Britney Spears and her father are in discussions to end their legal battle.
The 'Toxic' hitmaker and her dad Jamie Spears have been in an ongoing dispute over the fallout from her conservatorship - which gave him control over the 40-year-old singer's financial, healthcare and professional decisions for 13 years - since it was finally lifted in November 2021 but it seems progress may finally being made.
After Britney's lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, previously rejected approaches from the legal teams of Jamie and Tri Star Sports and Entertainment Group to sit down to discuss issues including the 'Gimme More' singer's attorney's claim that her dad and the company misappropriated massive amounts of money from the star, he has reportedly had a change of heart around a month ago.
According to TMZ, Mathew offered to end the dispute for a figure of around $7 million, but reached an impasse when he declined to explained to Tri Star and Jamie's teams as to how he had arrived at that figure.
People are also reading…
However, both stars are still open to settling and a source told the outlet that as recently as this week, the lawyer contacted Tri Star to press ahead with a possible settlement, though the exact amount remains a sticking point.
In July, a judge ruled Britney won't have to sit for a deposition because it is "unlikely to provide any discoverable information".
Judge Brenda Penny said: "There exist alternative and less burdensome means to seek information."
Britney's lawyer praised the ruling at the time.
He said: "We are very pleased, but not surprised, that Judge Penny reconfirmed her thoughtful and legally correct ruling, once again rejecting Mr. Spears's shameful and desperate effort to take his own daughter's deposition.
"Any decent man, especially father, would accept his losses and simply move on."
Jamie's attorney Alex Weingarten said: "Mr. Spears did right by his daughter. The conservatorship was for her benefit ... the truth will come out."
Rosengart had previously claimed an attempt to push Britney into a deposition was "retaliatory" and "abusing the legal process".