The accused music executive, who had worked closely with Afeni Shakur-Davis and her well-known rapper son while they were alive, called the complaint “offensive” and “legally baseless” when Sekyiwa Shakur, the sister of Tupac Shakur, filed her landmark lawsuit last January alleging that trustee Tom Whalley had “embezzled millions” from her late mother’s estate.
Following Afeni’s passing in 2016, Whalley acknowledged he had not yet prepared a proper trust accounting, but he told the court a business had been recruited to do so.
The former head of Warner Bros. Records, who signed Tupac to Interscope and worked on the albums 2Pacalypse Now, Thug Life, and Me Against the World, also acknowledged that Sekyiwa Shakur had not yet received “substantial assets” that had originally belonged to Tupac, such as several cars, gold records, clothing, and pinball machines that Afeni Shakur received as the sole beneficiary of Tupac’s estate and included in his will. However, he claimed that the trust gave him “total discretion” to use the assets to generate income for the estate, and many of the assets did actually find up in the traveling “Tupac Shakur: Wake Me When I’m Free” show that is currently on display at L.A. Live.
Whalley stated he intended to start giving tangible personal belongings not utilized in the show to Sekyiwa “now that the exhibit is up and running.”
Despite the promises, the judge required Whalley to submit a complete accounting of the trust by June 30.
Sekyiwa and her attorneys claim in a document made on Monday that the accounting, even though it was submitted as required, “falls woefully short of compliance with the legal and accounting requirements of the trust.” They point out that the document lists only items that fall under “extremely general categories,” such as jewels valued at $217,700 and other different “furnishings and personal possessions” valued at $50,000.
In the Monday filing, it is stated that “without this information, petitioners have no way of knowing whether the respondent’s reported categories of assets and opening amounts comprise the whole of the assets owned by [Afeni] which should have been transferred into the trust.”
In light of this, Sekyiwa and her attorneys are now requesting that the court appoint a “independent” accountant to audit the trust and provide a detailed accounting of all assets, including Amaru Entertainment, the record label founded by Afeni that is in charge of most of Tupac’s music and intellectual property and has Whalley as its top executive.
How much Whalley pays himself through Amaru and how much he has so far received are crucial questions that, in the opinion of Sekyiwa and her attorneys, have still not been fully clarified. Although it is true that Whalley does not receive payment for serving as trustee, Sekyiwa’s application asserts that he gets a 20% commission from Amaru. She and her attorneys challenge the necessity of such a commission today.
“When Afeni was alive, she had the ability to decide. Only Mr. Whalley has the ability to make decisions at this time. The trust that we reference contains a particular clause that states that the conflict of interest, which is clear, is waived as long as the compensation he receives is essentially economically reasonable. Sekyiwa’s attorney Donald David tells Rolling Stone that the current situation is different from that of when Afeni was still alive and in charge of things and establishing the objectives.
“Even what he’s receiving is unknown to us. Nothing we have gives us confidence that Mr. Whalley appropriately disclosed the income he is getting or that it is appropriate compensation in accordance with the provisions of the trust and California law.
While this is going on, sources have told Rolling Stone that Whalley doesn’t get paid for “Wake Me When I’m Free.” According to insiders, “It all goes to Amaru.”
The Afeni Shakur Trust owns Amaru in its entirety, and according to David, Sekyiwa’s case is essentially the beneficiaries of the trust requesting access to material that Whalley controls from the court. Whalley allegedly collected $5.5 million from Amaru over the course of the previous five years, which Sekyiwa claimed was “far in excess of what would be reasonably necessary to employ a suitably qualified third-party to undertake such services” in the original lawsuit.
Whalley’s spokesperson declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday and instead directed Rolling Stone to his court documents. Whalley said in his March filing that his performance at Amaru spoke for itself.
According to Tom’s filings, “Over the previous five years, Amaru’s worth has improved by tens of millions of dollars as a direct result of his great judgment and commercial acumen.”
The legal team for Whalley cites their client’s initiatives to “preserve, protect and exploit Tupac’s name, likeness, and intellectual property for the Trust and its beneficiaries,” including his efforts to earn money from the use of Tupac’s name and likeness in public campaigns, reclaim ownership of the “Thug Life” trademark, and reclaim copyrights and master recordings, footage, and other materials from a bankrupt Death Row Records and Universal Music.
Whalley asserts that Afeni initiated the immersive show during her lifetime, and he only carried out her idea. He also emphasizes the role he had in “recapturing” Tupac’s artifacts for Amaru and the trust by stopping auctions of the items.
According to Sekyiwa’s attorney, Tupac’s sole sibling has her own ideas about how to carry on the family name. Donald David adds, adding that his client has not seen the pop-up exhibition, “She has frequently told me that she wants to show the world who her brother and mother genuinely were, and what it was they truly were putting out as beliefs.”
The sister and her attorneys argue that openness and a seat at the table are overdue in the Monday filing.
“(Whalley) has purposefully refused to give the beneficiaries an accurate accounting for almost six years, and even after this court ordered him to do so, he has refused once more. Instead, by withholding crucial information and failing to properly account in line with the trust, California law, and his own fiduciary duties, he and his advisors have recommitted to a years-long pattern of unfavorable behavior. In order to adequately account to petitioners, either (Whalley) lacks the ability or the desire to do so, or else he has something to conceal. The 31-page complaint acquired by Rolling Stone claims that (Whalley’s) use of a “hide and control” tactic has been expensive for both the petitioners and the trust as a whole.