Big East Countersues Wvu In Rhode Island Court

[gabect]

I'm not a lawyer and even I saw that coming...

Suing to make them abide by the conference by-laws and stay till 2014.

 

[gars44]

I'm not a lawyer and even I saw that coming...

Suing to make them abide by the conference by-laws and stay till 2014.

Well, I'll be danged. I still think they're outta here, however. I hope I'm wrong. Because if some type of monetary settlement is not reached, it's gonna get real ugly, real fast.

 

[SAMCRO]

They'll be outta here once the BE has assurances the AQ status is all good going forward, we have a replacement team lined up for '12, and they fork over a big check with 8 digits to the left of the decimal point, and starts with a 2 or a 3.

 

[gabect]

I don't think we'll actually keep them until 2014. We just need them long enough to rebuild / maintain BCS AQ.

 

[gars44]

They'll be outta here once the BE has assurances the AQ status is all good going forward, we have a replacement team lined up for '12, and they fork over a big check with 8 digits to the left of the decimal point, and starts with a 2 or a 3.

If it's going to cost them that kind of money, they may slug it out in court instead. Not to the rest of the world, but to the crazy junkies on this board - and a select few others - it will be like nirvana. Can't wait for those ESPN executive depositions to get started.

 

[businesslawyer]

1. Big East filed in State Court in RI. There is no statement in the papers that all members agreed that all disputes would be resolved in any one court. The jurisdiction part of this may be tricky, and I don't pretend to have expertise in that area.

2. Big East filing was made by a RI firm I've never heard of, but Covington & Burling, a large, national firm based out of DC, was on the brief as "of counsel." So they are probably the lead counsel, and they are big guns.

3. Papers are much better prepared than WVU's are, and the case they make is clean, easy to follow and, frankly, hard to argue against.

4. That having been said, the reasons given to require specific performance by WVU, as opposed to monetary damages, was not the BCS bid but the fact that CBS and ESPN get to renegotiate TV contracts if any member leaves during the term. Because the BCS bid was not mentioned, you should assume that, despite how many times it has been reported, the "eight teams for two years" rule does not exist, and that the BCS bid will not be threatened by WVU's departure. (I don't mean threatened when the criteria are renegotiated -- just that it won't be threatened merely by the Suckeneers departure). That is, in fact, a plausible case for equitable relief, but it is not nearly as strong a case as if the BCS bid was threatened. Will that argument be made later -- who knows.

That's all for now. See everyone in the parking lots.

 

[epark88]

Word on the street: former WVU prez Hardesty was the point-man for crafting the 27-month waiting period. If so, the 'Eers don't have a leg to stand on.

's about to get real...

 

[huskypantz]

Hmmmm, to BL's point #3 - that was a really easy read for a non-lawyer and after reading it I can't possibly understand why Eers fans would be dismissing this response.

 

[gabect]

Yep, agreed. This lawsuit is not going to train you in learning BL-speak, which is a good thing. For those interested, the full text is here. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/04/big-east-countersuit-against-wvu/

 

[upstater]

1. Big East filed in State Court in RI. There is no statement in the papers that all members agreed that all disputes would be resolved in any one court. The jurisdiction part of this may be tricky, and I don't pretend to have expertise in that area.

2. Big East filing was made by a RI firm I've never heard of, but Covington & Burling, a large, national firm based out of DC, was on the brief as "of counsel." So they are probably the lead counsel, and they are big guns.

3. Papers are much better prepared than WVU's are, and the case they make is clean, easy to follow and, frankly, hard to argue against.

4. That having been said, the reasons given to require specific performance by WVU, as opposed to monetary damages, was not the BCS bid but the fact that CBS and ESPN get to renegotiate TV contracts if any member leaves during the term. Because the BCS bid was not mentioned, you should assume that, despite how many times it has been reported, the "eight teams for two years" rule does not exist, and that the BCS bid will not be threatened by WVU's departure. (I don't mean threatened when the criteria are renegotiated -- just that it won't be threatened merely by the Suckeneers departure). That is, in fact, a plausible case for equitable relief, but it is not nearly as strong a case as if the BCS bid was threatened. Will that argument be made later -- who knows.

That's all for now. See everyone in the parking lots.

About #4, part of the WV suit was that the BCS bid is in jeapordy. I assume that the BE did not omit the same argument simply because it would have reinforced one of WV's arguments. In other words, the BE would not have made the BCS bid argument regardless of WVs suit.

 

[CL82]

Yep, agreed. This lawsuit is not going to train you in learning BL-speak, which is a good thing. For those interested, the full text is here. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/04/big-east-countersuit-against-wvu/

Thanks for the link. I agree that it is a much better complaint than WVU's in both the quality of the arguments and the quality of the writing.

 

[Stinger92860]

I am not po'd with wvu. However, I hope that BC, Cuse, Pitt and Miami burn in hell.......

 

[noeynox]

I am not po'd with wvu. However, I hope that BC, Cuse, Pitt and Miami burn in hell.......

Screw BC, but WVU is attempting to burn us a hell of a lot worse than Pitt and SU. The Big East has an exit policy that Pitt/SU are willing to abide by. WVU is attempting to blow that out the water. If WVU is allowed to leave through the courts than I can't Imagine Pitt and SU being force to stay. If all three are allowed to leave we are phucked, since it seems no teams will be coming before 2013. How exactly are the rest of us supposed to fill out our schedules?

 

[Excalibur]

1. Big East filed in State Court in RI. There is no statement in the papers that all members agreed that all disputes would be resolved in any one court. The jurisdiction part of this may be tricky, and I don't pretend to have expertise in that area.

2. Big East filing was made by a RI firm I've never heard of, but Covington & Burling, a large, national firm based out of DC, was on the brief as "of counsel." So they are probably the lead counsel, and they are big guns.

3. Papers are much better prepared than WVU's are, and the case they make is clean, easy to follow and, frankly, hard to argue against.

4. That having been said, the reasons given to require specific performance by WVU, as opposed to monetary damages, was not the BCS bid but the fact that CBS and ESPN get to renegotiate TV contracts if any member leaves during the term. Because the BCS bid was not mentioned, you should assume that, despite how many times it has been reported, the "eight teams for two years" rule does not exist, and that the BCS bid will not be threatened by WVU's departure. (I don't mean threatened when the criteria are renegotiated -- just that it won't be threatened merely by the Suckeneers departure). That is, in fact, a plausible case for equitable relief, but it is not nearly as strong a case as if the BCS bid was threatened. Will that argument be made later -- who knows.

That's all for now. See everyone in the parking lots.

C&B must be lead counsel, but Joe Cavanagh is well known in RI. RI courts are a notorious "old boys'" club. You need an insider. Funny to see that both B&C partners on the brief are BCU grads

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on #4. I've already put forth my theory on why the loss of the BCS bid itself is not a good basis for specific performance -- that it has definite value. The amount of loss of TV revenue is much more uncertain, and the BE can raise a very good argument that the harm will be irreparable.

 

[huskymedic]

I don't think we'll actually keep them until 2014. We just need them long enough to rebuild / maintain BCS AQ.

I was thinking same thing... IF Boise comes to NBE, it's reported not to be until 2013. Swap Boise and WVU in 2013 and big $$$ exit fee from WVU and be done with it..

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

This is a wild tangent, but I'll mention it. Could be wishful thinking...

Why would the exiting schools give a crap about so carefully abiding by the rules unless they had something strategic to gain from doing so? WVU doesn't have anything to lose by disregarding any previous arrangements (depending on how much you value a few mil in court costs). They have everything to gain from just cutting all ties and burning every bridge. So does the Big XII.

There's something going on in the backroom that UConn is in on. And WVU is not in on. The ACC is aiding the protection of at least one team still left. I think it's the Huskies.

 

[BlueDolphin]

Can one of the lawyers help me with this? Does this countersuit help get this thing out of the WV state courts? With one suit filed in WV and the other in RI, I would think that increases the likelihood that it ends up in federal court.

Don't want this thing decided by some judge wearing a coonskin cap and a WV jersey.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Screw BC, but WVU is attempting to burn us a hell of a lot worse than Pitt and SU. The Big East has an exit policy that Pitt/SU are willing to abide by. WVU is attempting to blow that out the water. If WVU is allowed to leave through the courts than I can't Imagine Pitt and SU being force to stay. If all three are allowed to leave we are phucked, since it seems no teams will be coming before 2013. How exactly are the rest of us supposed to fill out our schedules?

I think it's interesting that the conference did not mention whether Pitt & SU departing would have brought about a renegotiation of fees downward by ESPN - you think it would, if WVU would. Leaving that out is going to look kind of obvious. I think the Big East was trying hard not to be too provocative with its response - no mention of BCS status, no mention of ESPN as the force behind the breakup of the conference. Big East is trying to play nice. I guess them filing separately in Rhode Island is try to use consolidation of actions as a means of getting into federal court somewhere but West Virginia. WVU, it would seem, ought to remove to federal court in WV and move to consolidate the actions before the Big East does in a venue of their choosing - Washington, where the Big East is incorporated, would be a convenient place if you wanted every politician to get up in front of TV and pontificate if their state is affected. I can't see ESPN wanting that. Not sure WVU would either; they'd probably prefer local courts, where their complaint might not look so laughably bad. Even then, there could be interesting issues about where a state may be sued.

Just to make one point clear, before BusinessLawyer certainly shows up in a few minutes to call me a fool - I still think that this is a PR problem more than it's a legal problem, at this point. And I think the party with the most to lose right now remains ESPN. And for that reason, ESPN is going to wind up giving the Big East a lot of money, like they did with the Big 12 when it almost broke apart a few years ago.

ESPN tried to downgrade the Big East, once the Big East turned down its lowball offer and threatened to go to NBC / Comcast. ESPN has to keep that argument out of the courts or its currently dominant role in college sports could take a big hit. The question is, will Marinatto fight dirty against the Big East to protect his conference? I don't think he has the personality to do it, personally, and will wind up taking an improved offer that ESPN will likely make to the Big East when the reshuffling is done.

 

[SAMCRO]

Matt, there is no reason to mention SyraPitt. WVU is the only entity attempting to violate the contract with the BE.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The bylaws did not have jurisdiction in them. Every first year associate knows to put jurisdiction into a contract. It is possible that jurisdiction is in the Articles of Incorporation.

 

[freescooter]

Even scrufty little contracts I work with for a few thousand bucks have jurisdictional language...but as you say it could be in the bylaws.

Friar j is right about the RI courts. Having a local lawyer is almost imperative. whe I lived there a while back, the Speaker of the State House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were brothers and their cousin was Lt Governor. Rhode Island isn't like other states...firs to fall its kind of like a big city where everybody knows everybody else. I has barely 1 million people but unlike other states with small populations, they are crammed into a pretty small area. It ranks something like 48th in population but 2nd in population density. When I lived there my car broke down on I95 one time...I'm walking along the highway to the nearest exist and the Governor pulls up, says "Hop in...where you heading?" drove me home AND sent someone to take care of my car. Gave me a staff member's number if I needed a ride to pick it up the next day...

 

[IthacaMatt]

The bylaws did not have jurisdiction in them. Every first year associate knows to put jurisdiction into a contract. It is possible that jurisdiction is in the Articles of Incorporation.

They've never lawyered up properly. I'll bet they got their pants negotiated off against the broadcast networks over the years. They didn't even form a business entity until the league was 24 years old and had been raided. That's just not smart. That has always been Providence's problem. They think it's their league, and they think and act small time.

 

[Scalito]

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis on #4. I've already put forth my theory on why the loss of the BCS bid itself is not a good basis for specific performance -- that it has definite value. The amount of loss of TV revenue is much more uncertain, and the BE can raise a very good argument that the harm will be irreparable.

Three lawyers, three opinions....

I disagree that the Big East's complaint mostly relies on the potential need to re-negotiate existing television contracts as the basis for specific performance. And for good reason too. There is a not-so-quick but rather easy way to determine the amount of lost television revenue from current contracts: wait and see what the new contract is and then calculate the difference. This case could take over a year or more to resolve and the need for speculation on actual monetary damages (as a result of renegotiation of the existing contract at least) would have passed if the court refused to preliminarily enjoin WVU's exit.

That being said, I am more hopeful after reading the complaint that a court will order specific performance in this case. The fact that WVU and all of the other schools agreed in advance that non-compliance with the Big East's withdrawal procedures would cause the conference irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy at law is available seems like powerful stuff to me. The schools basically agreed in advance that conference mates possess unique attributes that cannot be adequately replaced through re-scheduling, and whose loss cannot be compensated with money damages. A court may find it difficult to disagree with WVU's advance judgment of its own case.

 

[James Turner]

I am an attorney and am familar with contract law, some of you might not like what I am about to say there is good and bad news. First the bad, WVU will get the case heard in WV after a little research I have found that the state of WV has a statute written into their constitution, saying that they or any agent of WV can only be sued in WV court, R.I. will honor this as it is required to do so by the 11th amendement to the US constitution, the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause. As for moving it to federal court that is also prohibited and in WVUs case was upheld only 4 yrs ago in the case of Rodriguez v WVU. A federal court held that WVU was a part of the state of WV and immune from suit in any court except their own, now the good news a R.I. court probably would not order specific performance anyway. In fact I doubt any court would that is usually reserved for real estate, plus every damage the BE sets out in their suit can be fixed with money and specific performance would only be granted if they were no other way i.e we will lose our BCS bid if WVU is allowed to leave early or if WVU leaves we will cease to be a conference. Any of the concerns they laid out can be paid in damages i.e. the t.v. contracts once renegotiated WVU would pay the BE conference the difference. Scheduling WVU will be forced to buyout any games on schedules already set. After reading the BE suit it looks to me like it was written to be used as leverage but dont worry even a WV court will hold them responsible for damages, I would bet some negotiations are going on now or more papers would have already been filed. The end result WVU will leave in 2012 but it will cost them about 25 mill.