Maryland’s $157 million counterclaim: ACC recruited B1G schools

[Fishy]

Not if you never intended to have a second child. You only had it because you had to replace the first. And the lawyer for the driver is claiming you are better off with the second one.

You might be a sociopath and the attorney for your hypothetical driver appears to be Saul Goodman.

 

[itgoeslike]

They say when you are sinking in quick sand you should minimize your movement to avoid sinking further. Stimpy, your responses to your analogy are only descending you farther and faster into the murky bottoms. At this point, it's better to stay very still. Or at least avoid any more references to your analogy.

 

[CAHUSKY]

s

And, all of this from experts in the fields, with no finals to worry about! UPhoenix has nothing on us.

Except for those cool red socks which apparently get you jobs.

 

[John Greene]

You missed food and beverage recommendations!

You are right. It's just that I consider them, along with recommendations for coach's home towns, hot chick ratings, creative ways of getting banned words into a post and grammatical help suggestions, as extra credit stuffers. Like the art history and music appreciation courses in my undergraduate days.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Antitrust prosecutions have been rare in recent decades and only proceed against political scapegoats. In this case, maybe Connecticut representatives would be on the side of an antitrust investigation, but representatives and senators from 40 other states would oppose it as disruptive to their ACC/B1G/SEC/Pac/B12 schools. There is no chance of congressional inquiries or executive branch antitrust investigations.

Microsoft got hammered by David Boies.

 

[SouthronCross]

How many schools were required to impose that comical exit fee on schools that wants no part of it?

Why is it comical? Its a perfectly legal move, and, one that was originally put forth to the ACC by the University of Maryland's own president, Wallace Loh.

The exit fee was put before a league vote, and, it required a 75% majority in order to pass. Which is SOP for amendment to the ACC's constitution.

The final vote was 10-2 (83.3%), in favor of raising the exit fee from approximately $20M to what it is now, roughly $52M. Maryland and FSU were the two who voted no. So, the motion was passed.

Maryland is claiming that the ACC violated its own bylaws by not giving members 15 days notice of its intent to change the conference's bylaw on that particular item. If its found that they are right, they win. If its found that the ACC acted within its own bylaws, UMD loses.

There are certainly other considerations than just the exit fee, but, thats the biggest one.

 

[SouthronCross]

View attachment 4761
Rut Roh ACC.

If thats what they're going to roll out, then, I am betting that they ACC will countersue to get access to the NDAs that UMD's powers-that-be signed with Jim Delany. Which some UMD alumni and fans believe violated the state's open meetings laws. Most noticeably outspoken about that was Tom McMillen, who once served Maryland as a member of the US House of Representatives, and, is one of the 4-5 best athletes...and people...to ever put on a Terrapin uniform in any sport.

They accuse the ACC of hijinks, all while communicating with the B1G in what might qualify as an illegal manner.

Let them go right ahead, and, play that card. Discovery would occur for both sides. Which is what they don't want. And, that would certainly include Jim Delany, and, other B1G officials.

Show me yours, and, I'll show you mine....

 

[SouthronCross]

What is required, 2/3? 3/4?
Is part of Maryland's suit that the exit fee has to be reasonable in nature

A 3/4 majority (75%) is required for any motion that would amend the ACC constitution. The exit fee passed by a 10-2 count (83.3%).

Just from my own readings of it...and I am no legal eagle...UMD feels the exit fee amount is excessive. And, that the ACC violated its own bylaws when they did pass it, because the league is supposed to notify its members 15 days before any attempt to amend its constitution is made.

IIRC, of course.

 

[06029]

Maryland is claiming that the ACC violated its own bylaws by not giving members 15 days notice of its intent to change the conference's bylaw on that particular item. If its found that they are right, they win. If its found that the ACC acted within its own bylaws, UMD loses.

There are certainly other considerations than just the exit fee, but, thats the biggest one.

This is why BC won the only case that went to trial. They showed that the Big East did not follow the proper notification and voting protocol specified in the bylaws. Therefore, the increased exit fee (which looks like small potatoes right now) was not enforceable. If the ACC was not smart enough to learn from the Big East's mistake, then they need to sue themselves.

Of course, typing about bylaws only brings up the movie Dodgeball in my mind.

 

[SouthronCross]

This is why BC won the only case that went to trial. They showed that the Big East did not follow the proper notification and voting protocol specified in the bylaws. Therefore, the increased exit fee (which looks like small potatoes right now) was not enforceable. If the ACC was not smart enough to learn from the Big East's mistake, then they need to sue themselves.

Of course, typing about bylaws only brings up the movie Dodgeball in my mind.

It seems to me that this would be the easiest thing to prove.

Get the minutes of the ACC meetings where the proposed amendment to raise the exit fee was raised, and, the minutes from the meeting where it was passed. That time frame is either less than 15 days (Maryland's favor), or, 15 days or more (ACC's favor). Pretty cut and dried, and, all sown up with a bow.

 

[UConnJim]

End of the day, Maryland is leaving the ACC for the Big 10 and they will pay between $0 and $52 million. Maryland wants to settle for less than $52 million and thinks the threat of discovery from the new lawsuit will force the ACC to settle for less than $52 million. If there are bad or embarrassing emails that are going to be disclosed, the ACC might decide they should settle. By the way, wouldn't you like to see the emails between Gene DeFilippo, BC's AD, and others from the ACC after he made his remarks about ESPN telling the ACC what to do? Or how about Pitt's Chancellor Mark Nordenberg's emails while he was convincing the Big East to turn down ESPN's TV contract while at the same time negotiating with the ACC?

 

[Husky25]

It seems to me that this would be the easiest thing to prove.

Get the minutes of the ACC meetings where the proposed amendment to raise the exit fee was raised, and, the minutes from the meeting where it was passed. That time frame is either less than 15 days (Maryland's favor), or, 15 days or more (ACC's favor). Pretty cut and dried, and, all sown up with a bow.

Is a board meeting the only medium of notice?

 

[SouthronCross]

Is a board meeting the only medium of notice?

I would not think so, but, I honestly have no idea.

Those minutes must be kept, and, they'd clearly lay out when the topic of raising the exit fee was first broached, and, when it was actually voted on.

I could be incorrect here, but, I am also just thinking aloud.

 

[CL82]

@SouthronCross - Before this filing the best argument that MD had was that the penalty bore no relationship to actual damages and thus was unenforceable as a penalty. That's quite likely to be a winning position. Now, however, they also have the argument that the $53M is void because the ACC violated their own procedure. That gives the court a second basis to reach the result that $53M isn't enforceable. I think the counterclaim is well written and viable.

I doubt either MD or the B1G cares about who reads the NDA. Those tend to be fairly benign.

 

[SouthronCross]

@SouthronCross - Before this filing the best argument that MD had was that the penalty bore no relationship to actual damages and thus was unenforceable as a penalty. That's quite likely to be a winning position. Now, however, they also have the argument that the $53M is void because the ACC violated their own procedure. That gives the court a second basis to reach the result that $53M isn't enforceable. I think the counterclaim is well written and viable.

I doubt either MD or the B1G cares about who reads the NDA. Those tend to be fairly benign.

We've known all along that UMD has contested that the ACC violated its own procedure to institute the new exit fee. But, has yet to produce evidence of such. That is the smoking gun, IMHO. Like I said, if it was < 15 days, UMD wins. If its > 15 days, the ACC wins. Cut and dried.

As an ACC traditionalist, we lose, because a founding member is now leaving after this school year.

I doubt the NDAs were totally benign, or else, Delany would not have pushed for them. Either way, I just want it over and done with, so we can all move on.

 

[UConn Dan]

We've known all along that UMD has contested that the ACC violated its own procedure to institute the new exit fee. But, has yet to produce evidence of such. That is the smoking gun, IMHO. Like I said, if it was < 15 days, UMD wins. If its > 15 days, the ACC wins. Cut and dried. As an ACC traditionalist, we lose, because a founding member is now leaving after this school year. I doubt the NDAs were totally benign, or else, Delany would not have pushed for them. Either way, I just want it over and done with, so we can all move on.

Don't forget Maryland's claim that any new amendment to conference bylaws don't take effect until the next fiscal year per the ACC constitution. They withdrew prior to the next fiscal year.

 

[GopherHawk]

You're missing the point. Louisville is not relevant. Not relevant at all. That would be like a drunk driver hitting your car, killing your autistic child. Then the lawyer for that driver would be telling you that you are fine because you got pregnant right afterwards and nine months later had another child and are better off because that one is not autistic. You would have no pain for that first child. Don't think so. Louisville is not relevant.

BT, you are looking at this like an ACC fan. The world isn't black and white. It is all shades of grey. If you don't believe Swofford's comment about the value of Louisville is relevant to a case based an perceived damages you are mistaken. While Louisville is not party to the suit, the ACC's actions and words are. Why would a judge award the ACC any damages when the ACC itself has claimed it is better off with Louisville.

Please remember that just because 10 people said yes doesn't make it legal/nonpunitive/nonrestrictive. Use that UVA education which should be based on the search for truth through logic. You are assuming it is ok otherwise the presidents wouldn't have voted for it. What if Loh was right and the higher exit fee isn't legal. He is a lawyer too.

 

[CL82]

We've known all along that UMD has contested that the ACC violated its own procedure to institute the new exit fee. But, has yet to produce evidence of such. That is the smoking gun, IMHO. Like I said, if it was < 15 days, UMD wins. If its > 15 days, the ACC wins. Cut and dried.

As an ACC traditionalist, we lose, because a founding member is now leaving after this school year.

I doubt the NDAs were totally benign, or else, Delany would not have pushed for them. Either way, I just want it over and done with, so we can all move on.

You know that the NDA doesn't contain their discussion, right? It's just an agreement that limits disclosure. For most part anyone savvy enough to require one would be savvy enough not to put anything sensitive in one.

 

[NickyNewark]

Of course, then there was Maryland's loss in having a conference it loved with a $20 mn exit fee replaced by a conference it despised with a $52 mn exit fee, by a 10-2 vote against its will. Surely Maryland deserves compensation for losing the conference with a $20 mn exit fee, even if it gained a conference with a $52 mn exit fee in return. Replacing the old exit fee with the new one does not mitigate the damage caused by losing the first.

Creative thought pj "Mason", ha ha.

 

[UConn9604]

You know that the NDA doesn't contain their discussion, right? It's just an agreement that limits disclosure. For most part anyone savvy enough to require one would be savvy enough not to put anything sensitive in one.

...and it's not binding on a court. Sure, the Big Ten/Maryland will push for a protective order to have its contents sealed, but no court is required to keep it under lock and key.

 

[CL82]

...and it's not binding on a court. Sure, the Big Ten/Maryland will push for a protective order to have its contents sealed, but no court is required to keep it under lock and key.

Yep. The whole purpose to the thing was to keep the discussion under wraps until a decision was made. I'm not sure what smoking gun our NC friend thinks is out there.

 

[SouthronCross]

Don't forget Maryland's claim that any new amendment to conference bylaws don't take effect until the next fiscal year per the ACC constitution. They withdrew prior to the next fiscal year.

Thats right, I had forgotten all about that part. Its just another piece to this neverending puzzle.

 

[SouthronCross]

You know that the NDA doesn't contain their discussion, right? It's just an agreement that limits disclosure. For most part anyone savvy enough to require one would be savvy enough not to put anything sensitive in one.

I guessed that might be the case. But, what I know about legalities would fit under my pinkie nail...lol.

All the NDAs would give the ACC is proof that UMD was communicating with the B1G while still being involved in ACC business. It might also possibly give someone like Tom McMillen proof Loh and Co violated the state of Maryland's open meetings law by signing one.

 

[SouthronCross]

Yep. The whole purpose to the thing was to keep the discussion under wraps until a decision was made. I'm not sure what smoking gun our NC friend thinks is out there.

I do not believe theres a smoking gun, just that it might prove Loh violated MD's open meetings law.

What good it would be now is open to debate. Like you said earlier, its likely not of any use.

 

[btstimpy]

Don't forget Maryland's claim that any new amendment to conference bylaws don't take effect until the next fiscal year per the ACC constitution. They withdrew prior to the next fiscal year.

It's not forgotten. Here is the verbiage in the ACC Constitution:


Section X-2. Effective Date.
Any amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws are effective July 1 following enactment, unless provided otherwise

I'll give you three guesses as to how this particular change was "provided", and the first 2 don't count. I'll give you a little hint: not July 1.

 

[billybud]

ooh, ooh

Call on me...call on me.

Is it "effective upon signature"?

 

[SouthronCross]

ooh, ooh

Call on me...call on me.

Is it "effective upon signature"?

I believe that the FSU fan is right, wonderful, and, correct! For that, your team gets an automatic birth in the 2014 CFB Playoffs, and, your first game will be in Tallahassee.

 

[BoatShow]

The three-pod concept is insane - I have to imagine it was invented here.

The biggest roadblock right now to a 16-team ACC is Notre Dame.

They won't go to 15 and I just don't see them adding two more teams without one of them being Notre Dame.

There's just no one to add outside of UConn. (Does anyone actually think Cincinnati will ever have a chance of going to the ACC?)

A lot of people scoffed when LVille was first mentioned as UConn's main competition for a spot.

 

[GG]

I have no idea if this person has legitimate sources, but his information is consistent with HFD's (if that means anything).

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=145&f=3154&t=12628704&stm=153581600

 

[Stinger92860]

I have no idea if this person has legitimate sources, but his information is consistent with HFD's (if that means anything).

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=145&f=3154&t=12628704&stm=153581600

The overall stupidity in that thread is amazing. However, perception means a lot. UConn has to do a better job getting the message out.