A Los Angeles appeals court has denied an attempt by Michael Jackson’s mother to prevent the singer’s estate from selling a portion of his songs to Sony Music Group for about $600 million.

The appeals court on Wednesday upheld a prior ruling by a probate court that Katherine Jackson’s objections to the transaction do not hold water.

The appeals court determined that Michael Jackson’s will grants the musician’s executors “broad powers to buy and sell estate assets in the estate’s best interests” while stipulating that “all of the estate’s assets will be distributed to the trust” — of which the performer’s mother and children are beneficiaries.

Katherine Jackson had tried to argue that those provisions were contradictory, but the appeals court disagreed.

The appeals court also rejected Katherine Jackson’s challenge on grounds that she “forfeited her contention that the proposed transaction violates the terms of Michael’s will because she did not make that contention” in a lower court.

According to court documents, Katherine Jackson had previously complained that selling assets from Michael Jackson’s catalog would violate her son’s wishes, but acknowledged that executors had the power to do so. The appeals court also noted that Katherine Jackson was the only family member and beneficiary of the trust to formally object to the sale.

An attorney for Katherine Jackson did not immediately respond Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

“We conclude that the provisions are not inconsistent: Read together, they give the executors broad powers to manage estate property while the estate remains in probate, and they provide for the transfer of all estate property to the trust when the probate action is concluded,” Wednesday’s opinion reads.

“The proposed transaction is consistent with the terms of Michael’s will as so interpreted, and thus the probate court did not abuse its discretion by granting the executors’ petition.”

In February, Sony Music Group closed a deal to purchase half of Michael Jackson’s masters for at least $600 million, according to Billboard.

Times news researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

SpaceX will bring home the two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station for the past two months due to troubles with Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, NASA announced Saturday.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said the decision, which followed a formal review conducted Saturday, was driven by the agency’s commitment to safety, especially following the loss of 14 astronauts in the 1986 Challenger explosion and the 2003 Columbia disaster on its return to earth.

“This whole discussion, remember, is put in the context of we have had mistakes done in the past,” Nelson said at a news conference at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. “Space flight is risky, even at its safest and even at its most routine. And a test flight by nature is neither safe nor routine.”

The decision by NASA to bring home astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule in February follows months of irregularities that have hobbled the third test flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft — which began even before its June 5 launch.

The outcome is not only a blow to Boeing, whose Starliner program is years behind schedule, but to NASA, which awarded multibillion-dollar contracts to the company and rival SpaceX in 2014 to service the space agency with crews and cargo.

Since 2020, Elon Musk’s Hawthorne-based company has ferried more than half a dozen crews there aboard its Crew Dragon capsule — while Boeing has managed only two remote flights prior to this one, including one in May 2022 that docked with the orbiting lab.

NASA said Saturday that the Starliner will now return to earth remotely next month. The SpaceX mission that will bring Wilmore and Williams home is scheduled to blast off Sept. 24.

Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s chief operating officer, responded to the announcement with a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “SpaceX stands ready to support @NASA however we can,” she said.

Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, said the decision resulted from inconclusive ground tests that were conducted on the thrusters after they malfunctioned when Starliner docked with the space station on June 6.

“As we got more and more data over the summer, and understood the uncertainty of that data, it became very clear to us that the best course of action was to return Starliner uncrewed,” he said. “If we had a model, if we had a way to accurately predict what the thrusters would do …. I think we would have taken a different course of action.”

The problems that have plagued Starliner have been an embarrassment for Boeing, which is still grappling with an investigation into a door plug that blew out during a 737 Max 9 flight this year to Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County. That followed the two crashes of its 737 Max 8 jets several years ago that severely damaged its reputation for safety.

Just this month, Boeing wrote off $125 million in expenses related to the Starliner program after previously booking some $1.5 billion in cost overruns.

Nelson said Saturday he informed Boeing’s new chief executive, Kelly Ortberg, of the decision, and that the executive committed to working with the agency to resolve the problems with Starliner. Nelson said that will give the agency the “redundancy” it has wanted to service the station.

In a statement Saturday, Boeing said, “We continue to focus, first and foremost, on the safety of the crew and spacecraft. We are executing the mission as determined by NASA, and we are preparing the spacecraft for a safe and successful uncrewed return.”

For years, NASA had to rely solely on Russia’s Soyuz craft to send U.S. astronauts to the station after the Space Shuttle program ended in 2011. NASA plans to continue to partner with the Russian program, which along with the U.S. was the primary constructor of the orbiting lab that first launched in 1998.

The latest Starliner mission, which was expected to last about a week, was plagued with troubles.

The capsule was originally set to blast off May 6, but that flight was scuttled because of a malfunctioning valve on the Atlas V rocket that launches it into space. Additional launch dates were missed after a helium leak was found in the propulsion system that propels Starliner in space.

The helium pressurizes the system’s rocket fuel but NASA and Boeing officials decided the leak was not serious and developed software fixes to work around it. However, the leak grew larger as the spacecraft approached and docked with the space station the next day.

More concerning was that the propulsion system’s thruster engines malfunctioned during the docking procedure.

Ground testing on an identical thruster NASA conducted last month found that Teflon used to control the flow of rocket propellant eroded under high heat conditions, while different seals that control the helium gas showed bulging.

NASA officials have maintained Starliner has 10 times more helium than it needs to return to earth and the craft could be used if there were an emergency situation aboard the space station. This month Boeing issued a statement that cited all the testing that had been conducted and concluded, “Boeing remains confident in the Starliner spacecraft and its ability to return safely with crew.”

The aging space station is scheduled to be retired in 2030. In June, NASA awarded SpaceX an $843-million contract to build a craft that would nudge the station safely out of its orbit so it can burn up in the atmosphere, with any stray pieces landing in remote areas of the ocean.

The troubles afflicting Starliner mean that if it ever receives agency clearance to send working crews to the space station, it will provide that service for far fewer years. Boeing, however, has said it wants to use the craft to service the commercial space station being developed by Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin rocket company.

Unlike the Space X’s Crew Dragon capsule, which lands in water, Starliner will touch down in the Arizona or New Mexico desert in a parachute ground landing pioneered by the Soviets decades ago. That makes it easier to ready the reusable craft for another launch.

However, the propulsion system is jettisoned in space, so NASA and Boeing engineers will not have a chance to take it apart and examine exactly what went wrong.

Troubled electric vehicle maker Fisker Inc. has reached a settlement with creditors that will allow it to liquidate its assets while working with owners to keep their pricey SUVs on the road.

The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June after failing to reach a strategic agreement with another automaker that could provide it with more capital and domestic manufacturing capacity.

The global agreement reached Friday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware allows Fisker management to remain in charge for some time as the operation winds down.

That was important to Fisker, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and car owners, who filed objections to converting the bankruptcy to Chapter 7, noting the startup’s only vehicle — a premium SUV called the Ocean — has several open recalls for faulty door handles, loss of power and other problems.

“The owners strongly believe that Fisker owes them a responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are safe and operable, and that the best way for Fisker to fulfill that promise is through a Chapter 11 process,” said attorney Daniel Shamah, who represents the Fisker Owners Assn. “We can be sure that employees and the advisors who are helping the company do this remain on board.”

The liquidation plan, which details how proceeds from asset sales will be distributed among various creditors, is subject to a vote by all unsecured creditors.

The plan also calls for the owners association to have a voice in the sale of Fisker’s intellectual property, which includes the designs and computer code that were necessary to build and operate the vehicles. The owners need long-term access to Fisker’s “cloud software,” which is crucial for sending over-the-air updates to the vehicle software that controls the Ocean.

Other issues, including access to parts and long-term service, are still being negotiated outside the bankruptcy process, Shamah said.

However, with secured and unsecured claims against the company likely to top $1 billion, shareholders who invested in Fisker are unlikely to get their money back.

“It’s a virtual certainty that there will be no money for equity. There’s no way you’re going to have enough to pay claims in full in this liquidation,” said David Golubchik, a veteran bankruptcy attorney at Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Golubchik in Los Angeles.

Founded in 2016 by auto designer Henrik Fisker, the company went public in 2020 via a SPAC, or special purpose acquisition company, backed by private equity firm Apollo Global Management. The company raised $1 billion in equity capital and borrowed even more, but ran out of money and only sold about 7,000 of its vehicles.

The Ocean was envisioned as a competitor to Tesla’s Model Y, but Fisker had trouble making and delivering the snazzy SUV through a direct sales model borrowed from Tesla. The SUV also was plagued by software glitches, though its ride and build were praised.

Fisker made more than 11,000 Oceans before it stopped production, according to a court filing. The bankruptcy court already has approved the sale of the company’s remaining inventory of 3,321 Oceans, which were acquired for $46.25 million by American Lease, a Bronx, N.Y., business that leases Uber and Lyft cars.

Fisker, which was based in Manhattan Beach before shutting down its headquarters and moving to Orange County, has few other hard assets.

Henrik Fisker, the chairman and chief executive, built the company to be asset light, with vehicles assembled at an Austrian factory owned by a subsidiary of Magna International, a Canadian manufacturer of automobile components.

Fisker’s most valuable asset might be its intellectual property, but it’s unclear what bids it may attract.

The settlement came after discussions among Fisker and its secured and unsecured creditors following a dispute over whether to convert the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation run by a trustee.

The conversion was sought by the company’s largest secured creditor: CVI Investments and its investment manager, Heights Capital Management Inc., both affiliates of Susquehanna International Group, a large Pennsylvania trading firm founded by billionaire Jeff Yass.

CVI argued the administrative costs of operating under Chapter 11 were draining and that were was little likelihood the company would remain in business.

However, its status as a legitimate secured creditor was questioned by the Committee of Unsecured Creditors, including U.S. Bank, which has filed a $681-million claim related to Fisker notes it holds.

Last year, Fisker sold convertible notes to CVI, receiving gross proceeds of $450 million, according to a court filing by the unsecured creditors. Fisker filed its third-quarter earnings report late, technically defaulting on the notes and converting them into secured debt.

The committee alleged that CVI profited an estimated $57 million from the sales of its converted shares, diluting the stock and driving its price under 10 cents a share this year.

Shareholders have called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to look into CVI’s and Height’s roles in the bankruptcy, including potential short selling that may have driven Fisker’s shares to pennies. Attorneys for CVI and Heights did not return messages seeking comment.

Fisker has received a subpoena from the SEC, The Times reported last week. It is unclear what information the agency is seeking.

The company is facing multiple shareholder lawsuits that focus on Fisker’s late third-quarter filing and the role it played in the collapse of the stock price. In 2021, the company’s market cap approached $8 billion before shares traded at pennies prior to the bankruptcy filing.

The lawsuits included allegations that Fisker, his wife Geeta Gupta-Fisker (the company’s co-founder, chief financial officer and chief operating officer) violated their fiduciary duties and securities laws. The company declined to comment.

Fisker’s stake in the company is now virtually worthless, but he sold about $20 million worth of shares in 2021 well before the stock declined. Fisker and his wife also received bonuses in December of a little more than $1 million each, which were disclosed last week in a bankruptcy court filing by Fisker. The company declined to comment on the reason for the bonuses.

Evan Scott, 39, who owns a Fisker Ocean and figures he lost about $50,000 on the company’s stock, said he was shocked to learn about the bonuses.

“As a shareholder and a car owner who had supported Henrik and his wife, I am seeing red,” Scott said. “They knew the company was in dire straits. They were just expediting bankruptcy by doing that.”