Tweet
Or basically what this guy said. It can go either way. In these situations with judges, arbitrators and high priced lawyers, truth is its about the money and ultimately the money will determine the outcome. Ppl expecting some big kind of change or something to boxing. It's not gonna happen.
-
-
You're confusing arbitration and mediation. Mediation is all about retaining a neutral party to **** out a deal. Arbitration is a lot like litigation, except that the parties generally have to agree on who the arbitrator is, and the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply. It is also incredibly hard to overturn an arbitration award -- there is typically no right to an appeal. While arbitrators cannot completely disregard the law, they can also be guided by princples of equity...and can (theoretically at least) be more flexible than judges when imposing the law.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, there is a strong presumption favoring arbitration (rather than judicial resolution) of a conflict, but ONLY if the parties have agreed to arbitrate their dispute. Here, Haymon is arguing that the current dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause from the prior settlement agreement. Golden Boy, which obviously prefers resolving the dispute in a federal court rather than in arbitration (which is why they sued in federal court), will invariably argue that the present conflict has nothing to do with the prior agreement.
Haymon wants arbitration because he thinks it's advantageous to him for some reason, Golden Boy thinks litigaiton in the federal courts in better for it (for some other reason).
What Haymon did here is a real pain-in-the-ass kind of move for an opposing party. He knew the lawsuit was coming, so he got an arbitrator involved prior to the lawsuit being filed. From this article (which is very incomplete), it looks like Haymon will try to argue that it is within the arbitrator's power to decide whether the case should be arbitrated, or whether it should proceed to court. Typically, however, that's for a judge to decide, not an arbitrator.
Haymon has simply added another disagreement to the overall dispute...and the lawyers will collect more fees as a result.Comment
-
Oh cool! Everyone who took any law courses gets to chime in? Here is what I gleam from this.
After a long, hard arbitration, Oscar and Al will finally admit that the sexual tension they each feel is real. Oscar will dust off the fishnets and he and Al (with his fetish for such things) will join hands and walk out of the room together for one epic evening of unsheathed pounding. #lovewinsComment
-
Actually, Haymon wants an arbitrator to take a look because he believes the bulk of the Golden Boy lawsuit claims were already settled when they reached their January agreement, which came under arbitration. If the arbitrator rules that is the case, the bulk of GBP's lawsuit will be tossed out. He's basically saying GBP is suing for similar or identical items that they already settled on earlier this year.Comment
-
Going back to the reddit thread...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comm...trust_lawsuit/First, are GBP's claims subject to arbitration? Haymon says yes. He says these are the same underlying facts and claims that were supposed to be settled in December or that they arise from those claims/settlement. GBP's lawyers will say that this lawsuit is based solely on events and claims that arose AFTER December 19, 2014 so they were not subject to the settlement or the settlement agreement. This is why GBP's complaint says it is limited to events that happened beginning on January 1, 2015.
Haymon's Motion to Stay says that Jan. 1 is an arbitrary date and has only been chosen to avoid the arbitration agreement. They cite a decision by the federal court in the Southern District of New York to support their proposition that a plaintiff cannot "plead around" an arbitration provision by claiming damages that happened after a contract ended but were based on predicate acts before it ended. The GBP case is very different from the one cited - in that case, the arbitration provision was contained in a contract; there hadn't been prior litigation. The SDNY court basically decided that the arbitration clause survives the expiration of a contract, which is nothing new.
Generally speaking, a release of liability (as in a settlement agreement) does not preclude new claims for conduct that is similar and occurs after the release. For example, if I sue my neighbor for trespassing on my property and we reach a settlement releasing each other from liability, that settlement does not preclude me from suing again if he trespasses again after the settlement. Whether it is subject to an arbitration provision in the settlement agreement is a different issue. I'm not aware of any case law that dealt with this issue, but I didn't look for any. I'll be interested to read GBP's argument against the motion. I'm not sure which way this one goes. My intuition is that these are new claims that are not subject to arbitration but I could easily see a judge going the other way.Comment
-
Well, to be fair, it is just my interpretation. Obviously its still very early on. We won't know if I am correct until we see how it all plays out. But having taken law courses back in the day AND having served on jury duty, my interpretation is likely going to be dead on accurate.Comment
Comment