- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction Score
- 702
Besides wishful thinking, why?
The basis of MD's claim is that it was not passed in accordance with bylaws and is punitive in nature. So then the answer reverts back to in a worse case the prior departure fee which was in the $20mm range. And that was something MD voted for.
If the ACC was on shaky ground, this would have been settled a long time ago. Both sides must feel confident or else it would not be dragging on. In MD's case, anything less than $50mm is a win so I can see them dragging it out. If the ACC felt that it was going to be a significant set back to less than $20mm, they would have settled. Going to trial will give all parties, including the B1G, some pretty ugly black eyes. It is never good to watch sausage being made.
Not only did Maryland agree to the increase of the exit fee to $20 million, it was the one pushing hard for it.
Kind of tough to say it is punitive and unenforceable when it was your idea in the first place.
I look at it this way. The ACC wants $52-60 million (current exit fee is 3X revenues). Maryland wants to pay zero but I think that they are estopped from denying the $20 million exit fee is valid since they proposed it.
So, I think that a reasonable settlement is somewhere between $20 million and , say, $52 million. I tend to be a conservative, civil defense oriented attorney so I place it closer to the former than the latter. The ACC has withheld about $30-32 million in conference distributions from Maryland in an escrow fund.
I think that a deal will be struck at around $27 million with the ACC returning about five million of what has been withheld and the parties go home. Time will tell.