to a 15 percent cut of income from entertainment industry–related projects, whereas they don’t receive additional funds for prudent investments. 

Paris’ concerns about Branca extend to his participation in the upcoming biopic, titled Michael, which is directed by Antoine Fuqua.

‘It appears that Mr. Branca used his position as an Executive Producer, a role he has never before performed in connection with any dramatic feature film, to cast the sole A-list actor in the production, Miles Teller, to play himself in the upcoming feature biopic…’ the objection reads.

‘Undoubtedly Mr. Branca considers his story to be central to the Michael Jackson story. Nonetheless, it is unclear how this peculiar and presumably costly casting decision will result in commensurate box office receipts,’ it continues.

However, the film also features two-time Academy Award nominee Colman Domingo as Michael’s father, Joe Jackson. 

Paris also accuses Branca of making a risky move by having the estate fund the film production, rather than simply licensing the rights to Michael Jackson’s life to a studio.

Paris’ November 18 objection follows a ruling issued Thursday, in which the referee overseeing the latest challenge ruled in favor of the estate’s motions to strike down portions of Paris’ earlier petition, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Mail. 

A retired Los Angeles judge, Mitchell L. Beckloff, was appointed to serve as referee for the dispute, and he ruled on November 10 in favor of Branca and McClain.

Paris — who recently revealed that she suffered permanent nasal damage due to years of drug abuse — had multiple claims struck down under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Her claims targeted court filings made by the estate, but legal filings are protected under the law, which is intended to prevent plaintiffs from filing lawsuits to censor or intimidate their critics.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, a spokesperson for Paris Jackson said: ‘This order is limited to minor procedural issues and does not change the facts: the pattern of behavior displayed by the executors and their attorneys raises significant red flags, and Paris will continue working to ensure her family is treated fairly. We will be submitting an updated filing shortly.’ 

Paris, who is the middle child of Jackson, had previously sought to put legal scrutiny on the executors in a June 24 filing obtained by the Daily Mail, in which she flagged what she called questionable bonuses and ‘premium’ payouts the estate made in 2018.

Attorneys for Paris said in their June petition that $625,000 in ‘gifts’ and ‘gratuities’ were dispersed to three law firms for what was described as ‘uncaptured time.’ 

The petition claimed that the executors made no effort to make sense of ‘why counsel was incapable of recording unbilled time, or why such a failure should not preclude payment.’

Attorneys for Paris added that two of the firms involved had gotten ‘premium payments’ in breach of the ‘Court’s order allowing only partial payment of attorneys’ fees until Court approval is obtained.’ 

‘Even worse, these payments appear, at least in part, to consist of lavish gratuities bestowed upon already well-compensated counsel.’

In her petition from July 31, Paris requested that the court order her father’s estate executors to ‘file petitions for orders allowing authorizing payment of compensation for attorneys and reimbursement of costs’ for 2019–2023 ‘within 90 days.’

Paris argued that the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate had operated with little oversight and had paid what she said were ‘non-contractual $125,000 and $250,000 gifts’ to attorneys for the estate.

She also said in her filing that the lack of documentation on the payments over the stated five-year period  ‘inherently prejudices the ability of the court and the beneficiaries to provide effective oversight.’

Notably, the executors Branca and McClain didn’t dispute having made those payments, but instead took issue with Paris’ objections to the content of their filings and when they were submitted.

Although the judge determined that parts of Paris’ petition were ‘based directly on the substance of the Executors’ probate court filings … statements made before a judicial proceeding,’ and were therefore protected under the California anti-SLAPP statute, other portions of her petition were left in place.

The judge preserved her complaint about the executor’s oversight of attorney payments and concerns that she and her brothers deserved a more transparent accounting of the executors’ actions from now on. 

Paris will now be on the hook for the estate’s attorneys’ fees, but only in relation to work that was performed on its anti-SLAPP defense.