HOME / explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.

Keep It in the ClosetCan the kid who settled his child-abuse claim with Michael Jackson speak out about his case?

By Brian PalmerPosted Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 6:06 PM ET

Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley surrounded by children at Neverland RanchAccording to an unsubstantiated Internet rumor circulating since Michael Jackson's death, Jordan Chandler, the boy who in 1993 claimed to have been repeatedly molested by the pop star, has now recanted his story. Fifteen years ago, Chandler reached a $20-million settlement with Jackson, in which he agreed that neither he nor any of his family members or representatives would make any public comment about the case. Now that Jackson is dead, can Chandler speak out?

RSS

No. Jackson's settlement with Chandler, like any well-crafted confidentiality agreement, binds not only the parties themselves but also their "heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, and assigns." The death of Jackson, or Chandler for that matter, would have no effect on the settlement's secrecy obligations.

Related in Slate

Jody Rosen offered an obituary to the King of Pop. Seth Stevenson reported from Jackson's molestation trial and reviewed a box set of his music videos. Jack Shafer asked why reporters were so fascinated with M.J.

Generally speaking, contractual rights extend to a party's heirs even if the contract fails to make that point explicit. Death voids a contractual obligation only if the person who died was himself central to the performance of the contract. For example, if Chandler had agreed to cut Jackson's hair every month, Jackson's death would have released Chandler from his responsibilities. (No, your hair doesn't keep growing after you die.) Chandler might argue that the confidentiality provision in the 1994 settlement was personal to Jackson—it was solely for his benefit and, now that he's gone, the obligation should be dissolved. However, Jackson's heirs could make the straightforward case that they rely on a stream of income (royalties on record sales, licensing fees, etc.) that is partially dependent on Jackson's reputation.

If the Internet rumor turns out to be true, and Chandler has, indeed, breached the settlement agreement, then Jackson's estate or heirs can sue him for breach of contract. Most agreements stipulate that if the plaintiff spills the beans, he must either return the entire settlement amount or a specified sum (usually less than the original settlement) plus legal expenses. But many people don't bother to enforce confidentiality agreements for two reasons. The vast majority of settlements (unlike Chandler's $15.3 million windfall, after legal fees) are relatively small. Most plaintiffs have relatively modest assets to start with, and they quickly become judgment proof by blowing the settlement money on everyday expenses. Also, a second lawsuit would only drag out the media circus and could make Jackson's family look as if it's trying to bully the victim. That may be why the Catholic Church has declined to sue loose-lipped victims of molestation by priests. The most common and effective use of the confidentiality agreement is to get a court order silencing potential blabbermouths before they start talking. Oprah Winfrey has used this tactic successfully against former associates who threatened to go public about their time in Oprah's employ. Violating a private confidentiality agreement is one thing; disobeying a judge is something entirely different.

Even with a cooperative plaintiff, confidentiality agreements are not particularly reliable. Courts have, at times, voided the provisions because they can be at odds with the public interest. For example, Jeffrey Wigand, the former Brown & Williamson scientist who was portrayed by Russell Crowe in The Insider, was released from his confidentiality agreement in order to publicize controversial research conducted by the tobacco industry. Confidentiality agreements that do not contravene public policy can still be superseded by a subpoena in a criminal case, a doctrine that Michael Jackson learned during his 2005 molestation trial as he watched a parade of employees reveal his secrets.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Lester Pines of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Brian Palmer is a freelance writer living in New York City. He can be reached at .

Photograph of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley by Kim Kulish/AFP/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

I practiced business litigation for nearly 30 years, so I have some understanding of confidentiality agreements. If the complainant wishes to withdraw his claim, i.e., retract his accusations, the M. J. estate would probably have no objection since the admission would vindicate Michael Jackson. It would be to the benefit of the estate. Also, retracting his story does not damage Michael Jackson or his estate. The confidentiality agreement is designed to end the complainant's continued publication of his accusations. Admitting that the accusation was false would fall outside the nature of prohibited statements contemplated by the parties. This analysis depends on whether the guy has anything else to say that would disparage Michael Jackson.

The article is correct that if the plaintiff wishes to say anything otherwise about the case and settlement, he is not relieved of his duty of confidentiality just because Michael Jackson is dead.

If the accuser were to retract his claim, he would open himself to a claim of restitution of the settlement amount on the ground that he lied in order to induce the settlement. Inducing the settlement by fraud will void the settlement contract and allow the MJ estate to rescind it. If that happened all the money paid to the child and his family as well as to his lawyers who took a portion of the settlement as a contingency fee, would need to be repaid to the estate. In addition the accuser would open himself to a claim by the estate for defamation damages to the reputation of M.J. Substantial punitive damages would be awarded. In addition, there would be an inquiry into the role his parents played in persuading him to lie, if they did. They could face the same level of damages, as well as criminal exposure for inducing their son's perjury and fraud. In view of these circumstances, the accuser will not talk, unless he is careless in making an admission to someone he knows, for instance, and that person brings the admission to the attention of the estate.

-- rblackbird
(To reply, click here)

I think this was a decent article. It outlines the difference between criminal cases, which are about people, rights and crimes, and civil cases, which are about money.

-- bsharporflat
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES