JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 1

st
2013
Eric Briggs (Valuation and Financial Advisory)
The Judge. Good morning. What do we need to do?
Ms. Bina. There had been a couple issues, your honor, which was the reason why you had
wanted to speak with Mr. Miller, the general counsel of FTI Ive spoken to him this morning.
He's available on the phone if your honor wants to call him. He's cleared up some matters for me
in terms of the conflict issue. What happened was, they did an internal conflict check,
determined there was no conflict. Then before taking the engagement, contacted counsel for the
estate of Michael Jackson, determined there was no conflict. The estate said they absolutely
agreed there was no conflict, and that's why they moved forward. Mr. Miller will confirm the
same. Regarding the IRS. Issue, my understanding is that the subject came up after FTI's
principal engagement with a former person from the alder group had been completed. Then there
was a question of the valuation they had done, and that was discussed at a meeting with IRS.
Representatives. So I think, based on that, that it's not privileged, but your honor might want to
confirm the details of that with Mr. Miller. As near as I can tell, the only issue we have here is
confidentiality, and your honor could order the witness to answer, notwithstanding any
confidentiality agreements. That's my present understanding, but Mr. Miller is standing by for a
call. He cleared his morning calendar, so if you want to talk to him, you can.
The Judge. Okay. Sounds like --
Mr. Panish. I had an e-mail with the lawyer for the estate, Howard Weitzman. He can't be here
today. I told him that you would like him to be here. He told me to tell you he can't be here.
Hopefully he'll be here at an appropriate time. He provided in writing to me that no one from the
estate authorized this engagement by FTI or Mr. Briggs. And he confirmed that, contrary --

according to what he says in writing, that no one from the estate, or any lawyers authorized or
waived any potential conflict or allowed FTI to be a consultant on this case.
Mr. Putnam. That doesn't seem inconsistent, your honor, because as we've learned from general
counsel, who determined there was no conflict and therefore no need for a waiver, instead the
representation and understanding is that no waiver was sought. But what we also understand
from the general counsel is that there was, and they were noticed of the engagement, as you
would do with any business matter, but that has nothing to do with the conflict issue. I think it
lands precisely where you thought it was yesterday --
Mr. Panish. No.
Mr. Putnam. -- where you said the only issue that might be privileged, make sure there isn't one,
and it appears there isn't. Again, we made sure we confirmed that, in which case we can do
exactly what we've already done, which is have you instruct him to answer, addressing the
confidentiality, which sounds perfect.
The Judge. It sounds like you get what you need.
Mr. Panish. No. But the issue -- and I don't want -- Mr. Weitzman said regarding authorizing or
allowing this witness to be an expert in this case, that has never been authorized or never been
contacted in that regard.
The Judge. All right.
Mr. Panish. That seems to be contrary. But let's get the man on the phone and ask him what he's
got to say about that, because they've given me contrary information. I have not -- I wasn't
involved. I don't represent the estate. I don't know anything about it. All I know is what this
witness said on the witness stand and what Mr. Weitzman e-mailed me.
The Judge. I think the appropriate thing to do, if Mr. Weitzman wants to come to court and tell
me that, he can tell me that; otherwise, we'll just go forward.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
The Judge. If later it becomes an issue, we can have a full hearing on it. And if the court finds
there isn't a waiver --
Mr. Panish. Let's first hear what --
The Judge. -- we can deal with it at that time. But I'm not going to, in the absence of Mr.
Weitzman being here --
Mr. Panish. I agree.

The Judge. You can go forward with your cross-examination. You have the leeway now, based
on this representation. You have what you need.
Mr. Panish. All I want --
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, I don't know if Mr. Weitzman would be aware of this. My
understanding is that a different law firm for the estate is the one who engaged this alder group
and Hoffman law group. It was that group that they spoke out and informed them of the
representation in February. It was their -- that group that determined internally that there was no
conflict. Then out of courtesy, they sort of prophylactically notified them, not because they
thought they needed a waiver, but to tell them about it. They told them about it, and the
representative from the Hoffman firm, according to my understanding from Mr. Miller, said, "no
problem. We're aware of it. Don't think these matters are related. Don't see a conflict." so that is
my understanding, your honor. Like I said, Mr. Miller is standing by to confirm any of this.
Mr. Panish. Well, I'm just going to say that the witness said that him or his partner contacted Ms.
Cohen. I don't believe that she's in the firm. But let's hear what he says. I'll give the transcript to
Mr. Weitzman. He's the only one authorized to do it, so I'll give it to him. What else can I say? I
said that you invited him to be here; that you couldn't order him; that you wanted to hear from
the estate. I relayed that information. That's all I can do.
The Judge. I understand.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think if the estate had a real concern, they would make their concern
known, I mean, I would expect. The other issue I think here, your honor, is in terms of what Mr.
Panish is representing on the transcript, I actually reviewed the transcript in detail last night. The
witness first testified that the internal conflicts check had been run and a determination that there
was no conflict. He or his partner, his partner roy salter, contacted somebody from the estate at
the time. I understand from Mr. Miller it was Mr. Salter who made that contact. And they also
determined there was no conflict. What Mr. Briggs testified is that he later contacted Ms. Cohen
about a different matter. Ms. Cohen is one of the estate lawyers. I don't recall offhand which law
firm. I think she's in their tax group. They discussed the representation at that point, but not in
the sense of getting permission. She was well aware of it. There was no issue raised. And that
was when he said that he spoke with Ms. Cohen. He said he was not sure whether he or someone
else in the firm had made the initial call because he clears a number of conflicts per year. As it
turns out, according to Mr. Miller, it was Mr. Salter who contacted, I believe, Mr. Hoffman or
someone from the Hoffman law group in February.
Mr. Panish. Well, I'm just going to read from the record, from page 12,247, the testimony under
oath of Mr. Briggs: question: "now, in February you signed a written contract with this law firm
here to work on this case; right?" answer: "an engagement agreement, yes." question: "and
before you signed that, sir, you or someone that you don't know of called Ms. Cohen and got her
authorization to testify in this case; correct?" answer: "that's my understanding." that's what he
testified to. That's the testimony. Let's see what this witness says, and we'll see what Cohen says,
and we'll get to it. But let's hear what this FTI gentleman says.

Ms. Bina. And, again, your honor I think that was in the middle of a lot of testimony in which he
had said he personally talked to Ms. Cohen. I literally have all 20 pages on the subject. I can
print it out and give it to your honor if you want to review the entire testimony. But he testified
that there was a conversation between someone from his firm and Mr. Miller -- and someone
from the estate's law firm, and Mr. Miller can confirm that.
The Judge. I don't think I need to speak to him. I think we can move forward. I think you have
what you need to conduct cross-examination. That was my concern.
Mr. Panish. So we don't need to talk to Mr. Miller?
The Judge. No. All we need to do is instruct this witness to respond, and you can get the
answers that you want.
Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, may I just instruct someone to let Mr. Miller know he doesn't
need to stand by?
Ms. Bina. Yes. He cleared his entire morning calendar for this matter because we told him it's an
important matter.
Mr. Panish. Well, it's actually afternoon for him.
Ms. Bina. Well, afternoon. But he cleared his calendar, in case you wanted to talk to him, so he
could stand by.
The Judge. Anything else? I'm going to give you time to digest this.
Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor.
A. Couple of other issues really quickly. Two things. One, plaintiffs' counsel asked a number of
questions on cross-examination yesterday about, "what did you do with your time, Mr. Briggs?"
one issue that's come up is, a lot of what he spent his time on was research relating to the slides
that your honor excluded. He -- I think they've opened the door on how he spent his time, and I
think those are fair for redirect examination, in that they -- he can now say, "I looked at facilities
in India," "I looked at facilities in tokyo," and whether or not they were commensurate with what
plaintiffs' expert said was possible.
The Judge. Okay.
Ms. Bina. And we did file a brief on that, your honor, as well, before the issue came up on cross-
examination. But I think it's definitely fair on redirect, and it's necessary to rehab this witness's
credibility.
The Judge. What he can't do is get into his opinion. He can say I did research on --
Ms. Bina. Okay.

Mr. Panish. Well, can I address it before you rule? The slides are his opinions that he gave that I
showed in the deposition he didn't have. So he can't use the slide. If he said --
The Judge. He's not going to use the slide; he's just going to say he worked on slides.
Ms. Bina. Yes. Your honor, the intention is not to have him use the slides. But we did file a brief
on why we believe the slides would be admissible. The plaintiffs haven't opposed that. I don't
know if your honor has had an opportunity to read it.
Mr. Panish. Just got it yesterday.
Ms. Bina. But as of right now, I ask that he be permitted to describe what he did so that it's not
left with the implication that he spent hundreds of hours and did nothing.
Mr. Panish. Well, first of all, he couldn't tell us. Now he's going to tell us when he did that?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, he was not allowed to tell because of the order.
Mr. Panish. That's not what the order was. There was part of one slide that was excluded. That's
all. Part of one slide.
The Judge. I remember half of a slide --
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. -- I think is what happened.
Mr. Panish. Half of a slide.
The Judge. It's still work that he did.
Ms. Bina. Yes.
Mr. Panish. After the deposition. So he could say, "after my deposition, I researched a, b and c";
okay? Fine. But he can't give the opinions that have been excluded --
The Judge. Right.
Mr. Panish. He can't show the slide.
The Judge. I think I said that.
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, we're not -- we would like permission to use the slide per the brief
that I filed. That's not what we're asking for here and now at this moment. What we're asking for
is that he be able to say, "part of what I did, I got Mr. Erk's analysis four days before my

deposition. In the months since, I have spent substantial time in analyzing, you know, venues in
India, events Mr. Erk said there would be," that kind of thing. And yesterday he was under the
impression he could not say anything, any of that, because of your honor's order. He brought that
up with us, and that's what I wanted to bring up here today.
Mr. Panish. He said that Mr. Matthew Nusinow did that work, is what he said.
The Judge. Well, you can cross him on that.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you.
Ms. Bina. The other issue, your honor, is we just received a brief to exclude testimony from this
afternoon's witness. I'm not sure -- again, they've had -- they've known for days this witness was
coming. Mr. Laperruque. Today is the only day Mr. Laperruque is able to testify until pretty
much next month.
The Judge. I haven't seen it, so I don't know how we can address it without reading the brief.
Mr. Putnam. We'll address it --
Mr. Panish. Your honor, we finally found out he was coming this afternoon, so we filed the
brief. Every time we do something, there is an attack, "they've had," "they've known for days."
we haven't known for days. We didn't even know yesterday until 7:00 who was coming. Mr.
Putnam or Ms. Bina notified us.
The Judge. Why don't you orally tell me?
Mr. Panish. Ms. Chang is dealing with it.
The Judge. Oh, all right.
Mr. Panish. She wrote it. She'll be here.
Ms. Bina. For the record, we gave them notice on Monday that Mr. Laperruque was coming
yesterday afternoon. The reason he didn't come yesterday afternoon was because they continued
their cross-examination of Mr. Briggs. My concern is just taking up courtroom time on
something that could have been -- I mean, this is stuff Mr. Laperruque testified about at his
deposition. Anyway, we're happy to address this. I don't think there's any merit to address the
motion to exclude.
The Judge. How long is the motion?
Ms. Bina. About four pages.
The Judge. You can orally argue that.

Mr. Panish. They haven't really been worried about taking up courtroom time, the defendants.
The Judge. Okay. You can orally address it.
Mr. Panish. We spent a month of time to qualify the jurors. They haven't been worried about
taking up time to reargue the court's rulings.
The Judge. I'm worried about taking up time right now.
Mr. Panish. I'm ready to go right now. I've been here, quarter to 10:00, ready to go every day.
Mr. Putnam. That's great.
The Judge. Anything else?
Mr. Putnam. No, your honor.
Ms. Bina. No, your honor.
The Judge. I gave you this. I have a copy of it. You can digest it.
Mr. Panish. I haven't read it. What is it?
Ms. Bina. It's the motion to quash regarding Ms. Ribera.
The Judge. It's long so, I wanted to give you time.
Mr. Putnam. No worries.
The Judge. Where is the witness?
Mr. Putnam. In the hall.
The Judge. Do you need time to talk to him? Bring him in first.
Mr. Putnam. She may have just done that.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, if you want -- we do have a declaration from Mr. Miller relating to the
subpoena for the timesheets. So I'm happy to give that up.
The Judge. Oh, okay. Did you serve --
Mr. Panish. No. Of course not.
Ms. Bina. Here. I just literally forgot about it this moment. I have a stack of them here. It just
lays out what we told the court yesterday regarding the timesheets.

(Mr. Briggs came up to the witness stand.)

The Judge. Mr. Briggs, we conducted an investigation about the background of your relationship
with FTI, and the estate, and conversations that occurred, and it's been determined from the
information I received that you can respond to the questions that plaintiffs' counsel is asking you
concerning debt, value of the catalog, is it? The catalog?
Mr. Panish. Can I just ask him right now so it's clear and he gets it?
The Judge. A specific question.
Mr. Panish. Yes. That I want to ask him.
The Judge. Sure.
Mr. Panish. You can sit down, Mr. Briggs.
Mr. Putnam. And just for clarity, it's with the instructions from your honor to answer.
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. Yes.
Mr. Panish. Well, you know, when I finish -- why don't we -- I'll ask the question. The court can
instruct him to answer, and it's clear on the record why he's doing that. How is that? Is that okay?
Mr. Putnam. He doesn't have to do the answers here.
Mr. Panish. Yeah. He has to give -- I'm going to do the 402 right now on it; okay?
The Judge. Go ahead. 402 motion Eric Briggs,
recalled as a witness by the defendants, was previously sworn and testified as follows:
direct examination by Mr. Panish:
Q. You're still under oath. You understand that, Mr. Briggs?
A. I do.
Q. You had a meeting with the IRS.?
A. I have had a meeting with the IRS. Do you care to be more specific?
Q. Regarding the valuation of the catalog.

A. I have had a meeting with the IRS. Regarding the valuation of the Sony/ATV catalog.
Q. Did the IRS. Place a value well in excess of the debt of Mr. Jackson?
A. Could you be more specific regarding your term "well"?
Q. Hundreds of millions.
A. The IRS. Appointed an appraiser who placed a value on Michael Jackson's interest in the
Sony/ATV catalog that was millions of dollars in excess of the debt.
Q. How many millions?
A. I'll have to give you a range, because I don't have a specific number off the top of my head.
Q. Give me a range.
A. Approximately 1-- to $300 million in excess of the debt.
Mr. Panish. Okay. That's all I have. And it's clear the court has ordered him to answer it.
The Judge. So you're ordered to respond to the questions in the fashion that you did.
A. and I have. Thank you.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Briggs.
A. thank you.
Mr. Panish. So we can go forward.
The Judge. Thank you. You can bring the jury in.
(the jury entered the courtroom at 10:11 a.m.)
The Judge. Good morning. Mr. Briggs, you may be seated.
A. thank you.
The Judge. And you may continue with the cross-examination.
Mr. Panish. Okay.

/// cross-examination (resumed) by Mr. Panish:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Briggs. How you doing today?
A. Great.
Q. So no problem answering my questions, then; right?
A. I haven't had any problems answering your questions.
Q. Mr. Briggs, did you meet with the lawyers since you left here yesterday?
A. I did.
Q. How long did you spend?
A. Approximately 20 minutes last night, and approximately 20 to 30 minutes this morning.
Q. Did you review any documents?
A. No.
Q. Did you go back and look for any of the research that you did that you might have in your
office?
A. I did not, no.
Q. Now, Mr. Briggs, we were talking about some of Mr. Jackson's assets. And you're aware that
an independent appraiser hired by the internal revenue service appraised one of Mr. Jackson's
assets, just one, between 100 and $300 million in excess of his debt; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there are -- Mr. Jackson had other assets in addition to that, did he not, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Lacks foundation.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. that is my understanding, yes.
Q. okay. So his interest in the one asset alone is worth 1-- to 300 million, according to this
independent appraiser hired by the IRS. In excess of any debt he had?
A. Yes.

Q. In addition to that, he had other assets; correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. He had his own catalog of his own music, didn't he?
A. He had an ownership interest in a catalog of his music, yes.
Q. In addition to the other assets we talked about?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the independent appraiser appraised just the Sony/ATV catalog; correct?
A. The questions you've been asking me about debt are in reference to the Sony/ATV catalog.
Q. But he had another catalog with his own music in it; right?
A. Yes. That was not the Sony/ATV.
Q. And he had a home, correct, and other assets?
A. I understand there were other assets. I have very limited knowledge regarding that.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, sir, yesterday -- not yesterday, but -- I want to show you, sir, one of
your exhibits that your company prepared, which is 13,479, used by counsel (indicating). And
this is something that you relied on to state that Mr. Erk's opinion was speculative; right, sir?
A. I missed the end of your question. Mr. Erk's what?
Q. Opinions are all speculative; right?
A. This is -- I wouldn't characterize it quite like that. I would state that this is a slide I prepared to
illustrate Mr. Erk's projection was speculative, particularly relative to the history of Michael
Jackson.
Q. So let's take the first tour up there. What's the first tour that you showed us?
A. The "Dangerous" tour.
Q. You don't have the "bad" tour up there; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. The "Dangerous" tour. And you say it lost 200 million?

A. That's not correct.

Q. Why do you have 200 million up there?
A. Where are you referencing 200 million?
Q. Where it says in red, "-200 million." did you put that up there?
A. You're reading the legend to the chart. There's no indication on the chart that the "Dangerous"
tour lost money -- excuse me -- lost $200 million. There's simply an indication it lost money,
which is consistent with Paul Gongawares testimony.
Q. How much money did it lose, sir?
A. Paul Gongaware did not specify.
Q. Wait a minute. So the sole basis for that statement is Paul Gongaware?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Gongaware, you know he's a defendant in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're believing for your opinion what Mr. Gongaware said; correct?
A. I am relying on his statement.
Q. Okay. So you would expect that Mr. Gongaware, who was on that tour, must have a lot of
information about the tour, right, to know whether they made money, or how much money they
lost, wouldn't you?
A. I don't have a basis for knowing exactly how much information he would have regarding a
tour that took place over 10 years ago.
Q. Well, sir, you're relying -- the sole basis for you to make that statement is Mr. Gongaware;
right?
A. The source of that figure is from Mr. Gongaware's trial testimony, correct.
Q. The sole basis of your opinion that that concert tour lost money is Mr. Gongaware; correct?
A. Well, you characterized --
Mr. Putnam. Asked and answered, your honor.

The Judge. Overruled.

A. just to be clear, this is not my opinion. This is an illustration, Paul Gongawares statement. It's
Paul Gongawares statement.
Q. you're relying on that statement as part of your opinion in this case, aren't you, sir?
A. I'm relying on that statement in forming my opinion, sure.
Q. Okay. So let's talk about the reliability of the statement.
A. Okay.
Q. Tell me -- so you would expect that that person that made that statement has information to
back it up; right?
A. I expect that he told the truth under oath when he appeared here. I expect it was an accurate
statement.
Q. You would expect he would know what was going on with the tour to make such a statement,
wouldn't you, sir, before you relied on it?
A. I would expect he had information that supported that statement. As far as what was going on
with the tour, I'm not sure if you're speaking to something broader.
Q. Well, sir, you've got to be -- does everybody in the tour know whether it made money or lost
money and see the books of the tour?
A. No.
Q. You got to be in the upper level of the tour to know whether it made money or lost money,
because you got to see the records or talk to the top people in the production, don't you, sir?
A. I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. You would have to have financial information
and be part of the finance or accounting department, not necessarily just be in the upper level.
Q. Okay. So Mr. Gongaware was part of the accounting or finance department on the
"Dangerous" tour? Is that your testimony?
A. That's not what I said.
Q. Okay. Well, tell us, sir, what was Mr. Gongaware's position on the "Dangerous" tour?
A. I believe he had an involvement in the production or promotion of the tour. I believe it was
more production oriented.

Q. So that means -- production deals with the artist; right?

A. Production deals with the actual production of the tour. It involves the artist, it involves the
production.
Q. So if somebody is involved in the production, they're dealing with the artist; right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Lacks foundation.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. they're dealing with many different factors.
Q. including the artist?
A. One of those factors includes the artist, yes.
Q. Who was the artist performing at the "Dangerous" tour?
A. Michael Jackson.
Q. So you would expect the person working in the production, whose opinion you relied on, to
know what's going on with the artist, wouldn't you, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Lacks foundation.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. not necessarily. He may have had very limited interaction with Michael Jackson.
Q. well, what was -- what did Mr. Gongaware do on that tour for you to rely on his statement?
Tell us, sir.
A. As I stated, I understood he was involved with the production of the tour; I understood he had
an informed basis to make that statement.
Q. Okay. Tell us what his role was. What did he do on the tour that you relied on his opinion, sir?
A. I understood he had a role with respect to production of that tour.
Q. What was his role?
A. That's the extent of my knowledge.
Q. So you don't know what he did other than he was involved with production; right?

A. I don't know what specific tasks he performed, if you're asking me that.

Q. Do you know if he ever saw the books and records of the tour?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if he went to all the tour stops?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if he was involved with Michael Jackson during the tour?
A. I don't know the extent of his interaction with Michael Jackson.
Q. So you relied on the statement of a witness who you don't know what they did in this specific
tour specifically; correct?
A. I know what he did generally, not with respect to specific tasks.
Q. Did you know that Michael Jackson went to rehabilitation?
A. I know that the end of the "Dangerous" tour was cut short because Michael Jackson went into
rehabilitation.
Q. Was he having a problem during the tour, sir?
A. I -- there must have been some catalyst for him to go into rehab.
Q. And you would expect the person that's involved in the production, who you're relying on, to
know that information, wouldn't you, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Lacks foundation, your honor.
A. I can't --
The Judge. Overruled.
A. I cannot speak to the specific knowledge of Paul Gongaware as of a tour 10-plus years ago.
I'm sorry.
Q. and you can't speak to his specific knowledge of whether it made money or lost money, can
you, sir?
A. Well, other than he made a very clear, direct statement that it did lose money.

Q. Well, did every statement he make here in this courtroom that you read, was it all the truth?
A. I'm not here to judge the accuracy of his statements. I'm relying on his statements, as they are
relevant to my opinion. This was relevant to my opinion.
Q. So just the fact that he made a statement was good enough for you to rely on, without
checking the veracity of the statement, whether it was true or false; correct?
A. I did not check the veracity of his opinion.
Q. Okay. So you just believed it without any checking?
A. I relied on his opinion.
Q. Okay. Did you check with anyone else about the "Dangerous" tour?
A. In general?
Q. Yeah. About whether it made money or lost money. Did you look at the records?
A. I had no access to records other than those in the public domain, such as the number of shows,
and so forth, for these various tours.
Q. Did you have Mr. Nusinow, your research assistant, look it up?
A. He may have.
Q. Did he or didn't he?
A. He may have. I don't know if he did, or someone else on my team may have.
Q. Did someone on your team do it? "yes" or "no"?
A. I suppose so. I know it was the subject of discussion.
Q. Where is that information that your team did and all the research they did on that?
A. That information must exist in my office. It was information related to research I conducted in
forming my opinion.
Q. What did the research -- did you rely on that research?
A. With respect to preparing this slide?
Q. With respect to whether or not the "Dangerous" tour lost money.

A. I relied exclusively on Mr. Paul Gongawares statement.

Q. And you didn't do anything to check it out and see whether it was true; right?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next one. What tour is that, sir?
A. The "history" tour.
Q. Okay. And you wrote up there, "break even"; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Are you looking for something to refresh your recollection, sir?
A. No.
Q. Why are you changing pages?
A. I'd like to reference something in regards --
Q. To refresh your recollection?
A. I'm not refreshing my recollection.
Q. Okay. Well, then, why do you need to look at that?
A. I want to have a sheet of paper in front of me to give the best answer possible.
Q. Okay. Well, tell me, sir, all the bases that you have for saying it broke even.
A. I relied on Paul Gongawares statement.
Q. That's it again; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Did you see how much money Mr. Jackson donated to charities during that tour?
A. I did not receive records of that.
Q. Did you research that?
A. I looked into that.

Q. Okay. And how many hundreds of millions did he donate?

A. It was unclear.
Q. What -- where did he donate money to, sir? Did he donate to orphanages in India during that
tour?
A. I don't recall that specifically.
Q. Well, tell me where he donated money, the proceeds from that tour, to.
A. My recollection is there was a non-profit organization established, and there were various
conflicting headlines about where and what was going into that non-profit organization.
Q. Okay. And how much is the most that you saw that he donated?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Was it over 100 million?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you research that?
A. Did I research the maximum number? No.
Q. How much he donated.
A. As I stated, I looked into headlines on this topic. I don't recall the maximum amount.
Q. What were the ranges of the donations?
A. I don't recall.
Q. So, again, you relied on Mr. Gongaware?
A. I relied on Mr. Gongaware over random headlines, yes.
Q. But you didn't rely on anything else -- by the way, did you ever talk to Mr. Gongaware about
this -- these statements that he made here?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. So, sir, the two slides, other than the AEG and Erk, are based on solely what Mr.
Gongaware said in court without you checking it; right?

A. When you're saying, "two slides," you mean the first two columns here?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. The first two columns indicating the historic profitability of Michael Jackson tours are based
on statements made in court by Mr. Gongaware.
Q. And that's it?
A. That's the basis of those columns.
Q. You feel comfortable relying solely on Mr. Gongaware for those statements, sir?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Have you ever met Mr. Gongaware?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you meet him?
A. I believe it was several months ago.
Q. Where were you when you met him?
A. OMelveny & Myers office.
Q. So he came to have a meeting with you?
A. No. I don't understand he was there for that purpose. I ran into him.
Q. What were you there for?
A. I believe I -- I don't recall specifically.
Q. You were there for this case, weren't you?
A. Oh, yes. I thought you were asking me specifically. I was there in regards to this case. I don't
recall what specific task I was there for. And I know you've been very focused on specific tasks.
Q. Were you there to meet with the lawyers?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And while you were there meeting with the lawyers, you met Mr. Gongaware; is that
right?

A. That's correct.
Q. Did anyone tell you you couldn't ask Mr. Gongaware questions?
A. No one told me that.
Q. How long did you meet with Mr. Gongaware?
A. 10, 15 minutes.
Q. Did you ask him these questions?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask him any questions about this case?
A. No. Our discussion was at a very high level.
Q. I assume --
The Judge. I'm sorry. Your --
Q. "high level." you're not talking about drugs, are you? I don't know.
The Judge. Where did that come from?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, I move to strike.
The Judge. Okay. That's stricken. I'm sorry.
A. our discussion was held at a very high level. We spoke about the entertainment industry at a
very high level. Trends in the industry, these types of broad subjects.
The Judge. Okay.
A. it was a very nonspecific discussion.
The Judge. Okay. Trends in the industry.
Q. "trends in the industry." did you talk about concert trends?
A. More music in general, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you talk about cancelation rates of concerts?

A. No.
Q. Do you know what the overall cancelation rate of concerts is, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Asked and answered, your honor.
Mr. Panish. No, it's not.
Mr. Putnam. He asked that --
Mr. Panish. I didn't ask that. I asked about Michael Jackson.
The Judge. Okay. Overruled.
Mr. Putnam. And he asked industry worldwide, your honor.
A. I don't have that statistic. I don't know.
Q. okay. So now, you met Mr. Gongaware for 10 to 15 minutes; you didn't ask any questions at
a specific level about this case? How is that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So the sole basis for those two statements is a couple lines of Mr. Gongaware's
testimony when he was questioned by the lawyers for AEG Live here at this trial; is that correct?
A. I don't recall if those statements were in response to questions from defense counsel or
plaintiffs' counsel, but I sourced those statements from his trial testimony.
Q. Okay. So now, sir, let's go to exhibit no. 13,476. This is the second -- might have been the first
slide. It's the second slide you put up. You made this slide (indicating); right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And this is your outline of your reasons why the "this is it" tour was speculative and wasn't
going to occur; right?
A. It was speculative as to whether the world tour would occur.
Q. Okay. And the first thing you say is, "no agreement beyond 50 shows"; right?
A. That's what the slide reads, yes.
Q. It wouldn't matter to you whether there's an agreement or not, would it?
A. That's inconsistent with this being on my slide.

Q. Well, sir, you testified, even though there's a written agreement for 02, it wouldn't happen,
didn't you?
A. That's not what my testimony was. My testimony was that it was speculative to project the 50
shows would be completed, given the significant risks that existed as of the date of death.
Q. So whether there's an agreement or not, it doesn't matter, because you still say it's not going to
happen; right, sir?
A. I disagree with your logic. I believe that it is further supportive for my opinion that it is
speculative, given there is no agreement.
Q. Sir, was there an agreement for the 50 shows to be -- to take place?
A. At the 02?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Despite that agreement, it's still your opinion that it's speculative that they would take place;
correct?
A. Because of other factors, yes.
Q. Okay. So whether or not there's an agreement, we can take that out of the equation, because
even if there was a written agreement, it would still be your opinion that the 260 shows is
speculative; correct?
A. Again, I disagree with your logic. I believe the lack of agreement beyond 50 shows is a
supporting basis for my opinion that projecting a world tour is speculative.
Q. Okay. So then the converse would be true? If there is a written agreement, that would be
supportive evidence that the 50 shows would occur?
A. The written agreement is supporting evidence that the 50 shows would occur, yes.
Q. Okay. "drug use," that's your next one; right? You're not a drug use expert; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You're not an addiction expert; right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. So tell me, sir, first is, what is the drug use that was going to prevent Michael Jackson
from doing 260 shows?
A. Michael Jackson had decades of drug use, as evidenced in the testimony on record. We've
discussed this extensively. And the impact of that drug use was significant in terms of him
having a grave prognosis. In terms of the approach, he was taking drugs, very Dangerous, and as
plaintiffs' expert testified, his life expectancy as a result of this was very limiting.
Q. One week, if he was being treated by dr. Murray; right?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Misstates testimony.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. that is not consistent with dr. Shimelman's statement.
Q. okay. We'll see. Now, sir, what's "grave prognosis" mean, sir?
A. "grave prognosis" is a statement made by dr. Earley with respect to his expectations on
Michael Jackson's life expectancy.
Q. My question was, sir: what does a grave prognosis mean? Since you've used that term, tell us
what that means.
A. It means that someone is partaking in actions that are very Dangerous.
Q. Sir, what does a -- okay. What does that mean in terms of years, a grave prognosis? How
many years will you live?
A. No specific number of years.
Q. More than three?
A. I'm not going to guess. That's a medical expert question.
Q. More than 10?
A. Again, I'm not going to guess. I'm not a medical expert.
Q. So you don't have any basis on that, do you, sir, grave prognosis? That was dr. Earley, wasn't
it?
A. That was one of his statements, including the statement regarding "russian roulette," among
others.
Q. I think you've said that 15 times, sir. We've heard that enough.

Mr. Putnam. Objection. Move to strike, your honor.

Mr. Panish. Ask him to answer the question.
The Judge. Argumentative. The question is stricken.
Q. sir, did you see dr. Earley's testimony about who put the bullets in the gun for Russian
roulette, if you want to talk about that?
A. Would you like to put that up? I believe that was your -- Mr. Boyle's question or statement.
Q. Could you answer the question?
A. I didn't see dr. Earley state that, no.
Q. You didn't see the question of who put the bullets in the gun?
A. Oh, I saw the question. I didn't see dr. Earley's statement.
Q. What was his answer to the question of who put the bullets in the gun?
A. I believe he said it wasn't an appropriate question.
Q. So your testimony is he didn't answer it?
A. I'm telling you my best recollection of a specific statement made. If you'd care to pull it up,
we can look at it.
Q. Sir, let's take a look. The next point you have is "history of cancelations." we've established
that yesterday; right?
A. We established that Michael Jackson had a significant history of projects falling through and
of cancelations, yes.
Q. Well, sir, it says here "history of cancelations"; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And how many cancelations total, were there, sir?
A. I think I identified five or six as examples.
Q. And what percentage of the total shows was that, sir?

A. Well, you're looking at canceled projects and comparing them to canceled dates. I don't think
that's a relevant comparison.
Q. Could you answer the question, please, sir?
A. So you want me to take the five canceled projects and divide it by your represented figure of
500-plus dates?
Q. It was 700-plus dates, sir.
A. Oh, was it? Okay. So you represented the Jackson 5 did 500-plus concerts at various stadiums
--
Q. Did you look that up last night?
A. I accepted your representation. I was skeptical.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, could he answer, please?
A. did I look it up? No. I did not look it up. Was that your question?
Q. did you drink a lot of coffee this morning?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Argumentative. Move to strike.
Mr. Panish. I'll withdraw.
Mr. Putnam. Fourth time already, your honor. We've been here a half hour.
Mr. Panish. Excuse me. The witness wants to argue with me and not answer questions. I asked
the court to please ask the witness to answer.
The Judge. He's answering the questions. You might not like the manner in which he's
answering, but he's answering.
Q. "performance risk," sir. Did you analyze that?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And, sir, you went through, there's various factors for performance risk, wasn't there?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you talked about those, didn't you?
A. That's correct.

Q. In your deposition; right?

A. I believe so, yes.
Q. And the five factors, what were they, sir?
A. I don't recall the specific five.
Q. You didn't state those in your deposition?
A. I don't recall listing five specific factors underlying performance risk.
Q. Okay. Well, did you talk about planning?
A. Oh. I believe I would classify these types of factors as more related to execution. Performance
risk really relates to an audience reaction or a show coming together, similar to what Mr. Kenny
referenced. Execution risk relates more to logistics, subjects which you're referencing. And I
believe during my deposition, to answer your question, planning was one of them, yes.
Q. Performance risk means one of the risks is, are people going to come to the show; right?
A. That's related to performance risk, sure.
Q. Right. And as far as 02 was concerned, there was no question people were going to come to
the show; right?
A. Tickets sold out. I do not dispute that.
Q. And how many shows could they have sold tickets for, according to Mr. Phillips's e-mails?
A. I believe 100.
Q. Did he ever write 200, sir?
A. I believe there was headlines that states 200. I don't believe there was an e-mail that states
200.
Q. Did you see what his testimony was here in court, sir?
A. I don't recall specific testimony regarding that figure.
Q. Well, that's something relevant to performance risk, isn't it, sir?
A. In part, yes.

Q. And you were reviewing all the testimony to find out what was relevant for your opinion;
right?
A. That's correct. But this relates to demand for seeing Michael Jackson. I have no reason to
doubt there was demand to see Michael Jackson at the 02.
Q. So let's talk about execution, then, because -- let's talk about execution. First of all, initially,
AEG had a proposal of 186 shows over a 27-month period; correct?
A. This is the initial proposal? Yes. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Erk's proposal was over 37 months?
A. Mr. Erk's projection was a 37-month tour, correct.
Q. And you have no projection of a world tour; correct?
A. No. I view a projection as speculative.
Q. So your answer is you have none; is that right, sir?
A. The answer is, "no, I have no projection."
Q. So then you said -- let me make sure I'm right here -- that you "have a plan, financing
budgets, interested parties and interested audiences." did you say that, sir?
A. I listed those as examples of execution risks, yes.
Q. Okay. Let's take them one at a time.
A. Sure.
Q. Let's take the plan. Was there a plan for the 02 arena to do shows?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there an interested audience?
A. Certainly.
Q. Was there financing?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there financing budgets?

A. There was a budget, yes.

Q. So all of those factors were met for the 02; correct?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. So now let's go to the worldwide tour. Was there an initial plan proposed by Mr.
Gongaware?
A. There is a -- are you referencing this proposal from September of 2008? I want to make sure
to answer your question.
Q. It's very simple, sir. Was there or was there not ever a plan in writing by Mr. Gongaware for a
world tour? "yes" or "no"?
A. If you're referencing the September '08 proposal or June '08 proposal, then, yes.
Q. And that was the 186 shows; right?
A. The proposal reflected 186 shows, correct.
Q. And that's more shows than Mr. Jackson had ever done; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was that proposal sent to Mr. Anschutz, the head of AEG?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Asked and answered.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. it appears, based on the exhibits I reviewed, that that proposal was sent to Mr. Anschutz.
Q. okay. And then, sir, financing was proposed to be done by AEG; right?
A. That's my general understanding. I don't have a specific basis, though, for that with regard to a
world tour.
Q. Well, because you never asked that of Mr. Gongaware; right?
A. I did not ask Mr. Gongaware that question.
Q. Okay. And you read his testimony where he said when 02 was done, it was the intention to do
a worldwide tour; correct?
A. I recall something to that effect, yes.

Q. And you read Mr. Meglen's testimony where he said, "if there's a worldwide demand, AEG
would fill the demand and sell the tickets necessary"; correct?
A. I don't recall that statement.
Q. You watched Mr. Meglen testify upstairs, didn't you, sir?
A. I believe I watched less than 45 minutes of it upstairs.
Q. But you told us you reviewed all his testimony, didn't you, sir?
A. Among many other individuals at trial and in depo.
Q. He just testified a week ago, didn't he, sir?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. And did you review the testimony?
A. Approximately a week ago.
Q. And since that -- his testimony, no one else's testimony that testified in this court you've
reviewed; correct?
A. Well, I've gone back and reviewed a few other documents in conjunction with preparing to be
here, if that's what you're referencing.
Q. I'm talking about trial testimony, sir.
A. Well, certainly, in conjunction to be here, I went back and reviewed the trial testimony of
other individuals, if that's what you're asking me.
Q. So you don't remember what Mr. Meglen said a week ago; is that right?
A. That's not what I said. I said I did not recall that specific statement being made.
Q. AEG., they're a promoter, aren't they, sir?
A. AEG Live acts in a promotion capacity, yes.
Q. And you don't remember what Mr. Meglen said about the ability to sell worldwide seats for
the Michael Jackson tour; is that right?
A. I don't recall the specific statement, no.

Q. Do you remember any statement he made about that when I questioned him?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you remember any -- strike that. You said that you reviewed the testimony of Mr.
Hawk; is that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you read Mr. Hawk's testimony about a worldwide tour for Mr. Jackson?
A. I did.
Q. And did Mr. -- you have a note of that there, sir?
A. I am seeing if there was specific parts of his testimony that were relevant to forming my
opinion. But go ahead.
Q. When you're ready, let me know.
A. I'm reading.
Q. You're reading something?
A. I'm ready.
Q. Well, did you consider the testimony of Mr. Hawk when forming your opinion that a world
tour would be speculative?
A. Parts of Mr. Hawk's testimony played into my opinion, yes.
Q. Did you --
A. I -- excuse me. To be clear, my recollection is, his testimony played more into my opinions
regarding Mr. Erk's projections than the speculative nature of projecting whether the projects
would occur or not.
Q. Did Mr. -- did Mr. Hawk testify that Mr. Jackson was expecting to do an asian layer of the
tour?
A. I don't recall him making that statement specifically.
Q. Okay. You did review his entire deposition, didn't you, sir?
A. That's correct.

Q. Was it long?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know that Mr. -- do you remember Mr. Hawk testifying that it was hoped and
anticipated that Mr. Jackson would earn 400 million from the 02 and a World tour?
A. I recall that reference, inclusive of an extensive world tour, yes.
Q. 400 million; right?
A. Yes. I recall that reference.
Q. And the way they structured the deal was so that Michael could walk away with 100 million
-- excuse me -- 400 million; correct?
A. As a result of a world tour. I recall that reference, yes.
Q. Do you have that anywhere in your notes there, sir?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, was Mr. Hawk asked -- strike that. Do you agree that Mr. Hawk testified that he
tried to structure a deal that would ultimately get 400 million to Michael Jackson?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Misstates the testimony, your honor.
The Judge. Overruled. Show him the testimony.
Q. (indicating.)
A. (reviewing document.)
Mr. Panish. Can I have the question read back, please?
The Judge. You may. (the requested question was read back.)
A. tried to, yes. That was his hope.
Q. that's what he was doing, as the lawyer for Mr. Jackson, wasn't it, sir?
A. He was trying to structure a deal in his role as an attorney for Michael Jackson, yes.
Q. Well, the deal that was structured was intended to make him $400 million, wasn't it, sir?
A. He described that as his hope, yes.

Q. Did he describe that as his intention, sir?

A. He stated "hope," not "intention."
Q. You know who Mr. Hawk is?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is he?
A. Mr. Hawk is an attorney that was working on behalf of Michael Jackson.
Q. What kind of attorney is he?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Hawk was asked whether he had any doubts of Mr. Jackson being
able to successfully complete the tour with AEG? Do you remember whether he was asked that,
sir?
A. I don't recall that specific question.
Q. (indicating.)
A. (reviewing document.)
Mr. Putnam. May I have the page number?
Mr. Panish. 94.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you.
A. okay.
Q. okay. Does that refresh your recollection, sir?
A. It does. Thank you.
Q. Was my statement I just made true that he didn't have any doubt that Mr. Jackson could
successfully complete the tour with AEG?
A. I didn't see the word "successfully" in there. I'm sorry.
Q. (indicating.)

A. (reviewing document.) Thank you.

Q. Was it in there, sir?
A. The word "successfully" was in the question. He responded, "no, I have no doubts."
Q. Now, you listed on your sheet Kenny Ortega for a basis that Michael Jackson would not do a
world tour; is that right, sir?
A. There is a reference here to Mr. Ortega's deposition. That's correct.
Q. So you relied on that; is that right, sir?
A. My recollection is he made a specific statement about Michael Jackson expressing an interest
in retiring, or something to that effect, on that page, and I relied on that statement in forming my
opinion regarding a world tour.
Q. Did you read his testimony at the trial, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what page did you reference in your outline there, sir?
A. Page 184 of his deposition.
Q. And did he say in there that Michael talked about going to India and japan with Kenny Ortega
to tour with the "this is it" show?
A. My recollection is he made a reference to India. I don't recall if he was making the reference
to India specifically in regards to a tour, or rather just traveling. I can't recall.
Q. (indicating.)
A. (reviewing document.) This isn't page 184. We're moving to a different part of the testimony?
Q. No. We're moving to his testimony about a world tour.
Ms. Strong. Your honor, can we see that first?
Mr. Panish. Yeah. 183.
Ms. Strong. I don't have the testimony.
Q. first let me ask you this question first: did Mr. Ortega say that Michael Jackson told him that:
"after we do the 02, I want to take the show back out all over the world one more time" and say,
"whatever you're doing, you have to stop and come to India"? Did he say that to Mr. Ortega?

Mr. Putnam. This is trial testimony?

Mr. Panish. Deposition first. And we'll get to the trial. Deposition.
The Judge. Okay. I think they're confused as to whether they are looking at deposition or trial
testimony.
Mr. Panish. Deposition.
The Judge. Depo.
Ms. Strong. What page?
Mr. Panish. Let me ask the question first.
The Judge. I think you did, and they're just trying to find --
Mr. Panish. I'll rephrase the question.
Q. did you read -- you read, considered and relied on Mr. Ortega's deposition testimony; isn't
that true, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did Mr. Ortega testify that Michael Jackson said to him: "'have you ever been to India?
Oh, you must. After we do 02, I want to take the show back out, all over the world one more
time.' "and he said, 'whatever you're doing, you have to come to India.'" did he testify to that?
That's the question.
Mr. Putnam. Found it.
The Judge. Let counsel look.
Mr. Putnam. Found it.
The Judge. You found it? Okay.
A. that sounds consistent with my recollection.
Q. and did he say -- continuing on at page 184: "for sure. "and then, 'have you ever been to
japan?' "and so what I'm getting at is that he talked beyond 02. He had hopes that -- he had hopes
that perhaps -- that the 02 dates would be, you know, significant, what they represented, but
perhaps it was bigger sort of a final tour." is that what he testified to, sir?
A. It sounds like it.

Q. And then after that, he was going to hang his hat up and start doing movies; correct?
A. The recollection I have is that Kenny Ortega, on page -- on the page I referenced here, 184,
made reference to something like hanging his hat up, or something about retiring.
Q. After the world tour, sir; isn't that true?
A. I don't recall the sequence.
Q. (indicating.)
A. Can I turn to page 184?
Q. Certainly, you can. I've underlined it all for you.
A. Thank you. (reviewing document.)
Q. Is that what it says, sir?
A. Can I have the question read back, please?
Q. Sure.
The Judge. You may.
Mr. Panish. If it's okay with the court. You know, your honor, I want to just put it up.
A. thank you.
The Judge. I think we can.
Mr. Panish. Let's start at 183, line 18, and we'll go from there.
Q. this is Mr. Ortega's testimony that you relied on; correct, sir?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Okay. So let's start with the
question: "did Michael tell you anything he had planned for his professional career in the
future?"
answer: "he said to me one day, 'have you ever been to India?' "I said, 'no.' "and he said, 'oh,
you must. You must.' he said, 'after we do the 02, I want to take the show back out all over the
world one more time.' "and he said, 'you -- whatever you're doing, you have to stop and come to
India.' "and I was like, 'for sure.' "and then he said, 'have you ever been to japan?' "and so what
I'm getting at is that he had talked beyond 02, that he had hopes that perhaps -- that the 02

would be, you know, significant in what they represented, but that perhaps there was a bigger
sort of final tour. "I think he wanted to hang his hat up, you know, as a touring artist, and I think
he wanted to transition and sort of -- you know, into a different side of the work, filmmaking."
does that accurately state what he testified to, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's what you're relying on to say Michael Jackson would not do the world tour;
correct?
A. There are aspects of that statement that indicate Michael Jackson may not have gone on to do
a world tour.
Q. So you said -- your interpretation of that is he's not going on a world tour, and you relied on
it; right?
A. Are you asking for my interpretation of that?
Q. You wrote it down on your paper, didn't you?
A. Oh, okay. Well, he stated here very clearly that he had hopes. Hopes are different -- would you
like the answer? Hopes are different than expectations; they're different than firm commitments;
they're different than plans. And then he also states, "perhaps there was a bigger sort of final
tour," indicating that perhaps something will happen; perhaps it won't happen.
Q. Is an intention a hope, sir?
A. I don't want -- I don't want to debate semantics. Hope indicates someone hopes something
will happen. It doesn't indicate it's a certainty.
Q. So that statement you took to mean there will not be a world tour; right, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Objection. Misstates the testimony, your honor.
A. that's not what I said.
Q. did you consider Paris Jackson's testimony about whether her father had discussed the world
tour with her?
A. I did.
Q. Have you seen the videotape of her testimony?
A. I've seen some clips of her testimony on various news reports. I haven't seen the formal video
of her testimony.

Q. Okay. And you relied on her testimony to say that her father was not going to do a world tour;
right?
A. Well, there was some confusing statements in that regard.
Q. Well, you relied on Paris Jackson for your opinion that Mr. Jackson would not do a world
tour; correct?
A. I believe I considered her testimony. I don't believe I relied on it specifically as a basis for my
opinion.
Q. Did you put it on your sheet, sir?
A. I don't see it here, no.
Q. You relied on it. It didn't help you, did it?
A. Her testimony was not a foundation or a basis for my opinion.
Q. And did you rely on Mr. Gongaware's testimony that it said that it was their intention to do a
worldwide multi-city tour? Did you rely on that, sir?
A. I understand Mr. Gongaware had expressed a similar intention, and that was certainly a
consideration in forming my opinion.
Q. But your opinion is contrary to Mr. Gongaware's expressed intention; correct?
A. That's correct. At the time Mr. Gongaware expressed those intentions, he did not know what
we know today.
Q. He said that at the trial, didn't he, sir?
A. I believe he was speaking to his intention during 2009, not at present.
Q. Oh, you remember that specifically in the testimony?
A. I believe it's rather apparent from his statement.
Q. Okay. You have a note of that anywhere in your file?
A. No.
Q. Did you rely on anything that wouldn't help you give your opinion that the tour was
speculative?

A. I considered a number of factors that indicated the tour was going to happen; that there was
demand for the tour. The factors I focused on and listed on my sheet were the bases for my
opinion.
Q. Okay. Now, sir, let's talk about slide no. 1045-1 (indicating). Remember this slide, sir?
A. Yes. This is incomplete, though. This doesn't have Mr. Erk's projection on it.
Q. Sir, this is my slide. You don't make my slides. I made this slide.
A. I'm sorry. It has the FTI colors on it. So go ahead.
Q. Do you remember I told you I made this slide yesterday to help you? Remember that?
A. If this is the slide you showed me yesterday, then, okay, it's your slide.
Q. Now, sir, you told us yesterday that -- and let's put up the rest of it, where we went out and we
put the $108 ticket price, the average price at the 02. You remember that -- those questions;
right?
A. I remember your questions.
Q. And, for example, on the Michael Jackson ones, and the green, there's nothing in there for
merchandising; right?
A. That would be inconsistent with Mr. Erk's testimony.
Q. Sir, didn't I have you multiply out the number of ticket sales times the ticket prices times the
number of dates for all the green and red calculations?
A. For -- oh, for the green bars? The green bars were based on math related to ticket prices,
correct. They did not include merchandising.
Q. And then you testified that merchandising, in your opinion, should be between 5 and 15
percent of the revenue; correct?
A. I testified that was a general range, and it varied significantly, depending on the nature of the
tour.
Q. Well, that was your range, 5 to 15 percent; right?
A. As a general range, yes.
Q. Okay. And would you expect an artist, a top-tier artist that's the second most ever drawn or in
attendance-wise in a concert tour, to be the high end or low end of the merchandise?

A. Depends on the specific artist.

Q. Michael Jackson.
A. I would -- I think the best basis for knowing what the merchandising revenues were for
Michael Jackson is the 02 budget, which indicates approximately -- I believe it's approximately 7
to 8 percent of total ticket revenues for the 02.
Q. Okay. Let's do 8 percent; okay?
A. Sure.
Q. Now -- but do you know what the popularity of Mr. Jackson in Asia versus England is?
A. As of when?
Q. '09 when he sold out the 02.
A. I think the only indication of that is album sales. It's very hard to say.
Q. Well, sir, when you talked to Mr. Gongaware about the music industry, did he tell you that
album sales now are way down because people go on iTunes and other internet-based things and
don't go buy albums?
A. Well, typically statistics regarding album sales include digital albums as well.
Q. Could you answer the question, please, sir?
The Judge. Answer the question that's asked.
A. can you please restate -- I'm sorry. Could you please have her reread the question?
The Judge. You may reread it. (the requested question was read back.)
A. he did not tell me that.
Q. do you have your own independent knowledge of that, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. So, let's use 10 percent. So if we take the u2 comparison, and 10 percent of that would be
another 65.3 million; right?
A. You're just grossing up each of these green bars based on an estimate for merchandising?

Q. Well, isn't that how you take 10 percent? You multiply it by $653 million, and that gives you
65.3 million? Is that how you do it, sir?
A. That really wasn't the intent of the range I had shared with you. But if that's what you would
like to do, go for it. I had stated very clearly that it was 5 to 15 percent of the total pie.
Q. Right.
A. I had stated the 02 budget, to my recollection, was approximately 7 percent of the total pie. So
it would be 653 divided by .93, to do the math properly.
Q. Okay, sir. You said 7 to 8 percent.
A. Okay. 7 to 8 percent.
Q. So let's do the math, since you have the calculator behind you, I think. So let's do 7.5, sir. I
was trying to make the math easy, but since you want it that way, 7.5 times 653 million, how
much is that, sir?
A. Approximately $49 million.
Q. Okay. And can you add that to 653 million, sir?
A. Approximately $700 million.
Q. How much?
A. Approximately $700 million.
Q. 49 plus 653 is 700?
A. Approximately. You want an exact figure?
Q. You want to be exact, so could you please give me an exhibit figure?
A. 702.
Q. Okay. And let's do it for the next one. 7.5 percent times 855 million. How much is that, sir?
A. 64 million.
Q. And when you add that to 855 million, how much is that?
A. 919 million.
Q. Okay. And let's do it for the next one. 505 times 7.5 is equal to what, sir?

A. 37 million.
Q. And when you add that to 505, I bet that comes out to 542 million; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, sir, let's go back to the figure of -- if Mr. Jackson did 186 concerts, as projected
by Mr. Gongaware, and he sold the average of what his 55,000 tour times the 108 average price
-- you totaled that up for me yesterday. Could you do that again, sir?
A. Just to be clear, you're taking 186 from a proposal of 2008, you're multiplying -- I just want to
be clear.
Q. 186 times 55,000 times 108, sir. What does it come out to?
A. Approximately 1.1 billion.
Q. Times 7.5 percent. What does that come out to?
A. Approximately 82 million. There's not a lot of decimals on here.
Q. How about 1.92 billion? Did I get that wrong?
A. I would agree if it's including your figure for merchandising, approximately 1.2 billion.
Q. And then if we did 260 shows times 55,000 times 108, what's that?
A. 1.5 billion -- excuse me -- 1.54 billion.
Q. Okay. And what's 7 1/2 percent of that, sir?
A. Approximately 115 million.
Q. How about 1,000,655? 1,600,055? Is that right, if we add that together?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that right, sir?
A. That's a math problem. Sure.
Q. Now --
Mr. Panish. Are we going straight through, your honor? I'm almost done. I just want to --

The Judge. Well, we started at I think 10:10.

Mr. Putnam. We can finish.
The Judge. How much more do you have?
Mr. Panish. I just want to go through my notes. I think I'm getting to the end, but I don't want to
--
The Judge. If we're getting close to the end, I'll give you the time to finish so we can start fresh.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you.
Mr. Panish. Fair enough.
The Judge. Mr. Panish, why were you gesturing?
Mr. Panish. Because Ms. Strong is turning around and making faces at me, and I was trying to
get your attention. That's why, your honor. I didn't want to say anything, and I didn't want to call
it out to anyone's attention. I was trying to get your attention to observe.
The Judge. I don't know what -- I don't know --
Ms. Strong. Your honor, I'm actually not going to let it go, because, your honor, there's so many
misrepresentations, and -- can I please state something for the record? There are so many
misrepresentations about my conduct, and the conduct of my colleagues, and I do not appreciate
it. I did not even look at Mr. Panish just now.
Mr. Panish. She just turned, gave me -- I mean, we can start calling witnesses here if we need to.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, we've spent time for three days. If we could finish this so we can get
this witness off the stand, it would be awesome. So let's do that. She will keep her head turned
around.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, I've been trying to ask my questions. I haven't said anything.
The Judge. I don't think the "making faces" thing is something I should address.
Mr. Putnam. I agree.
Mr. Panish. I agree.
The Judge. Just ignore them. I don't want to be addressing that type of issue in court.
Q. sir --

Mr. Panish. I do not have any further questions. That's fine. Go ahead.
A. thank you.
The Judge. Why don't we take a break, and then you can start fresh?
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Strong. Thank you, your honor.
The Judge. 15 minutes.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor.
(the jury exited the courtroom at 11:11 a.m.)
The Judge. Okay. You may step down. Come back in 15 minutes.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor.
(a recess was taken.)
The Judge. Are the jurors here?
(the jury entered the courtroom at 11:30 a.m.)
The Judge. Let's start the redirect. You may be seated.
Ms. Strong. Thank you, your honor.
Redirect examination by Ms. Strong:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Briggs.
A. Good morning.
Q. I want to talk with you a little bit about the testimony over the past couple days with Mr.
Panish asking you questions, and also some of the questions I initially asked you. When you took
the stand, I asked you a number of questions about the opinions that you formed in this case;
correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And I also asked you questions about your background, and you told the jury about some of
your experience over the past 15 years in your career that qualified you to be an expert in this
case and testify about the issues pertinent to Mr. Erk's numbers and projections; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have just sat through two days of questions, all sorts of questions, right, from Mr.
Panish?
A. That's correct. Excuse me. Is that post-it supposed to be there?
Q. You just helped the folks in the overflow room.
A. I don't want them to miss anything.
Q. I'm sure that they're grateful. But Mr. Panish -- how much of his questions actually related to
your opinions in this case?
A. Not many.
Q. And I want to talk to you about the questions that relate to your opinions, but I also want to
talk with you about some of those other questions that really don't relate to your opinions at all.
And because this topic took up a lot of your examination by Mr. Panish, I'd like to talk with you
about what you've done with respect to the Sony/ATV catalog; okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Let's first clear up some issues. What are we talking about when we're talking about the
Sony/ATV catalog?
A. The Sony/ATV catalog is one of the largest in the music publishing business. It's based in
America. It has the Beatles music in it, many famous artists in it, Willie Nelson, among countless
others. And I performed a significant amount of work involving the Sony/ATV music catalog
over the past 5 to 10 years of my career.
Q. Okay. And who owned the Sony/ATV catalog prior to Michael Jackson's death?
A. Michael Jackson and Sony corporation.
Q. And what was the split? 50/50?
A. 50/50.

Q. And you seemed very uncomfortable answering questions about the Sony/ATV catalog when
it was first raised, and in fact, I think you asked the judge to instruct you to answer the questions
because you felt so uncomfortable talking about it; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And why was it you felt so uncomfortable talking about the Sony/ATV catalog and the work
you've done on that catalog?
A. All the work I've done regarding that catalog has been under confidentiality agreements with
the various clients I've worked with in the past, and I don't -- I take those confidentiality
agreements very seriously, regardless of who they're with.
Q. So the confidentiality agreements, were those confidentiality agreements with AEG Live?
A. No.
Q. Were those confidentiality agreements with my law firm, OMelveny & Myers?
A. No.
Q. Those confidentiality agreements were with some of your other clients, having nothing to do
with this case; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And to be clear, when you were first retained in this matter, you made it clear that you were
not going to share those confidences with counsel in this case; correct?
A. I made it clear that I was not sharing any information from any previous engagement with
counsel.
Q. And so you never told us anything about the value of the Sony/ATV catalogs or your opinions
with respect to those catalogs over the years, did you, Mr. Briggs?
A. Correct. I did not.
Q. And in fact, you were asked about this in your deposition in this case; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You were asked about your work on the Sony/ATV catalog you had done; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were asked about it by lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case; correct?

A. Mr. Sanders for plaintiffs, correct.

Q. And you told Mr. Sanders at that time that you had confidentiality agreements and that you
were not permitted to talk about that work in this case; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you told Mr. Sanders that you would not reveal the value or any of your work in that case
to defense in this matter; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Sanders and the plaintiffs' counsel in this case knew that you were not able to talk
about it and that -- yet they still asked you questions about it here in court, didn't they?
Mr. Panish. Objection, your honor. Speculation, what we knew.
The Judge. Other than Mr. Sanders, sustained.
Mr. Panish. He doesn't know. There's no foundation for him to know what Mr. Sanders knows.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, he was --
Mr. Boyle. And he was permitted to testify about it, and he did, finally.
The Judge. Overruled.
Ms. Strong. Okay. I'll rephrase so we can clear this up.
Q. you made it clear at your deposition in this case -- and that deposition, there's a transcript of
that deposition. We've seen lots of transcripts; right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the lawyers in this case have access to these the transcripts -- all the lawyers, all of the
plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Panish, Mr. Boyle, they can review your transcript from the deposition;
right?
A. Video as well. Yes.
Q. And so at that deposition, you made it clear to plaintiffs' lawyers that you were not talking
about -- you're not here as an expert in this case to talk about your work on the Sony/ATV
catalog; correct?

Mr. Boyle. I'm going to object, your honor. It's an argumentative question. And just because he
made it clear, he was wrong, because the court ordered him to answer the questions. So she's
trying to insinuate plaintiffs' counsel did something wrong and asked improper questions, when
we asked totally proper questions that the court ordered him to answer. It was him who made
improper assertions of confidentiality.
The Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Putnam. Is this the nonspeaking objections we were talking about?
Mr. Boyle. I was just following Mr. Putnam's guidance.
The Judge. Overruled. This is cross-examination.
Ms. Strong. Okay. Can we have the question read back?
The Judge. And now we have multiple counsel from both sides making --
Mr. Panish. I'm going to ask someone from the audience to object next.
The Judge. We'll let Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Panish. Yeah. Since that's the way it's going, we'll join in.
The Judge. Mr. Boyle has a point.
Mr. Boyle. Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Strong. Can I ask --
The Judge. I'm sorry, Ms. Strong. Do you recall what the question was?
A. I'm sorry.
The Judge. Would you read --
Ms. Strong. I can just rephrase it. It's easier.
A. thank you.
Q. what I want to be clear about, just so we understand what was said and what wasn't said, and
the history there, you made it clear in the deposition that you are not here in this case as an
expert to talk about your work on the Sony/ATV catalog; correct?
A. That's correct. It had nothing to do with my opinions that I've offered in this case.

Q. And when you value a catalog -- let's talk about the work that you would do with respect to a
catalog, just generally at a high level. I don't want to get into it, because it isn't a part of your
opinions you're here testifying about. But since we've gotten into it, at a high level, what is it you
do when you value the Sony/ATV catalog?
A. You project future income from songs that, in most cases, were created some time ago. And
you assess that income in terms of figuring out what that catalog is worth; what someone would
be willing to pay for it.
Q. And you've -- now, you said you've done work on the Sony/ATV catalog for a number of
years; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And who has hired you to do this work with respect to the Sony/ATV catalog?
A. We have performed work involving that catalog for Sony/ATV; we've performed work for
various lenders or investors, such as fortress capital out of New York. We've performed work for
the estate of Michael Jackson.
Q. And you said you've performed work for Sony/ATV on the catalog. I want to be clear, since
you've been referring to it as the Sony/ATV catalog, what does it mean to perform work for
Sony/ATV?
A. The company itself is interested in our opinions regarding the value of the company for a
variety of planning purposes for actually creating their accounting statements, for actually paying
some of their employees -- a bunch of different things. Our valuation is used for one of different
things.
Q. But they're a company? There's a catalog and also a company called Sony/ATV? What's the
official title?
A. Well, every reference to Sony/ATV is really referencing a company which has employees,
which has new songs each year. It's called a catalog, but really it should be thought of as a
company.
Q. And so you said you were, again, hired by these entities, including the estate of Michael
Jackson, to value the Sony/ATV catalog; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so the confidentiality agreements that you're referring to are confidentiality agreements
with -- the estate of Michael Jackson is one; correct?
A. Among others, yes.

Q. Okay. And these other entities you just identified?

A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And you're not able to disclose those confidences that you're subject to a confidentiality
agreement without an instruction by the court to do so; correct?
Mr. Panish. Well, leading and suggestive.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. that's correct. Not without a court instruction.
Q. and you've now done this, you said, for how many years? How many years have you valued
this catalog?
A. At least 5 or 10 years.
Q. And you've done it for all these various companies -- you're essentially the go-to person to
value the Sony/ATV catalog?
A. We've done a lot of work over the years, yes.
Q. And you've valued other significant catalogs; correct?
A. Sure.
Q. And just, high level, what types of clients hire you to do this, value catalogs?
A. Well, oftentimes it's the companies themselves. And these are music publishers, so their
name's not familiar, but BMG., EMI., concord, which owns, say, for example, the Miles Davis
catalog. Reservoir media. Many, many others over the years.
Q. Okay. So you've mentioned some information about values this morning with respect to some
questions yesterday and today at the instruction of the judge with respect to the catalog. I've
never heard this information before; correct?
Mr. Panish. Objection. Foundation. How does he know what she's heard?
Q. you certainly have not told me before; correct?
A. You never heard it from me.
Q. So I want to ask you some questions about it, too.
A. Okay.

Q. Why -- you were engaged, you said, by the estate of Michael Jackson to value the catalog?
A. Well, specifically, it was the attorneys on behalf of the estate of Michael Jackson.
Q. And so at what point in time were you valuating the catalog when you were retained by the
attorneys for the estate of Michael Jackson? What was the relevant time period?
A. Well, the work primarily took place during 2010; however -- or around that era, give or take.
However, when you value something, it's kind of like a stock price. It's as of a moment in time.
And in regards to that particular work, it was as of the date of that. So that era -- that range of
time, 2010, approximately, we were actually assessing the value as of the date of death in 2009,
which is standard for estate tax purposes.
Q. Okay. And so that's what you did. You went ahead and performed the valuations that you had
done for years for the catalog and others, and you came up with a valuation for the Sony/ATV
catalog as of the date of Michael Jackson's death?
A. Specifically, the estate of Michael Jackson's interest in the Sony/ATV catalog, which is a
piece of the pie, if you will.
Q. Okay. And so you're referring to the fact that Michael Jackson owns 50 percent or had owned
50 percent of the catalog; correct?
A. I'm speaking to that, as well as other obligations that may exist. Because, you know, there's
the whole pie, and then what someone actually owns is after all those other pieces are
considered.
Q. Okay. And so when you're focused on -- but to the extent that your -- the valuation you did
was intended to focus on the piece that had been owned by Michael Jackson; is that right?
A. That was the intention of that particular engagement, yes.
Q. And why was that?
A. For purposes of filing an estate tax return.
Q. And what did you value the catalog at as of the date of death?
Mr. Panish. Well, your honor, he testified --
Q. the judge has already instructed you to answer.
Mr. Panish. He's been testifying to all these questions now without an instruction of the court.
So go ahead and answer. He's been doing it.

Ms. Strong. That's --

The Judge. I understood he was testifying without giving a specific number.
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. But if he wants to --
Mr. Panish. He's doing it on his own. Go ahead.
Mr. Putnam. Is this on his own or under your instruction to answer the question?
Mr. Panish. No, it's on his own.
The Judge. If you want to elicit that specific number?
Mr. Panish. It's on his own.
The Judge. Is that what you're asking?
Ms. Strong. I understand there was reference to numbers this morning, your honor, that Mr.
Panish asked about.
The Judge. There was a reference to a multiple.
Mr. Panish. Yeah.
Ms. Strong. A range.
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. A range or multiple. But if you want a specific number, I just want to know that's
what you're asking.
Mr. Panish. Right. And your honor, you can't order him to answer her questions. If he wants to
answer, and he voluntarily answers it, he's entitled to do that.
Mr. Boyle. I'm just confused. I mean, now, he said there was a confidentiality arrangement.
Apparently when Ms. Strong questions him, he doesn't care about the confidentiality
arrangement.
The Judge. I don't think he said anything like that.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Go ahead. If she wants to ask him, I don't object.
The Judge. Mr. Panish, I'm trying to speak.

Mr. Panish. I'm sorry.

The Judge. Ms. Strong, are you asking for a specific number?
Ms. Strong. I was, but I'll rephrase it, your honor. I don't know the answer to this question. I've
never asked this question, so I'm --
Q. what I'd like to make clear, this morning Mr. Panish asked you if there was another
independent evaluator that came in and analyzed the catalog; correct?
A. He asked me that.
Q. And he said -- what was the answer? You gave a range of a value of the catalog by this other
person?
A. I stated a range, yes.
Q. And what was that range?
Mr. Boyle. No, no.
Mr. Panish. Hold on. That's not what he said. Just to clarify -- let him do it. Let's let him tell us
what he said.
Ms. Strong. I'll clarify.
The Judge. Go ahead, Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Boyle. He testified that the IRS. Evaluator put a valuation on Michael Jackson's portion of
the catalog that was in excess of Michael Jackson's debt. That's what he testified.
The Judge. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. So he didn't talk about a range of the value of the catalog. That's what I think he's
been trying to avoid doing.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think the issue is, yesterday he testified that the number he put on it was
less than Michael Jackson's debt.
Mr. Panish. No.
Ms. Bina. Today they elicited someone they said the number they put on it was 100 to $300
million greater than Michael Jackson's debt. I think what we're trying to -- what Ms. Strong is
getting at is, what's the explanation for the difference between his number and the IRS. Evaluator
number? I don't think we need to get into the specific numbers --

Mr. Panish. Well, who is asking the questions?

Ms. Bina. -- according to -- the testimony Mr. Panish solicited yesterday was that he was not
able to say that Mr. Jackson's share was greater than his debt, and then they asked today, and he
said this other evaluator said it was between 100 and $300 million greater.
The Judge. Greater than the debt?
Ms. Bina. Right. I think that's what she's talking about.
The Judge. She just wants an explanation of the difference?
Mr. Panish. Go ahead.
Ms. Bina. I suspect he will stand by his numbers, but I guess we're going to ask that.
The Judge. Without giving specific numbers?
Ms. Bina. Well, your honor --
Mr. Panish. There's no more privilege.
The Judge. Mr. Panish.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think Ms. Strong had thought from your order this morning that he was
ordered to explain the situation fully. If your honor has not ordered him to disclose the specific
number, I think Ms. Strong was saying she doesn't need the specific numbers. She just thought it
had been within the scope of your honor's order.
Ms. Strong. That's right. And that was the misunderstanding, your honor.
Ms. Bina. But if your honor is not ordering that --
Ms. Strong. I will rephrase it and ask it a little differently within the scope of what the judge has
already ordered.
The Judge. If you want something else, then we can talk about it outside the presence of the
jury.
Ms. Strong. Understood, your honor.
Mr. Panish. Please.
The Judge. But if you're not eliciting specific numbers, then go forward.

Ms. Strong. Okay, your honor, I will.

Mr. Putnam. Okay.
Q. sir, your valuation was less than the debt; correct?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And range-wise, significantly less?
A. Roughly in line with the debt.
Mr. Panish. Same.
Q. and so in terms of what this other valuation is about, do you know anything about the person
who is doing this other valuation?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know if he has experience like you do in terms of valuing catalogs of this
nature?
Mr. Panish. No foundation as to his --
The Judge. You mean the appraiser?
Mr. Panish. Yeah.
Mr. Putnam. Just, "do you know?"
Q. just if you know.
The Judge. Overruled. Do you know?
A. okay. I have familiarity with the appraiser's background, yes.
Q. and do you believe that you undervalued the catalog at the time of the date of death?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And why not?
A. We had -- my firm and I had valued the catalog on many occasions in a perfectly consistent
fashion, using the same techniques to project income; using the same techniques to assess risk.
People had loaned money against those techniques in the past years; people had created financial
statements based on those techniques. The company itself was interested in our advice multiple

times each year, based those techniques. And that's the best way of knowing your figures are
accurate, people are listening and transacting business based on those. So I felt comfortable with
what we'd done there.
Q. Okay. And in terms of why your value may be lower than this other person's value, what are
some of the reasons why Michael Jackson's value or portion of the catalog, his value, would be
limited?
Mr. Panish. As of the time of death?
Ms. Strong. As of the time of death.
Mr. Panish. Go ahead.
A. I just want to make clear, you're instructing me to answer these questions?
Mr. Panish. No. Your honor --
The Judge. Yeah. I'm instructing you to answer, but if you have to get into specific numbers,
then maybe --
Ms. Strong. And that's not what I'm asking about.
Mr. Panish. I don't want the court to answer. I want him to voluntarily answer the questions.
The Judge. I'm not answering any questions, Mr. Panish. I'm not answering questions; the
witness is.
Mr. Panish. No. I'm not asking --
Ms. Bina. I think Mr. Panish is saying he would like the witness to breach his contractual
obligations when he's answering Ms. Strong's questions and not answering Mr. Panish's
questions, and I think that would be inappropriate.
Mr. Panish. No.
Mr. Boyle. I think what he's saying is that the witness has no problem breaching the
confidentiality when Ms. Strong is asking the questions.
The Judge. He just turned and asked -- he had a concern. He just turned and asked me. Yes. Go
ahead.
Mr. Boyle. Right.
The Judge. He had a concern, so obviously he does have a concern.

Mr. Boyle. Okay.

The Judge. I don't think he's willy-nilly saying, "I'm going to answer things when AEG asks me,
but when you ask me, I'm not going to answer any questions." I think he has a legitimate concern
--
Mr. Boyle. Okay.
The Judge. -- and is looking to me for an answer. I'm telling him it's okay, but if he has to give
specific numbers, perhaps we could take a hearing outside the presence of the jury. If he has to
give specific numbers, we'll do that. If he doesn't, I'm going to allow him to answer the
questions. That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Boyle. Okay.
The Judge. So
A. I will not share a number in response to her question.
The Judge. So you can answer it without giving specific numbers?
A. that's fine.
The Judge. I'm asking you, can you?
A. I'm sorry. Yes, I can.
The Judge. Can you respond?
A. yes.
The Judge. Okay. Answer the question.
A. you asked me about why there may be a difference?
Q. yes.
A. Well, there may be many reasons, but there are two significant differences, one of which has
to do with the subject of control. And this is very important in valuation. If one party can control
a business, their share -- their share is worth more. They have the ability to hire people, fire
people, launch a new division in china, do all sorts of things. If they're a party that doesn't have
control, they're called passive or sometimes a minority investor and have to sit there. They're
effectively victims based on what the controlling party is doing. So one aspect of variance has to
do with how you interpret the subject of control. The second aspect of variance has to do with
limitations on selling, or limitations on what's called monetizing the asset. And so if someone
owns something -- or owns part of something, is a better example, but then they enter into all

these rules, like, "well, gee, you have this, but you can't borrow money against it, or you can't
sell it to someone," it's not worth its fair share. It's worth something less than that, because you're
restricted. You can't do things with it. And these are two of quite a few differences between the
IRS.'s perspective and the perspective of me and my firm.
Q. Let's be clear about that. With respect to your control, you said you considered the issue of
whether the person, when it's a shared asset, two different people or entities are sharing an asset,
and one portion, the person does not have control over that -- full control over that asset, that
affects the value of that person's share of the asset; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And so, again, to be clear, Michael Jackson, were there limitations on his control over
the Sony/ATV assets that you were valuing?
A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. And with respect to the second piece of this, the limitations on selling, you said that that, too,
is something that can affect the value of an asset that you're valuing if it's a shared asset by two
different people, and one person has limitations on his or her ability to sell that asset, that, too,
affects the value of that asset and brings down the value of that asset; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is it your understanding that there was limitations on Michael Jackson's ability to sell his
portion of that asset?
A. I would say, "yes." I would say sell or borrow against or do other things that he might do to
take value out of that asset.
Q. And in fact, there's been testimony in this case by many financial advisors of Michael
Jackson, talking about how he could no longer borrow any money on that asset. Is that consistent
with what you're saying here?
Mr. Panish. Number one, there's no testimony in this case so far; number two, it's calling for
hearsay, and it's not something this expert has relied on in this case.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. I'm sorry. During the beginning part of my cross, I specified there were a number of business
managers that made reference to Michael Jackson's financial situation. I made reference to that in
response to one of Mr. Panish's questions. I also, of course, made reference to the headlines,
which was really the intent.

Q. and so, again, big picture -- I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this diversion,
because it wasn't related to this opinion, but -- you don't believe you undervalued that asset in
any regard, do you?
Mr. Panish. I'm going to object to the argumentative nature of the diversion stated by counsel,
and it wasn't related to his opinions. Argumentative in the form, and misstates the court's ruling
about whether or not it was relevant.
The Judge. All right. The preface to the question is stricken. Why don't you rephrase the
question?
Ms. Strong. Okay.
Q. you don't believe that you undervalued that asset, do you?
A. I do not believe that I undervalued that asset.
Q. And Mr. Panish also asked you some questions about conflicts, and I just want to cover this
quickly. Before taking on this engagement, did you make sure there wasn't a conflict in this case?
A. I did. I was part of a -- or I participated in the conflict-check process, yes.
Q. Okay. And there was questions about whether you got a written conflict waiver; correct?
A. There were questions about that, yes.
Q. And did you actually get a written conflict waiver?
A. I did not.
Q. And why not? When there's no conflict, what happens?
Mr. Panish. Well, excuse me, your honor. No foundation for that question. And the witness,
when I asked about conflicts, said he doesn't know. And it's a legal conclusion.
The Judge. Overruled.
A. it was determined that there was no need to get a written conflict waiver because there was
determined to be no conflict by the attorneys that work at my firm. I'm not an attorney.
Q. and, again, there's no conflict because that work wasn't related to your opinions in this case.
And we're going to talk about that.
Mr. Panish. I'm going to object to that again as to the preamble to the question.
Q. is that correct?

Mr. Panish. Whether or not there's a conflict.

The Judge. Overruled. "is that correct?"
A. I suspect, among many other factors, such as the time that had passed since the work had been
done, and other things.
Q. okay. Why don't you explain to me why it is that your work in this case, which you were
asked to do, all the things I discussed with you on your direct examination, was unrelated to the
work you did for Sony/ATV?
A. Everything I did in this case, my specific opinion related to projecting income for Michael
Jackson, if he had lived, and if he had worked, what he would have earned from projects. New
projects, new tours, new films, all these different types of things we've spent time talking about.
Everything in regards to Sony/ATV has nothing to do with his future work income. In fact, the
Sony/ATV catalog doesn't even have Michael Jackson's songs in it. It's an investment. It has the
Beatles songs in it, it has Willie Nelson's songs in it. And his working was independent of that
particular asset.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Erk, did he offer any damages opinions related to the Sony/ATV catalog?
A. No, he didn't consider it, because he also acknowledged the Sony/ATV catalog did not have
any of Michael Jackson's music in it.
Q. In fact, he expressly stated at his deposition that he excluded it from his consideration from
his calculations because the Sony/ATV income stream wouldn't be affected by Michael Jackson's
death; correct?
A. That's what he said, yes.
Q. All right. And there was a reference to debt on your notes that Mr. Panish focused on; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I don't want to put it back up right now because I think we can get through this quickly.
That was in reference to what specifically? What portion of your opinion?
A. That was in regards to endorsements and sponsorships.
Ms. Strong. Okay. And, pam, you want to pop it up? 12,979. And we can focus on the portion of
endorsements where the piece is referenced with respect to debt. And then -- let's blow it up. And
then if you go down -- right there.
A. thank you.

Ms. Strong. Why don't you highlight that whole line? "challenges with major advertisers given
history (drug usage, child abuse, litigation, debt) also negative publicity."
Q. were you referring to the Sony/ATV catalog when you referenced debt right there?
A. No.
Q. What were you referring to when you referenced debt in that line?
A. Well, this is about endorsements. I was referring to a general perception of Michael Jackson
as having financial difficulties in the news, and how that would impact his ability to go to a bank,
or a Citibank, or something, and say, "gee, can you sponsor my tour?"
Q. Has someone like Citibank ever sponsored a music artist tour before?
A. Yes. Mr. Meglen testified that Citibank sponsored the rolling stones tour, so there's evidence
of these types of things occurring, and I wanted to consider that in forming my opinion.
Q. Okay. And you mentioned other things up there, "drug use, child abuse, litigation." did you
take steps to find out if these things were true or untrue, in forming your opinion, with respect to
this issue?
A. I did not. This was about the unfortunate perception that exists in media. This had nothing to
do with alleging these things occurred or did not occur.
Q. And in fact, we know that Michael Jackson was acquitted of child-molestation charges in
2005; correct?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And you still referenced "child abuse" in that line there; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because we live in a world, unfortunately, where headlines create perceptions. It's -- and
perceptions impact endorsement companies, brand companies. It impacts their interest in getting
behind an individual and saying, "gee, you can be the spokesperson for my product."
Q. So is it your opinion that bad press can hurt endorsement deals, whether the things reported in
the press are true or not?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Ms. Strong. Your honor, it's 12:00. Should we pause here?

The Judge. Yes. Good time to pause. All right. 1:30.

(the jury exited the courtroom at 12:01 p.m.)
The Judge. Okay. 1:30.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, your honor. How long are we going today?
The Judge. 4:15.
Mr. Putnam. The reason I'm asking, I have this other witness, so I want to balance this.
Mr. Panish. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Putnam. I was asking how long we were going today because we have another witness.
Mr. Panish. We're going to have a while with this witness.
The Judge. 4:15. Do you have a problem?
Mr. Putnam. No. Trying to think of --
Mr. Panish. Are we excused?
The Judge. No. I'm still on the bench.
Mr. Panish. Okay. I thought we were done.
The Judge. If I'm on the bench, you leave at your own peril.
Mr. Panish. I asked before I left. That's why I asked.
The Judge. You were already out the door.
Mr. Panish. I was not out the door.
The Judge. What were you asking?
Mr. Putnam. Over the lunch, I'm going to figure out where we are with some other witnesses. I
may have to pause this, as we did with Ms. Faye, if I have to put him in there. But I'll --
The Judge. Who is the witness?
Mr. Putnam. Laperruque.

The Judge. That's right.

Ms. Bina. Right. And our understanding is today is pretty much the only day he's available for
the next month.
The Judge. Okay.
Ms. Bina. So that may be the reason we need to pause Mr. Briggs.
The Judge. After lunch, let me know.
Mr. Panish. Can I know so if I need to prepare to cross-examination Laperruque or Mr. Briggs?
Ms. Bina. I thought Ms. Chang --
The Judge. I thought we talked about that yesterday.
Mr. Putnam. We did.
Mr. Panish. No, we didn't, but
(at 12:03 p.m. The lunch recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. Of the same day.)