(04-23-2013 07:09 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 06:21 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 05:47 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  GOR doesn't affect Maryland one iota. They announced they were leaving before it was voted on, so it doesn't apply to them.

The ACC might be more willing to settle now.

Doubtful.
Unfortunately for Maryland, they will be the "lesson" .

I think you're going to be disappointed.

(04-23-2013 06:21 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 05:47 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  GOR doesn't affect Maryland one iota. They announced they were leaving before it was voted on, so it doesn't apply to them.

The ACC might be more willing to settle now.

Yep, for ~$52M, give or take $2-$4M.

Dafuq Uncle Sam got to do with this discussion?

ND is probably not too thrilled about walking into a conference with a pending $150 MM counter-suit.

Now that they've got the GoR that they should have done in the first place, received a better TV deal and have ND on board, the exit fee is looking more punitive to me. Not sure what a judge might think, but it seems like Maryland lawyers could have a good time with this in front of a jury. Is there any way the "poor" ACC would let this go in front of a jury?

A little "discovery" would be interesting to learn what ND's terms are. Or will we know that anyway?

(04-23-2013 09:14 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  ND is probably not too thrilled about walking into a conference with a pending $150 MM counter-suit.

Now that they've got the GoR that they should have done in the first place, received a better TV deal and have ND on board, the exit fee is looking more punitive to me. Not sure what a judge might think, but it seems like Maryland lawyers could have a good time with this in front of a jury. Is there any way the "poor" ACC would let this go in front of a jury?

A little "discovery" would be interesting to learn what ND's terms are. Or will we know that anyway?

This might vary by jurisdiction, but I know that in many, if not all jurisdictions, after-the-fact results are irrelevant, so the "evidence" wouldn't make it to a jury. In many, if not all jurisdictions, the integrity of the clause hinges on how the agreement looked at the time that it was signed and there is a strong argument that it looked reasonable at the time. Many believed that a major charter member's defection would sink the conference and/or seriously damage the payout. That belief was supplemented by a belief that UMD added an especially high value to the conference (clearly the B1G believed this).

Anyway, refusing to sign such an agreement because you are in secret talks with another conference is on the verge of "bad faith," which would block any remedy in equity and completely sink UMD's case.

Now that the ACC has a GoR as well, they might be more willing to "let UMD leave early" for a nominal fee in excess of the buyout, or get creative with the payment schedule, so both sides can claim a victory. However, the ACC does have a very solid case. I can assure you that the lawyers who drafted the contract were very good and knew that there was a very high likelihood that their clause would come under attack.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that UMD's lawyers are very good, too. But they didn't have the advantage of "choosing their ground" by writing the contract.

(04-23-2013 09:14 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  ND is probably not too thrilled about walking into a conference with a pending $150 MM counter-suit.

Now that they've got the GoR that they should have done in the first place, received a better TV deal and have ND on board, the exit fee is looking more punitive to me. Not sure what a judge might think, but it seems like Maryland lawyers could have a good time with this in front of a jury. Is there any way the "poor" ACC would let this go in front of a jury?

A little "discovery" would be interesting to learn what ND's terms are. Or will we know that anyway?

I sincerely doubt ND is concerned about discovery or the 150 mm counter-suit. We all know that counter-suit by Maryland is BS and was done to try to force the ACC to settle.

(04-23-2013 09:14 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  ND is probably not too thrilled about walking into a conference with a pending $150 MM counter-suit.

Now that they've got the GoR that they should have done in the first place, received a better TV deal and have ND on board, the exit fee is looking more punitive to me. Not sure what a judge might think, but it seems like Maryland lawyers could have a good time with this in front of a jury. Is there any way the "poor" ACC would let this go in front of a jury?

A little "discovery" would be interesting to learn what ND's terms are. Or will we know that anyway?

"discovery" goes both ways, the ACC can find out how far back Maryland was in talks with the B1G. that's why most court cases end up getting settled out of court because generally speaking both sides have something to lose. it will be interesting to see if the ACC is now more willing to settle or if they want to continue the process

My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

you could say the same thing for Maryland & with the ACC's membership now firmly in place they are in a no lose situation. the worst thing that can happen now is the exit fee getting reduced.

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

They absolutely do. It's in North Carolina. Who do you think is going to be on the jury?

(04-23-2013 10:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

They absolutely do. It's in North Carolina. Who do you think is going to be on the jury?

If their only choice is North Carolina judge vs. jury I think they want jury.

I'm thinking they might pull the infamous "defendant is guilty, we award plaintiff a dollar". The threat of that will probably keep the trail from not happening.

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

I have been told that the ACC lawyers would be happy to go to trial with this case, it's the Maryland side that should be quaking in their boots.

(04-23-2013 10:57 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

They absolutely do. It's in North Carolina. Who do you think is going to be on the jury?

If their only choice is North Carolina judge vs. jury I think they want jury.

I'm thinking they might pull the infamous "defendant is guilty, we award plaintiff a dollar". The threat of that will probably keep the trail from not happening.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I won't try to rob you of that, but I think that the ACC stands on fairly solid footing. however, I honestly don't care. We are talking about a one-time payment of $3.5 million/school, and nothing more. The world will go on either way. UMD will be able to pay the $52 million from their membership in the B1G if UMD loses, and the ACC will be just fine w/o UMD's money, and it won't cause anyone to jump ship in the ACC loses.

I'm thinking many of you didn't pass 1L contracts.

You can have a "penalty" for breaching a contract but the penalty has to be reasonable and bear some relationship to the financial loss and costs of the breach.

The ACC set $50 million as an arbitary number to deter anyone from leaving. The number is unreasobaly high in comparison to the damages experienced.

The ACC is gaining income with Maryland's departure.

No way $50 million survives. If it goes to court the ACC won't get remotely close to that number. To avoid the time and expense involved it will almost certainly settle. My guess is it will be $20 million (amount paid by Big 10) plus attorney fees and costs of the ACC.

(04-23-2013 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm thinking many of you didn't pass 1L contracts.

You can have a "penalty" for breaching a contract but the penalty has to be reasonable and bear some relationship to the financial loss and costs of the breach.

The ACC set $50 million as an arbitary number to deter anyone from leaving. The number is unreasobaly high in comparison to the damages experienced.

The ACC is gaining income with Maryland's departure.

No way $50 million survives. If it goes to court the ACC won't get remotely close to that number. To avoid the time and expense involved it will almost certainly settle. My guess is it will be $20 million (amount paid by Big 10) plus attorney fees and costs of the ACC.

Look, I don't personally represent athletic conferences or universities.

But, my law firm represents the Superdome Commission (Superdome, New Orleans Arena, Zephyr Field) in New Orleans and the Tiger Athletic Foundation and the LSU Foundation in Baton Rouge.

I have also been a litigator for over 26 years. So, my guess is that (since over 95% of all civil cases settle because litigants don't like to leave their fate in the hands of 12 strangers), this case will settle fairly quickly (within 4-6 months).

It is not because the parties "fear discovery". That is a hugely overblown idea.

It is because this litigation is largely irrelevant now that the ACC has signed a GOR and because trials are a huge gamble and a huge, stressful pain in the ass (plus very expensive).

I still say it will settle at between $25-27 million or so. But, hell, just is just a semi-literate, semi-educated guess on my part.

I am fairly sure that it will settle. I am not as certain on the $$ number.

(04-23-2013 11:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm thinking many of you didn't pass 1L contracts.

You can have a "penalty" for breaching a contract but the penalty has to be reasonable and bear some relationship to the financial loss and costs of the breach.

The ACC set $50 million as an arbitary number to deter anyone from leaving. The number is unreasobaly high in comparison to the damages experienced.

The ACC is gaining income with Maryland's departure.

No way $50 million survives. If it goes to court the ACC won't get remotely close to that number. To avoid the time and expense involved it will almost certainly settle. My guess is it will be $20 million (amount paid by Big 10) plus attorney fees and costs of the ACC.

Look, I don't personally represent athletic conferences or universities.

But, my law firm represents the Superdome Commission (Superdome, New Orleans Arena, Zephyr Field) in New Orleans and the Tiger Athletic Foundation and the LSU Foundation in Baton Rouge.

I have also been a litigator for over 26 years. So, my guess is that (since over 95% of all civil cases settle because litigants don't like to leave their fate in the hands of 12 strangers), this case will settle fairly quickly (within 4-6 months).

It is not because the parties "fear discovery". That is a hugely overblown idea.

It is because this litigation is largely irrelevant now that the ACC has signed a GOR and because trials are a huge gamble and a huge, stressful pain in the ass (plus very expensive).

I still say it will settle at between $25-27 million or so. But, hell, just is just a semi-literate, semi-educated guess on my part.

I am fairly sure that it will settle. I am not as certain on the $$ number.

So we are basically within a few dollars on the guess.

(04-23-2013 01:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We borrow .40 cents out of every dollar the US government spends. So by definition, no government program is currently solvent.

But by definition, the Social Security system can never be insolvent, since if Congress grants total Social Security entitlements that are in excess of the Social Security trustees ability to pay, the Social Security trustees operate on a pay as you go basis, so the Social Security system's obligations are capped at Social Security's ability to pay. Unlike a bond obligation, if the rules say someone is "owed" $400, and the trust fund proceeds are 90% of total entitlements, the trust fund is only obliged to pay $360.

But now that you raise the point, there is indeed a sense in which this is similar to the difference between a Grant of Rights and an Exit Fee. An exit fee imposes an explicit cost on a school as a result of the decision to exit. That would be akin to a company, household, or state or local government that has an outstanding debt obligation, which is insolvent if they do not have the liquid means to meet that obligation at the time that it falls due. A Grant of Rights is executed at the time of the Grant and for the period of the Grant, and does not impose any new penalties on a school as a result of leaving, though it does modify the value of the school to another conference that might be inclined to invite the school if it still had unencumbered rights to its games.

(04-23-2013 11:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

I have been told that the ACC lawyers would be happy to go to trial with this case, it's the Maryland side that should be quaking in their boots.

I've been told the exact opposite.

Ok, now it's your turn!

[/i]

(04-23-2013 12:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

I have been told that the ACC lawyers would be happy to go to trial with this case, it's the Maryland side that should be quaking in their boots.

I've been told the exact opposite.

Ok, now it's your turn!

I've been told that the lawyers of both sides are happy to go to trial (think of the Xmas bonuses!), but the actual parties of both sides are quaking in their boots (think of the lawyers' xmas bonuses!).

(04-23-2013 10:29 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

you could say the same thing for Maryland & with the ACC's membership now firmly in place they are in a no lose situation. the worst thing that can happen now is the exit fee getting reduced.

Before the ACC was in a no win situation. Now its ripe for settlement. The more it drags on the more in attorney's fees and the more the risk they get nothing. Maryland is in the no lose situation. ACC is withholding funds and there's no way they pay $52 million. Only risk for Maryland is that they too will have attorney's fees.

(04-23-2013 11:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  My main point is that it would seem to me that the ACC would under no circumstances want this to become a jury trial.

I have been told that the ACC lawyers would be happy to go to trial with this case, it's the Maryland side that should be quaking in their boots.

They have definitely said that, but no one independent agrees with them.