OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

[huskymedic]

LOL…

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Rufus]

LOL…

This tweet seriously made me lol!

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[huskymedic]

 

[How Sway?!]

From the questioning, definitely looks like FSU is grasping at straws here

 

[Patman]

From the questioning, definitely looks like FSU is grasping at straws here

Not a shock. This was always a gambit and while keeping the GOR out of public was also one it was done to keep the PUBLIC from finding out, not the schools. They knew this when they signed it

 

[billybud]

David Hale is an ESPN writer. A corporate shill.

 

[How Sway?!]

David Hale is an ESPN writer. A corporate shill.

Is the judge that is asking the questions also a corporate shill?

 

[The Yakk]

Looks like FSU's silly "ultra vires" argument is going down the toilet where it belongs.

Things not going very well for them here. Settlement payment to leave the conference likely to be a hell of a lot higher than they hoped. My guess is $250 milly plus the conference exit fee.

Will they really make enough in their next conference to be worth the settlement? Will Clemson?

 

[billybud]

Is the judge that is asking the questions also a corporate shill?

Nope...but the reporting of the proceedings is shaded by those who want to shade it...I am going to reply in my usual even handed manner (LOL)...and all may not gather the same impressions reviewing the same proceeding...at this point, it is predicting based on clouds in the coffee.

I review the proceedings on ian ssue by issue basis as critiqued by several lawyers...and even there, you will have differences...The judge seems even handed...

Jurisdiction.....This is about whether NC can exercise power over FSU in that state. This is usually based on whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of that power. All states have what is called a “long arm” statute that sets out how this is evaluated. Those are based on a series of USSC cases deciding the scope of such jurisdiction. However, this basic idea is not what was argued. The ACC made other arguments about FSU being a member of a NC non-profit would mean it is subjected to jurisdiction.

FSU’s argument on this is that it cannot be sued outside the state of Florida. I think that the ACC argued the better side of this and I think the court will reject the idea FSU cannot be sued outside the state of Florida.

Venue.....This is not about the power of the court to determine the rights of all parties to the case. It’s just about where the case should be. This is a messy area. Venue can be correct in many places, but you don’t want litigation in many places. I think the court messaged a bit that it may be willing to keep the case there in NC based on factors beyond the first filing and anticipatory suit issue (which includes the failure to vote on the filing). There are good reasons judicially to not want this issue litigated in multiple places. From the questions the judge asked, he may think it is best to keep the case and consolidate it with the ACC/Clemson suit (the same judge has been assigned both cases).

Fiduciary Duties..... The judge was only being asked about the ACC claim that FSU has a fiduciary duty to the ACC. He was not asked to address the other way. From what I read, I think the judge thinks the fiduciary duty claim in the ACC suit will not carry.

Motion to Seal.....Next was the motion to seal. ESPN is basically claiming the entire media contracts/deal is protected by trade secret rules. ESPN is claiming the whole thing is trade secret. The ACC lawyer that started this did so badly, in that the first thing she tried to do was tell the judge she was not there to talk about public records issues. But that is the issue. I felt like the judge gets this and the FSU lawyer did a good job on this. They pointed out how broad it is, that they can’t agree to a protective order under Florida law. I think the judge will either deny the motion outright or will rule that the court will protect actual trade secrets but not the whole media contract and will define a procedure for ESPN to identify what it thinks is trade secret for redaction/sealing.

it is early yet...and Clemson also filing, I think, weights this case to be consolidated in North Carolina.

 

[Rockford]

Nope...but the reporting of the proceedings is shaded by those who want to shade it...I am going to reply in my usual even handed manner (LOL)...and all may not gather the same impressions reviewing the same proceeding...at this point, it is predicting based on clouds in the coffee.

I review the proceedings on ian ssue by issue basis as critiqued by several lawyers...and even there, you will have differences...The judge seems even handed...

Jurisdiction.....This is about whether NC can exercise power over FSU in that state. This is usually based on whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of that power. All states have what is called a “long arm” statute that sets out how this is evaluated. Those are based on a series of USSC cases deciding the scope of such jurisdiction. However, this basic idea is not what was argued. The ACC made other arguments about FSU being a member of a NC non-profit would mean it is subjected to jurisdiction.

FSU’s argument on this is that it cannot be sued outside the state of Florida. I think that the ACC argued the better side of this and I think the court will reject the idea FSU cannot be sued outside the state of Florida.

Venue.....This is not about the power of the court to determine the rights of all parties to the case. It’s just about where the case should be. This is a messy area. Venue can be correct in many places, but you don’t want litigation in many places. I think the court messaged a bit that it may be willing to keep the case there in NC based on factors beyond the first filing and anticipatory suit issue (which includes the failure to vote on the filing). There are good reasons judicially to not want this issue litigated in multiple places. From the questions the judge asked, he may think it is best to keep the case and consolidate it with the ACC/Clemson suit (the same judge has been assigned both cases).

Fiduciary Duties..... The judge was only being asked about the ACC claim that FSU has a fiduciary duty to the ACC. He was not asked to address the other way. From what I read, I think the judge thinks the fiduciary duty claim in the ACC suit will not carry.

Motion to Seal.....Next was the motion to seal. ESPN is basically claiming the entire media contracts/deal is protected by trade secret rules. ESPN is claiming the whole thing is trade secret. The ACC lawyer that started this did so badly, in that the first thing she tried to do was tell the judge she was not there to talk about public records issues. But that is the issue. I felt like the judge gets this and the FSU lawyer did a good job on this. They pointed out how broad it is, that they can’t agree to a protective order under Florida law. I think the judge will either deny the motion outright or will rule that the court will protect actual trade secrets but not the whole media contract and will define a procedure for ESPN to identify what it thinks is trade secret for redaction/sealing.

it is early yet...and Clemson also filing, I think, weights this case to be consolidated in North Carolina.

Nice write up Billy B. Are you an attorney?

 

[CL82]

Looks like FSU's silly "ultra vires" argument is going down the toilet where it belongs.

Things not going very well for them here. Settlement payment to leave the conference likely to be a hell of a lot higher than they hoped. My guess is $250 milly plus the conference exit fee.

Will they really make enough in their next conference to be worth the settlement? Will Clemson?

And if that's the case, everyone bemoaning the poor ACC left behinds Is missing a critical point. They are going to be sitting on truckloads of money in that might help them have stability notwithstanding the exodus of the big boys.

 

[billybud]

Nice write up Billy B. Are you an attorney?

Nope...an old retired guy...years out of touch...yes, I was a legislative analyst and an Executive Director for Commissions for several governors , an Administrative Law Judge, legislative liaison, and lobbyist in my working days.

Like everyone 20 years retired...I have forgotten more than I knew.

 

[billybud]

Unless you are a court fan...scroll past this.

 

[Sea Goat]

When are we going to hear about the alleged chicanery involving Swofford's son and Raycom? When the merits of those claims are sorted out we'll see what is left to talk about. Swofford undeniably had a fiduciary duty to represent all members of the conference with the highest degree of loyalty. If he breached that duty while acting as ACC commissioner then FSU'S claims (and Clemson's) may have legs.

If the inception of this GOR deal was impacted by self-dealing it would be contrary to the ultimate best interests of all ACC members. Then it it may be voidable in law and/or equity.

(This should bring out the trolls...)

 

[CL82]

When are we going to hear about the alleged chicanery involving Swofford's son and Raycom? When the merits of those claims are sorted out we'll see what is left to talk about. Swofford undeniably had a fiduciary duty to represent all members of the conference with the highest degree of loyalty. If he breached that duty while acting as ACC commissioner then FSU'S claims (and Clemson's) may have legs.

If the inception of this GOR deal was impacted by self-dealing it would be contrary to the ultimate best interests of all ACC members. Then it it may be voidable in law and/or equity.

(This should bring out the trolls...)

Um, would your opinion change on that if the deal was repeatedly ratified by each member school, after they were aware that Swoffords son was employed by Raycom?

Can you selectively be offended by chicanery when it selectively suits you?

 

[The Yakk]

Um, would your opinion change on that if the deal was repeatedly ratified by each member school, after they were aware that Swoffords son was employed by Raycom?

Can you selectively be offended by chicanery when it selectively suits you?

People grasping at straws looking for any loophole to get their favorite team out of the ACC cheaply.

My favorite was that FSU's president was not authorized to sign the GOR, giving them a free out. Too funny.

If you root for Clemson or FSU or UNC and you want out, and assuming The SEC or Big10 actually want you (looking at YOU Clemson), then here is your way out:

Settle with the ACC remainders for $250 milly plus the amount of the conference exit fee.

Or, continue down the path you are on and pay an even higher settlement after you spend $30 million on lawyers and lose the litigation.

 

[Sea Goat]

Um, would your opinion change on that if the deal was repeatedly ratified by each member school, after they were aware that Swoffords son was employed by Raycom?

Can you selectively be offended by chicanery when it selectively suits you?

I'd like to hear more first. Did the Raycom deal benefit Swofford's son? If so, did the Raycom deal negatively impact the ACC's side of the deal? Was that impact disclosed with bells a whistles to all ACC members? We'll see - but a fiduciary usually cannot discharge his duty of loyalty by hoping osmosis takes over or time passes by. The duty of unfettered disclosure is affirmative and requires well publicized crystal clear disclosure. Did that happen?

 

[CL82]

I'd like to hear more first. Did the Raycom deal benefit Swofford's son? If so, did the Raycom deal negatively impact the ACC's side of the deal? Was that impact disclosed with bells a whistles to all ACC members? We'll see - but a fiduciary usually cannot discharge his duty of loyalty by hoping osmosis takes over or time passes by. The duty of unfettered disclosure is affirmative and requires well publicized crystal clear disclosure. Did that happen?

When were did the plaintiffs become aware of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty? What actions did they take it that time? Did they request an immediate remediation of any perceived deficit? Did they later re-ratify the deal with full knowledge of the alleged breach? Does the mere fact that Swoffer's son was employed by Raycom automatically create a breach of fiduciary duty? What is the amount of damages directly attributable to the alleged breach?

 

[Sea Goat]

When were did the plaintiffs become aware of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty? What actions did they take it that time? Did they request an immediate remediation of any perceived deficit? Did they later re-ratify the deal with full knowledge of the alleged breach? Does the mere fact that Swoffer's son was employed by Raycom automatically create a breach of fiduciary duty? What is the amount of damages directly attributable to the alleged breach?

Some good questions, but a fiduciary's duty remains affirmative. That's what people don't seem to get. I want hear more. We'll see.

In the meantime, FSU and Clemson feel comfortable enough that they will be placed in a P2 conference when all is said and done. Other ACC dominos (the so called magnificent 7) may fall if other better opportunities are presented. (I do know that there are rumblings from other notable members.)

We're a long way from the end of this. However, ultimately I believe the ACC is finished as we know it and good riddance. More than a decade ago they were picking over the carcass of the BE. Now they may become a carcass.

 

[CL82]

Some good questions, but a fiduciary's duty remains affirmative. That's what people don't seem to get. I want hear more. We'll see.

In the meantime, FSU and Clemson feel comfortable enough that they will be placed in a P2 conference when all is said and done. Other ACC dominos (the so called magnificent 7) may fall if other better opportunities are presented. (I do know that there are rumblings from other notable members.)

We're a long way from the end of this. However, ultimately I believe the ACC is finished as we know it and good riddance. More than a decade ago they were picking over the carcass of the BE. Now they may become a carcass.

It's easy to allege a breach of fiduciary duty. It is much harder to prove it. It's even harder to prove consequential damages from it. Personally, I doubt they will prevail on that issue, which isn't to say that they aren't leaving the conference. They seem committed to leaving. I think it will be extraordinarily expensive for them to do so.

 

[Sea Goat]

It's easy to allege a breach of fiduciary duty. It is much harder to prove it. It's even harder to prove consequential damages from it. Personally, I doubt they will prevail on that issue, which isn't to say that they aren't leaving the conference. They seem committed to leaving. I think it will be extraordinarily expensive for them to do so.

Stay tuned - we'll see - don't forget that the onerous requirements coupled with the GOR were put in place years ago. It probably was at time that none of the intrigue with Raycom was even on the radar. If Swofford did half of what FSU alleges, it is a serious problem for the ACC ( or should we say the A&PCC (Atlantic & Pacific Coast (or Coasts?) Conference).

There are a lot of moving parts. The ACC has lot of leeches - including many old BE members. They drag down the whole conference and they should have known that when they threw in with the dogs of our old conference a decade and more ago.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I will stay tuned but I will also point out that normally the bulk of what you hear in terms of allegations in suits where one side is attempting to terminate a binding agreement is loaded with exaggerations and intentionally misleading interpretations.

I will also add that Raycom had television rights with the ACC going back decades before the GOR was signed by any member schools in the ACC (I first heard of Raycom in the early 1980's and I doubt they were brand new at that time). I imagine all parties involved knew of the close relationship between the ACC and Raycom and were aware of employment benefits occurring between the two. On that part of FSU's complaint I would ask: when did they first know and why did they not bring this forward earlier?