sessbeav
Freshman
Posts: 488 
Grad Year: Should’ve been 1991. Actual…..2006. Beer derailed me.
|
Post by sessbeav on Sept 12, 2023 9:55:37 GMT -8
This is from the complaint for injunction relief. I'm not a transactions attorney, in fact, I practice exclusively in an unrelated tiny area of the law, so I'm no expert, but when I read this, I kinda spewed my cup of coffee, thinking that we may be going after USC/UCLA next.
"In June 2022, the University of Southern California (“USC”) and the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) announced that they would leave the Pac-12, effective August 2024, at the conclusion of its existing media rights deals with ESPN and Fox, to join the competing Big Ten Conference. Those announcements violated the Pac-12’s Constitution and Bylaws (“Bylaws”), which state that “[n]o member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024[.]” This prohibition recognizes the substantial and irreparable harm that an early notice of withdrawal causes to the Conference, including to its ability to retain other members and to negotiate future media rights deals, which generate significant revenue for the member schools and support the Conference’s mission."
Doesn't this set out a colorable claim that USC/UCLA are the proximate cause of all the damage we have and will suffer as a result of the break up and were in breach? Is this why we retain Wall Street counsel? Thoughts anyone, but particularly from attorneys out there with some business/transactions experience.Here is the link to the thread. Some interesting speculation. washingtonstate.forums.rivals.com/threads/this-language-might-have-usc-and-ucla-wetting-their-pants-right-now.26411/#post-323454
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 12, 2023 11:10:41 GMT -8
It was a clear breech of the bylaws. Same with every other school that found a new home. But I think the other schools might sign on to a complaint against USC and UCLA as it forced their hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 12, 2023 12:18:18 GMT -8
It was a clear breech of the bylaws. Same with every other school that found a new home. But I think the other schools might sign on to a complaint against USC and UCLA as it forced their hands. But what are the damages? In order for there to be anything actionable, there has to be damages. If Oregon State winds up making more money than every school other than UCLA and USC, have they been damaged? The answer is probably, "No." If you get everyone on board to sue UCLA and USC, maybe you have something. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 12, 2023 12:23:50 GMT -8
It was a clear breech of the bylaws. Same with every other school that found a new home. But I think the other schools might sign on to a complaint against USC and UCLA as it forced their hands. But what are the damages? In order for there to be anything actionable, there has to be damages. If Oregon State winds up making more money than every school other than UCLA and USC, have they been damaged? The answer is probably, "No." If you get everyone on board to sue UCLA and USC, maybe you have something. Maybe. The time for that suit was as soon as USC and UCLA announced, when there were 10 Pac12 members. If the Pac12 was actively getting media offers that were deemed below market value that stated it was because of losing the LA market it seems is would have been a pretty easy win. And, if the suit was immediate the California Board of Regents most likely take those possible damages into consideration before granted UCLA permission as that system would be the ones paying out any damages. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 12, 2023 13:23:58 GMT -8
I'm wondering if UCLA is still on the hook to pay Cal since Cal left the conference as well. Wouldn't surprise me if UCLA tries to make that argument at some point even though Cal is taking in a LOT less money.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 12, 2023 14:48:46 GMT -8
It was a clear breech of the bylaws. Same with every other school that found a new home. But I think the other schools might sign on to a complaint against USC and UCLA as it forced their hands. But what are the damages? In order for there to be anything actionable, there has to be damages. If Oregon State winds up making more money than every school other than UCLA and USC, have they been damaged? The answer is probably, "No." If you get everyone on board to sue UCLA and USC, maybe you have something. Maybe. First, do you have breech of contract / bylaws. That appears yes and also easily provable. As for the damage question, there may already be some precedence set. I'll preface this with the fact I have tried hard (and done a pretty good job until now) to just ignore this whole thing until the serious facts started to surface. For weeks and months there was so much nonsense, opinion, and propaganda it was a waste of time to try and piece together. With the above stated, bits and pieces filtered through in spite my active attempt to ignore. Am I wrong in thinking the UC board of Regents or some other governing body forced UCLA to pay a sum/% of their B1G deal to Cal? If so, why? Clearly they felt Cal was damaged at the hands of UCLA's dealings. This could be a very useful precedent for us in court.... |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 12, 2023 14:55:05 GMT -8
But what are the damages? In order for there to be anything actionable, there has to be damages. If Oregon State winds up making more money than every school other than UCLA and USC, have they been damaged? The answer is probably, "No." If you get everyone on board to sue UCLA and USC, maybe you have something. Maybe. First, do you have breech of contract / bylaws. That appears yes and also easily provable. As for the damage question, there may already be some precedence set. I'll preface this with the fact I have tried hard (and done a pretty good job until now) to just ignore this whole thing until the serious facts started to surface. For weeks and months there was so much nonsense, opinion, and propaganda it was a waste of time to try and piece together. With the above stated, bits and pieces filtered through in spite my active attempt to ignore. Am I wrong in thinking the UC board of Regents or some other governing body forced UCLA to pay a sum/% of their B1G deal to Cal? If so, why? Clearly they felt Cal was damaged at the hands of UCLA's dealings. This could be a very useful precedent for us in court.... Thank you for this post, now I understand what the departing 10 are so afraid of. The pac 12 lawyer mentioned how suspicious the departing 10 were of the pac2 (and vice versa of course), and I didn't understand their fear. Now you explained so clearly what it is they fear. Calimony already set the precedent, they know they are extremely exposed. I get it. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 12, 2023 19:18:54 GMT -8
But what are the damages? In order for there to be anything actionable, there has to be damages. If Oregon State winds up making more money than every school other than UCLA and USC, have they been damaged? The answer is probably, "No." If you get everyone on board to sue UCLA and USC, maybe you have something. Maybe. First, do you have breech of contract / bylaws. That appears yes and also easily provable. As for the damage question, there may already be some precedence set. I'll preface this with the fact I have tried hard (and done a pretty good job until now) to just ignore this whole thing until the serious facts started to surface. For weeks and months there was so much nonsense, opinion, and propaganda it was a waste of time to try and piece together. With the above stated, bits and pieces filtered through in spite my active attempt to ignore. Am I wrong in thinking the UC board of Regents or some other governing body forced UCLA to pay a sum/% of their B1G deal to Cal? If so, why? Clearly they felt Cal was damaged at the hands of UCLA's dealings. This could be a very useful precedent for us in court.... I let some others slide, and, now, I'm regretting it. It's breach. Breech is an upside-down baby. I believe that the UC Board of Regents is going to compel UCLA to pay some amount of money to California. It was estimated to be between $2-$10 million. However, that was before the ACC move. Now, all bets are off. There is supposed to be a California Board of Regents meeting next week to address this very issue. At this point, though, there is no number. And even then, it is how the University of California system allocates funds amongst its component universities, which is different then what we would be talking about. And then, it would not be precedential in the legal sense of the word. It would be more potentially evidential, which, while helpful, is not as helpful as some kind of binding precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 13, 2023 2:31:14 GMT -8
First, do you have breech of contract / bylaws. That appears yes and also easily provable. As for the damage question, there may already be some precedence set. I'll preface this with the fact I have tried hard (and done a pretty good job until now) to just ignore this whole thing until the serious facts started to surface. For weeks and months there was so much nonsense, opinion, and propaganda it was a waste of time to try and piece together. With the above stated, bits and pieces filtered through in spite my active attempt to ignore. Am I wrong in thinking the UC board of Regents or some other governing body forced UCLA to pay a sum/% of their B1G deal to Cal? If so, why? Clearly they felt Cal was damaged at the hands of UCLA's dealings. This could be a very useful precedent for us in court.... I let some others slide, and, now, I'm regretting it. It's breach. Breech is an upside-down baby. I believe that the UC Board of Regents is going to compel UCLA to pay some amount of money to California. It was estimated to be between $2-$10 million. However, that was before the ACC move. Now, all bets are off. There is supposed to be a California Board of Regents meeting next week to address this very issue. At this point, though, there is no number. And even then, it is how the University of California system allocates funds amongst its component universities, which is different then what we would be talking about. And then, it would not be precedential in the legal sense of the word. It would be more potentially evidential, which, while helpful, is not as helpful as some kind of binding precedent. Thanks for letting mine slide but I welcome corrections. I knew it at one time but I slipped. No more. I’m going to the beech and looking for some beach trees |
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Sept 13, 2023 7:34:09 GMT -8
FWIW, I only chew Beach-Nut gum (Black-Jack). It does wonders for the whiteness of your teeth.
|
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Sept 13, 2023 7:47:06 GMT -8
FWIW, I only chew Beach-Nut gum (Black-Jack). It does wonders for the whiteness of your teeth. Was that Bleach-Nut gum? I hear it does wonders for internal parasites as well!  |
|
