Tweet
guys this has nothing to do with exposing haymon this is about nothing but money for gbp
-
-
Haymon is using drug money to fund PBC.
he's being looked at by FBI.
snowden has files on him.Comment
-
I'm one of those people, but that's a good point, his 15% could be going back into the business. If I was one of the investors there is no way I'd do the deal otherwise, but who knows.
This lawsuit could uncover that info, but I doubt it will. We've already seen Haymon pay Oscar a lot of $ to make sure they doesn't happen once.Comment
-
Update on the Top Rank and Golden Boy cases from the attorney on Reddit...the bolding is his:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comm...w_and_a_big_l/
Legal Analysis: Haymon Got a Minor W and a Big L in Court This Week
Slammed with work lately, so this will be quick.
The Win:
In the Top Rank anti-trust case against Haymon and Waddell, Haymon and Waddell have filed motions to dismiss the case. Once Top Rank files their opposition, we will analyze the arguments. In the meantime, Top Rank tried to compel discovery (per the Court's scheduling order), while Haymon/Waddell asked the court to stay discovery (i.e., pause it) pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. The court agreed with Haymon/Waddell. Top Rank will not get discovery unless they can defeat Haymon's and Waddell's motions to dismiss. The judge indicated that, in the absence of Top Rank's arguments in opposition, Haymon and Waddell presented some compelling dismissal arguments.
The Loss:
In the Golden Boy anti-trust case against Haymon (but not Waddell), Haymon had moved to compel arbitration. His argument was that there was a Settlement Agreement between Haymon and GBP, so the parties to the lawsuit were prevented from suing in court because of the Settlement Agreement (but they could still arbitrate the dispute), and the Settlement Agreement encompassed the federal and state anti-trust claims so those claims must be argued in the private arbitration, not in open court. An important detail: While that motion was pending before the court, a similar argument was made in arbitration. The arbitrator made his decision before the judge got around to ruling on the motion. The arbitrator decided that, although he felt the parties in the lawsuit were subject to arbitration, the claims made in court fell outside the scope of the arbitration provision in the Settlement Agreement.
What does this mean? Haymon's motion to compel arbitration is now moot (i.e., unnecessary). The case can proceed in court, unless evidence is uncovered that makes the judge or arbitrator reconsider the issue. In an odd tactical move, Haymon's lawyers wanted to continue arguing the merits of their motion to compel arbitration in court. It's not clear why. The judge denied their motion as moot then called them out for it:
"Although the Court was confident that Defendants counsel would realize that the Motion was now moot and withdraw it to avoid wasting judicial resources, counsel made the puzzling decision to pursue the Motion and raised patently frivolous arguments in the Reply."
What happens now? Haymon will file a motion to dismiss the Golden Boy case, as they have in the Top Rank case.
So, why is Arum saying this matters? Because this case has been proceeding through arbitration concurrently with the court case and that process is much more informal and moves much faster, I suspect that Golden Boy has already procured some evidence through discovery that Top Rank does not have and cannot get until the court decides on the motion to dismiss in their case. If that's true, I expect GBP to file an amended complaint with their new facts. Haymon will try to block that information from being revealed publicly. Additionally, Golden Boy has a better argument for damages than Top Rank does (we'll look into that further when we consider the motions to dismiss).
Any questions?
ETA: A very mysterious issue has surfaced in the filings but is so far unanswered; the Haymon Boxing parent company has an unknown investor. It's owned by Haymon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waddell, and a third party whose identity has not been revealed. Haymon and Waddell are trying to keep it secret. That might be the information that GBP obtained through the arbitration.Right now, the trials are scheduled to start in December. Given all of the motions and pre-trial issues, the depth of discovery that is necessary, and the expert testimony that will be required, I sincerely doubt they will start on time. This kind of case can include multiple mini-trials to decide questions like what constitutes the relevant market before the actual trial begins. Anti-trust cases can take 10 years to fully litigate. That said, anti-trust cases often settle if the defendant loses one of those mini-trials, so they are extremely important and will reveal a great deal of information.While it is common to do everything you can as the defendant to waste time, you don't want to piss off the judge and subject yourself to sanctions. When the judge writes in an order that you've made a frivolous argument and wasted the court's time, you have gone WAY too far. Haymon's lawyers could have been sanctioned for that one.Last edited by Mitchell Kane; 09-18-2015, 04:33 PM.Comment
-
A mysterious investor? Floyd? Schaefer?Comment
-
linusesq @linusesq · 20m20 minutes ago
Having finally got a copy of the judges' order, the Haymon/GBP decision isnt as decisive as I first thought, & could be a train wreck coming
linusesq @linusesq · 19m19 minutes ago
I thought the Judge was deciding the issue on the briefing he received, instead he appears to have accepted the arbitrator's call.
linusesq @linusesq · 17m17 minutes ago
Now what that arbitrator decided (apart from largely accepting GBP's argument that its claims belong in court), and why I need to find BUT
linusesq @linusesq · 14m14 minutes ago
It sounds as if parts of the arbitration may still be continuing... which is simply a mess. Not sure why GBP didnt move/seek 2 shut it down
linusesq @linusesq · 3m3 minutes ago
by not as decisive- I mean that judge seems2have accepted arbitrator rationale "as is" & not signaled1way or other if he's buying GBP theoryComment
Comment