Today is Leonard’s 89th birthday…and the second year of silence

[Geoffrey]

. . . I am going to be honest from my end and say that this thread feels unbalanced presenting an argument on Kory's behalf with no "Letters to Dad" from the plaintiffs to even things out.

a good point, dar. you see things from different angles, the type of person who would be excellent on a jury

[MarieM]

MarieM wrote:
>. . . please feel free to speak, comment, or ask questions.

hello marie. a simple comment concerning this paragraph:

>"Unfortunately, when you revised your trust in July 2016 to change some bequests and create trusts for your grandchildren, Chudd made an error in drafting the new document. He accidently left out the paragraph contained in the prior documents that appointed a successor trustee, Robert Kory. Chudd added to the confusion by revising the documents after his error was discovered and after your passing."

you later stated 'Chudd’s error was fairly inconsequential', although his incompetence did lead to some unnecessary legal arguments.

Hi Snow,

I used the term "inconsequential" because that was the attitude of Leonard's children from 2017 until 2022. Chudd's error was discovered by Lorca and her trust and estate attorney Katzenstein in 2017. Katzenstein investigated, including talking to Chudd. Katzenstein reported that Chudd had made a cut and paste error. The children seemed satisfied with that explanation because for five years thereafter they accepted Robert Kory as the trustee without complaint.

[MarieM]

I just can't be silent about my thoughts on the "Letters to Leonard". I believe your motive to share this info with LC's fans is an honest effort to share what you believe. But I am going to be honest from my end and say that this thread feels unbalanced presenting an argument on Kory's behalf with no "Letters to Dad" from the plaintiffs to even things out. I've tried to find the actual complaint/case and can't find it. I'm sure it lists the issues for the courts' consideration. I'm sure the argument on behalf of Leonard's children will eventually be heard. It seems only fair.

Hi Dar,

Nice seeing you and Snow here. Where have all the years gone? Leonard was our little secret way back then. LOL.

There are no "Letters to Dad." There was a leak to the press by Adam to Variety earlier this year, in which Robert Kory was accused of fraud and overbilling. You can read it here: https://variety.com/2023/music/news/leo ... 35538628/ .

Then there was a thread on the Forum, with more press clippings, including the NY Post, the Daily Mail, and The Guardian:

Troubles between the family and the management
https://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=39589

There you should find the other side of the story that you seek.

[Geoffrey]

MarieM wrote:
>Hi Snow,
>
>I used the term "inconsequential" because that was the attitude of Leonard's children from 2017 until 2022. Chudd's error was discovered by Lorca and her trust and estate attorney Katzenstein in 2017. Katzenstein investigated, including talking to Chudd. Katzenstein reported that Chudd had made a cut and paste error. The children seemed satisfied with that explanation because for five years thereafter they accepted Robert Kory as the trustee without complaint.

hello again marie.

was there was a specific event in 2022 that caused leonard's children to stop being satisfied?

[LisaLCFan]

was there was a specific event in 2022 that caused leonard's children to stop being satisfied?

I am wondering if it had anything to do with the sale of Leonard’s song rights to Hipgnosis in 2022, which apparently were bought for around $58 million, and Kory, as Trustee, would have received a 15% commission on that sale ($8.7 million, if my facts and math are correct). Perhaps the Cohen children realised that if they had been the trustees, that $8.7 million would have been theirs…

[Geoffrey]

Geoffrey asked:
>>was there was a specific event in 2022 that caused leonard's children to stop being satisfied?

LisaLCFan commented:
>I am wondering if it had anything to do with the sale of Leonard’s song rights to Hipgnosis in 2022, which apparently were bought for around $58 million, and Kory, as Trustee, would have received a 15% commission on that sale ($8.7 million, if my facts and math are correct). Perhaps the Cohen children realised that if they had been the trustees, that $8.7 million would have been theirs…
---------------------------------------
goodness me! thank you, lisa.

PS:
who got the remaining fifty million dollars?

[MarieM]

Geoffrey asked:

was there was a specific event in 2022 that caused leonard's children to stop being satisfied?

Good question, Snow. I don't know the answer. But my speculations were similar to Lisa's. Add to that, Robert Kory was approaching retirement age and there was no obvious successor trustee.

Geoffrey asked:

who got the remaining fifty million dollars?

The money from the sale of Leonard's song rights goes into the trust.

[Geoffrey]

MarieM wrote:
>Good question, Snow. I don't know the answer. But my speculations were similar to Lisa's. Add to that, Robert Kory was approaching retirement age and there was no obvious successor trustee.

was it robert's decision to sell leonard's catalogue, and how was the figure of $58 million arrived at? perhaps it's just a coincidence, but $50 million for the trust seems like a nice round number. also, perhaps the fairest solution to a confusing contract containing errors would be to have the $8.7 million sales commission divided equally between robert, adam and lorca - just under $3 million each.

[LisaLCFan]

…perhaps the fairest solution to a confusing contract containing errors would be to have the $8.7 million sales commission divided equally between robert, adam and lorca - just under $3 million each.

How delightfully naive!

[Geoffrey]

LisaLCFan responded:
>How delightfully naive!

naive perhaps, but it would be the best solution. it all hinges on what the judge decides. i have been thinking a lot about this, trying to find a way out, even though i don't have all the facts and there is much i don't understand. however, all credit to marie for casting light upon this matter, and for being willing to answer questions as best she can.

this is what i have arrived at:
mr kory could tell the judge that he honestly believed he was the trustee and had the right to sell leonard's catalogue and receive the commission. he could also say that if he was wrong - that he was not the legitimate trustee - then he is willing to try to make things right by giving adam and lorca their share of what he received. this would be a sensible solution, an honourable thing to do - and if he is found guilty of embezzlement might even avoid a custodial sentence.

[LisaLCFan]

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable about all of this is that there seem to be a lot of unknowns as to who knew what, and who said what, and who did what, and who wanted what. There are inconsistencies, a lot of "one person's word against another's", possibly without any proof: if someone merely believed or thought or was under the impression of something, or if there was a verbal agreement or an implicit undertsanding, etc., none of that can be proven, one way or the other. I certainly do not feel, given what I have read here and elsewhere, that I have the ability (or the right) to adequately assess the situation, let alone to take sides or to make judgements about who is right or wrong, or to make assertions as to what should be done about it.

The only thing that seems clear, and which I feel that I can comment on due to the apparently unequivocal facts, is that Chudd made an incredibly stupid error with his botched "cut and paste" approach to drafting a revised Trust document, and then he used incomprehensibly poor judgement in his attempt to cover up his incompetency with forgery. Why and how nobody else caught his original oversight is a bit mysterious: after all, naming the Trustee in a Trust document seems to be one of the most important details, and to accidentally leave that out, and then to have nobody else notice when the document is finalised and signed, well, that's rather mind-boggling! Does nobody proof-read things anymore? This wasn't just a shopping list for groceries, or something equally trivial -- it was a document meant to determine who would control a multi-million dollar trust/estate, and yet nobody bothered to make sure that it was complete and accurate!

[Geoffrey]

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable about all of this is that there seem to be a lot of unknowns as to who knew what, and who said what, and who did what, and who wanted what. There are inconsistencies, a lot of "one person's word against another's", possibly without any proof: if someone merely believed or thought or was under the impression of something, or if there was a verbal agreement or an implicit undertsanding, etc., none of that can be proven, one way or the other. I certainly do not feel, given what I have read here and elsewhere, that I have the ability (or the right) to adequately assess the situation, let alone to take sides or to make judgements about who is right or wrong, or to make assertions as to what should be done about it.

The only thing that seems clear, and which I feel that I can comment on due to the apparently unequivocal facts, is that Chudd made an incredibly stupid error with his botched "cut and paste" approach to drafting a revised Trust document, and then he used incomprehensibly poor judgement in his attempt to cover up his incompetency with forgery. Why and how nobody else caught his original oversight is a bit mysterious: after all, naming the Trustee in a Trust document seems to be one of the most important details, and to accidentally leave that out, and then to have nobody else notice when the document is finalised and signed, well, that's rather mind-boggling! Does nobody proof-read things anymore? This wasn't just a shopping list for groceries, or something equally trivial -- it was a document meant to determine who would control a multi-million dollar trust/estate, and yet nobody bothered to make sure that it was complete and accurate!

this is a very good message, lisa. it will be interesting to get marie's response

[LisaLCFan]

this is a very good message, lisa. it will be interesting to get marie's response

Thanks. I am not really expecting or requiring a response from anyone -- I was just expressing some observations. We were invited to make comments, and so I did.

This is clearly a very unpleasant and messy situation between a few people who have a direct connection to Leonard Cohen, and it is unfortunate that these issues have arisen. But I do not think that this legal battle necessarily casts a dark shadow over Leonard Cohen and his legacy, or even damages it (as has been suggested...), for I think that the best of Leonard Cohen's artistic output is already in the world for us to enjoy: the songs and poetry and visual art that he created and released during his lifetime, and the memories we have of his life and his art and his concerts and how they influenced our own lives -- that is what is most important to me, and nobody and nothing can ever take that away!

(At least, I have not read anything in this thread to indicate that Leonard's existing works are in jeopardy, only future releases of archival materials. Hopefully somebody can correct me if I am wrong. And, perhaps this is just my perception, but it seems like a bit too much emphasis is being placed on the supposed importance of the contents of Leonard's archives -- are the personal, rough and/or unfinished bits and pieces of his life really essential to keeping his songs alive, as has been suggested?).

[MarieM]

I suppose what makes me uncomfortable about all of this is that there seem to be a lot of unknowns as to who knew what, and who said what, and who did what, and who wanted what. There are inconsistencies, a lot of "one person's word against another's", possibly without any proof: if someone merely believed or thought or was under the impression of something, or if there was a verbal agreement or an implicit undertsanding, etc., none of that can be proven, one way or the other. I certainly do not feel, given what I have read here and elsewhere, that I have the ability (or the right) to adequately assess the situation, let alone to take sides or to make judgements about who is right or wrong, or to make assertions as to what should be done about it.

Lisa, I think your position of needing to know more is what most people feel. I didn't post the letter to Leonard to win people over to one side or another. I just wanted to make people aware that there was another side besides what was published in the tabloids.

[MarieM]

Thanks. I am not really expecting or requiring a response from anyone -- I was just expressing some observations. We were invited to make comments, and so I did.

This is clearly a very unpleasant and messy situation between a few people who have a direct connection to Leonard Cohen, and it is unfortunate that these issues have arisen. But I do not think that this legal battle necessarily casts a dark shadow over Leonard Cohen and his legacy, or even damages it (as has been suggested...), for I think that the best of Leonard Cohen's artistic output is already in the world for us to enjoy: the songs and poetry and visual art that he created and released during his lifetime, and the memories we have of his life and his art and his concerts and how they influenced our own lives -- that is what is most important to me, and nobody and nothing can ever take that away!

(At least, I have not read anything in this thread to indicate that Leonard's existing works are in jeopardy, only future releases of archival materials. Hopefully somebody can correct me if I am wrong. And, perhaps this is just my perception, but it seems like a bit too much emphasis is being placed on the supposed importance of the contents of Leonard's archives -- are the personal, rough and/or unfinished bits and pieces of his life really essential to keeping his songs alive, as has been suggested?).

I value Leonard's archives because he did. He felt they had value that exceeded what was published. What we have are the gems. What we are missing is how they were polished and how many were discarded. The interest, I suppose, is mostly scholarly. but I would love to see the process whereby Leonard produced some of his greatest lines. To see how he might have come from a dark place into the light with some of his songs would be inspiring. The opportunity to understand the life of a genius doesn't come up that often.

I wasn't sure Leonard valued his archive until I learned that he took the time to index all his 243 notebooks. Then I learned he began the process of digitization of his archive long before he passed. To me that suggests he thought what was there had value and was worth preserving and sharing. He's the man who lived like a monk even in his own home. He didn't value possessions much. So, I ruled out early that Leonard saved all this material because he was a horder.

People sometimes think of a trust as simply the account where the heirs collect their inheritance. In fact, the trust is where the grantor or trustor deposits their assets, either before or at death, with instructions to the trustee how the assets are to be handled (i.e. held, sold, donated, distributed, etc.). The sale of the archive for scholarly preservation was Leonard's instruction to the trustee at the time, Robert Kory, and is the instruction for the new trustee.