rewrite this title Paris Jackson Questions Father’s Estate About ‘Michael’ Movie Costs & Reshoots

EXCLUSIVE: “A complete lack of understanding about how the motion picture industry works and the role of producers in it.” That’s what the MJ estate says of the inquisitive Paris Jackson and her lawyers in the latest fracas over the upcoming biopic Micheal, about her father Michael Jackson.

As the “Zombie In Love” singer and the men running Michael Jackson‘s thriving estate await yet another ruling in their bubonic dispute over the King of Pop’s financial legacy, and head into another hearing Tuesday over accounting, the performer’s offspring is accusing her late father’s on-and-off top lawyer of expensively fumbling the upcoming Antoine Fuqua-directed flick in his producer role.

Basically, among payouts, missed investment opportunities and other claims in what is fundamentally a battle for control of the multibillion-dollar estate, Paris Jackson wants to bury co-executor John Branca for not knowing about or knowing the significance of a 1994 deal — along with a $20 million-plus settlement — with the family of then underaged Jordan Chandler that forbid depiction of his relationship with the superstar and the allegations of sexual abuse.

Brought to light in 2024, along with the fact that millions were quietly paid out to other MJ accusers by the estate, the blackout agreement required significant retooling and reshoots for the then-already completed film. With the Chandler claims addressed from Jackson’s POV, the revelation of the legal agreement and its fallout resulted in the film’s release date being rescheduled for a third time by a supposedly not pleased Lionsgate to April 24.

All of which moonwalks everyone involved to the latest Jacksonland tug-of-war, with pivotal cameos by the likes of Thriller and BAD producer Quincy Jones, and more sharp elbows than a Martin Scorsese-directed NYC subway dance-off.

Launching off that hard-hitting “complete lack of understanding” line, a response to Paris Jackson’s concerns was filed March 20 by the estate’s Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir lawyers. Dancing around the Chandler issue for the most part, the preliminary response throws down with little inhibition and more than a little attitude.

“The Executors recognize that they are, by definition, the ‘grown-ups’ here — that is the whole point of a fiduciary, to act responsibly when another party (here Michael Jackson) wanted to ensure that others (i.e., the beneficiaries) not act irresponsibly, due to their age or other factors, with vast amounts of money and resources,” the 24-page (plus exhibits) filing to now retired probate judge Mitchell Beckloff proclaims.

“Because of that, the Executors must refrain from responding to most of the irrelevant and highly incendiary, personal attacks on them,” it goes on to say, before going into attack mode. “No payment made by this Estate, in its 16 year history, has been disallowed. The Executors are human of course and not beyond error, but they have been meticulous and conscientious in their management of the Estate. It is unfortunate that Paris’s team make false and frivolous objections, considering Paris has and will continue to benefit substantially from the tireless work of the  Executors. Paris has already received roughly $65 million in benefits. She stands to inherit many hundreds of millions of dollars more, just as her father intended.” 

Calling out that $65 million figure in her own filing of last week as “outright false and which Executors have refused to substantiate,” Paris Jackson condemns the multibillion-dollar estate (which was around $500 million in debt when her father died 17 years ago) as being badly run — at least as a media organization.

“Executors appear to have invested in highly speculative and risky entertainment projects in which they have taken prominent roles despite their apparent lack of competency or experience,” alleges a First Amended Compliant by the singer’s Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth attorneys, along with Craig Peters at Altair Law LLP.

For better or worse, depending on who you ask, when it comes to that far-ranging Chandler agreement and the challenges (to put it politely) it presented to Michael, the fact is that Branca and McClain have actually produced a ton of MJ stuff on stage and on the big and small screen since Jackson’s 2009 death — though not a feature film, as Paris’ team rightly point out.

“Mr. Branca’s lack of experience producing dramatic feature films may be at the root of reports that the Estate has had to fund tens of millions of dollars in reshoots after the terms of a well-known settlement agreement prevented the production from using substantial amounts of footage already shot,” the FAC (which appeared in the Los Angeles Superior Court docket on March 16) adds, slamming Branca, his Ziffren Brittenham firm and co-executor John McClain (who is unnamed in the FAC), and Miles Tellier’s role as a younger Branca in Micheal.

A big part of Tuesday’s hearing will be the dispute over looking at the estate’s calendar-year 2025 accounts, I hear. The estate has argued it needs until at least April 2027 to file the documents, which should have a hefty dose of Michael expenses in them. The daughter of Michael Jackson wants the accounts filed by mid-September this year.

Outside of hearings and court filings, the executors today took a more measured approach to Paris Jackson’s objections and questions.

“The estate is extremely happy with the movie and expects it to be very profitable for the estate,” an estate spokesperson told Deadline on Monday of Michael, starring Jaafar Jackson (MJ’s nephew) and Colman Domingo. Paris Jackson has long washed her hands of the pic, calling it “sugar-coated and “dishonest” based on a script she was provided. “Whatever changes in the script were needed had nothing to do with John’s role as a producer. He is not an EP,” the estate continued.

Sources close to the Jackson estate tell me that Branca’s blind spot about that Chandler agreement (which is different than the big bucks settlement) stems in great part from the fact the lawyer was just coming off one of his out periods with Jackson when it all went down. The 1994 agreement was put together by Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman. With both attorneys now deceased, dead men can tell no lies, nor truths in this particular matter, if you know what I mean?

As the estate’s team also says in its March 20 filing, the specifics may be what they are, but the court has backed them repeatedly.

“Paris and her attorneys have either not been paying attention over the past several years or simply want to object for objections’ sake, raising litigation costs and expenses,” the response document asserts. “They seem far more interested in playing media games by making headline-grabbing, yet false, accusations; raising specious ‘concerns’ over issues previously addressed and resolved; and staging tabloid press photo ops strutting into hearings with obvious props,” the filing adds, with swipes that the young Jackson is “more concerned with taking personal shots at John Branca — and indirectly at the cast of the movie — than with any actual expenses of the biopic during 2021.”

In fact, citing “bad faith” from the younger Jackson, the estate’s lawyers said they sat down with Paris’ legal team, and lawyers for her brothers Prince and Bigi, on January 22 to discuss Michael expenses “pursuant to an appropriate NDA.” As the parties haggled “over one provision” in what the estate says it believed was a “seemingly productive” session, one of Paris’ lawyers said they “would get back to the Executors and counsel for the other siblings on the issue and a few proposals discussed for resolving it that counsel for the other siblings seemed open to.”

The estate in their most recent riling simply says: “He never did so. Rather, the first ‘response’ the Executors ever received from Paris’s counsel were these objections filed almost two months later.” 

In the legalese version of Michael and Janet Jackson’s 1995 hit ‘Scream,’ Paris apparently is also tired of the estate tellin’ the story of her patrimony their way.

“It’s a shame the executors are lobbing personal attacks against a beneficiary instead of providing basic transparency and accountability,” a source close to the singer’s team tells Deadline today. “If the Estate is interested in clarifying the facts, they could just release all the years of financial records Paris has been requesting. Without them, Paris and the rest of the Jackson family are totally in the dark.”

The estate would say otherwise and eventually, maybe any day now, the judge will have his say.