[外電] Atlanta Spirit torn apart

看板Hawks作者sssfrost (神遊物外)時間19年前 (2006/06/14 14:28)推噓2(2推 0噓 1→)

留言3則, 3人參與討論串1/1

Atlanta Spirit torn apart Judge gives Belkin 30 days for buyout, but quick end unlikely By TIM TUCKER / Published on: 06/14/06 The Maryland judge who last week ruled that Steve Belkin has the right to buy out his partners in the Hawks' and Thrashers' ownership group issued an amended order Tuesday that said Belkin is entitled to do so within 30 days. Belkin 被賦予在三十天之內把老鷹跟 Thrashers 買下來的權利。 In last week's order, the judge had left out, apparently inadvertently, the timeframe. 這是法官在上禮拜設定好的時間。 The amended order does not necessarily mean, however, that Belkin will take over the teams within a month. The other owners — a group led by Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, Michael Gearon Jr. and Rutherford Seydel — have said they will appeal the decision, and that likely would lead to a stay of the order. 但這不代表 Belkin 必然能於三十天內掌控球隊，其他老闆已經表明要上訴。他們應該還是可以掌握球隊。 Suffice to say, questions still permeate the case. 這案子還有很多很多問題待解決。 Q: What happens next? 問：接下來會怎樣？ A: The owners on the losing side of the Montgomery County (Md.) Circuit Court decision have 30 days to file notice of intent to appeal to Maryland's Court of Special Appeals. Eventually, both sides would file briefs, oral arguments would be heard, and the court would consider whether Circuit Court Judge Eric Johnson committed legal error. The appeals court could reverse or modify the ruling and could send the case back to Johnson for further proceedings. Or it could uphold his ruling. 答：其他合夥人將有三十天的時間向馬里蘭特別上訴法院請求上訴。上訴法院將裁決 Eric Johnson 的判決是否有誤；他們可以支持、修正或發回重審。 Q: So how long would all of that take? 問：大概要多久的時間？ A: Probably six to 12 months. 答：差不多六到十二個月。 Q: And who would own and run the teams during the appeals process? 問：上訴審理期間，誰能擁有球隊？ A: After filing notice of appeal, the owners other than Belkin would ask the circuit court to stay last week's ruling, in effect maintaining the status quo within the ownership group during the appeals process. Such stays are routinely granted, lawyers say, but the judge could require that the other owners post a bond to protect Belkin against any decline in the value of the franchises during appeals. 答：完成請求上訴的動作後，期於合夥人將要求法院維持現狀；此要求通常會被接受，但是法官可以要求其他發債券給Belkin，以確保Belkin 持有股份的價值不會於上訴期間減損。 Q: If the Court of Special Appeals upholds the ruling, is the case over? 問：如果上訴法院支持判決，案子就結束了媽？ A: Not necessarily. The decision could be appealed further to Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, which would have the option of hearing or not hearing the case. 答：不一定。可以再上訴到馬里蘭最高法院，他們將決定是否審理。 Q: Even though a court has ruled that Belkin's partners breached their agreement to buy him out and that he now is entitled to buy them out at cost instead, the NBA and NHL constitutions say a team can't change owners without league approval. Would that apply in this case? 問：NBA 以及 NHL 官方可以阻擋Belkin 的買回行動，因為那沒有得到他們的允許嗎？ A: Yes, a purchase by Belkin of his partners' stakes would require the approval of 75 percent of each league's board of governors. 答：可以。Belkin的購買行動需得到聯盟百分之七時五的管理委員同意（board of governors）。 Q: And what would happen if last week's ruling is upheld by the appeals court but one or both of the leagues don't approve Belkin as sole owner? 問：那如果 NBA 或 NHL 不同意 Belkin 作為球隊的唯一所有人會怎樣？ A: Sounds like more litigation. 答：多打幾場訴訟吧。 Q: The court said Belkin is entitled to buy the other owners' stakes for their "aggregate contributed capital," or cost. How much would that be? 問：什麼是Belkin 可以用「aggregate contributed capital」或成本價買下球隊？ A: $31.4 million as of Jan. 25, according to an affidavit filed then by Levenson. The amount might have increased because of subsequent capital contributions. 答：一月二時五號，Levenson 的口供書說這個價值為31.4M。此值可能隨接下來投入的資本而增加。 Q: Didn't an appraiser put the value of Belkin's 30 percent stake at about $140 million? 問：不是說有一個估價人認為 Belkin 的三成股份有 140M 的價值？ A: Yes, that was the value put on Belkin's stake by JP Morgan Securities in a December appraisal. A November appraisal by CitiGroup put the value at $88 million. 答：是，那是 JP Morgan Securities 再十二月的估價行動中宣稱的。十一月 CitiGroup 的估價為 88M。 Q: So . . . because the other owners didn't pay Belkin as much as $140 million for his one-third stake . . . they could be required to sell their two-thirds stake to him for as little as $31.4 million? 問：所以說因為其他人不願意付他 140M 買他三成股份，所以要把七成股份用 31.4M 賣給他？ A: Yes. 答：你得到他了。 Q: How could that be? 問：還有天理嗎？ A: In last summer's purchase-and-sale agreement under which Belkin was to have been bought out, the other owners agreed to pay him "fair market value" for his stake as determined by a series of up to three appraisals. But the agreement also said that if the other owners failed to complete the buyout, Belkin instead could buy them out for "aggregate contributed capital." The judge ruled last week that the other owners breached the agreement when they "failed and refused" to participate in the joint engagement of a third appraiser and that they "failed to perform" their obligation to buy out Belkin, triggering his right to buy them out. "Judicially sanctioned theft," the other owners called it in an earlier court filing. 答：因為去年夏天合夥人與 Belkin 達成的協議中，其他人願意付 Be- lkin手上股份的市值；此市值由三次估價來決定（可以想成仲裁）。然後協議裡也說了如果買斷失敗，Belkin有權用成本價買他們的股份。現在法官認定其他合夥人在第三次估價行動中沒有好好配合，所以造成這樣的情況。 Q: What would be the grounds for an appeal? 問：那麼上訴根據何在？ A: The owners on the losing side of the circuit court decision haven't said anything about their appeals strategy beyond calling Friday's ruling "wrong, both on the law and on the facts." One crucial issue before the court was who had the right to retain the second appraiser in the buyout process. Last summer's agreement said either party objecting to the results of the first appraisal had the right to retain the second appraiser — but did not stipulate what would happen if both sides objected to the first appraisal, as they did. The judge ruled that since Belkin objected first — one minute after the appraisal was received — he had the right to hire the second appraiser despite having retained the first. The other owners argued that the purchase-and-sale agreement did not contemplate any such "race to object." They also had sought to more fully explore numerous issues, including the fairness and accuracy of the appraisals, before the court decided the case. The judge wrote in last week's ruling: "Should defendants truly feel that the valuations . . . fail to comport with the terms of the [purchase-and-sale agreement], then defendants are free to pursue a cause of action against the entities who actually performed the valuations." 答：其他合夥人還沒說，但他們表示法官的判決在法律面與事實面都是錯的。其中一個重要問題是，誰有權聘第二位估價人。去年夏天的協議裡說反對第一次估價的那一方都有權，但沒有說如果兩造都反對誰有權。法官說由於 Belkin 反對的比較快，所以他有權，即使第一個估價人也是他請的（..）。其他合夥人主張，當初的協議可不是在比誰反對的比較快（或是競相玩反對的遊戲）。（下略）資料來源 http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/sports/hawks/stories/0614ownership.html -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.230.38.130