[外電] New salvo in Hawks/Thrashers owners' …
New salvo in Hawks/Thrashers owners' battle
Atlanta Spirit feud: A new court filing could bring a quicker
resolution to the dispute
By TIM TUCKER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/12/06
The Hawks' and Thrashers' ownership dispute is working its way up
the legal ladder.
Saying a Maryland Circuit Court turned "upside down" their
agreement to buy out part-owner Steve Belkin, the teams' other
owners are asking Maryland's highest court to review the case.
In a new court filing, they ask the Maryland Court of Appeals —
the equivalent of Georgia's Supreme Court — to hear the case
earlier than it ordinarily would "not just because of the
important legal issues presented [but also because] these two
major professional sports teams are operating under a cloud of
uncertainty that hurts the teams, their players, fans, employees
and management, as well as the NBA and NHL."
Part-owners Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, Michael Gearon Jr. and
Rutherford Seydel are appealing a June ruling by Montgomery County
(Md.) Circuit Court Judge Eric Johnson that Belkin has the right
to buy them out at cost because they missed various deadlines in
a contract to buy him out.
"Through a series of unprecedented and extraordinary rulings, the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County turned the contract upside
down, resulting in what the court itself recognized was an
'illogical and unfair' outcome,' " states the petition to the
appeals court.
The petition says the Circuit Court's ruling "invoked a draconian
forfeiture penalty provision that gave Belkin a windfall worth
hundreds of millions of dollars, stripped the majority owners of
all interest in their teams and gave Belkin unfettered right to
pursue his avowed goal of purging the teams' management."
In July, Johnson stayed his ruling pending appeal, essentially
allowing the non-Belkin owners to maintain control of the
franchises for now. Belkin holds one-third of the Atlanta Spirit
ownership group's voting control, while the other owners
collectively hold two-thirds.
But unless an appeals court overturns Johnson's ruling, Belkin
eventually will be in position to buy out his partners and take
over the teams.
There are two appellate courts in Maryland: the Court of Special
Appeals and the Court of Appeals. Appeals of Circuit Court rulings
or verdicts typically are heard first by the Court of Special
Appeals, but the higher court, the Court of Appeals, has the power
to take jurisdiction over a case before it is considered by the
Court of Special Appeals. That's what is being sought in this
case, in hopes of shortening somewhat an already protracted legal
process.
The petition to the Court of Appeals says the case "by any measure
... constitutes one of the largest and most significant commercial
contract fights brought in the Maryland courts."
The Court of Appeals is expected to decide within 60 days whether
to take the case or leave it to the Court of Special Appeals.
In August 2005, amid a bitter dispute over the Hawks' trade for
guard Joe Johnson, Belkin and the other owners signed an agreement
under which Belkin was to have sold his 30 percent stake in the
franchises for a price to be determined by a series of up to
three appraisals. The agreement allowed Belkin to hire the first
appraiser and said either party objecting to that appraisal could
hire a second appraiser. It did not stipulate what would happen
if both parties objected to the first appraisal, which they did.
"This material omission lies at the heart of this case," states
the petition to the appeals court.
The non-Belkin owners are asking the appeals court to review a
series of Circuit Court rulings that they call "erroneous and
illogical":
‧ The ruling that Belkin had the right to choose the second
appraiser because he objected fastest to the results of the first,
even though the other owners say the original agreement
contemplated no such "race to object";
‧ Not permitting them to question the fairness of the "race to
object" or the appraisals;
‧ The ruling that imposed "a ruinous forfeiture penalty" for
their failure to pay Belkin a "disputed purchase price" while
litigation was pending.
Asked about the appeal, Belkin replied by e-mail: "No comment til
this is concluded." The other owners declined to comment beyond
their court filing.
They have added new counsel for the appeal, Baltimore lawyer
Mitchell Mirviss of the firm Venable LLP.
The dispute is in Maryland courts because the August 2005
agreement between Belkin and the other owners stipulated that any
disputes would be litigated there.
資料來源
http://0rz.tw/b11X8
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 219.80.121.139
Hawks 近期熱門文章
PTT體育區 即時熱門文章
