Atlanta Spirit torn apart Judge gives Belkin 30 days for buyout, but quick end unlikely By TIM TUCKER / Published on: 06/14/06 The Maryland judge who last week ruled that Steve Belkin has the right to buy out his partners in the Hawks' and Thrashers' ownership group issued an amended order Tuesday that said Belkin is entitled to do so within 30 days. Belkin 被赋予在三十天之内把老鹰跟 Thrashers 买下来的权利。 In last week's order, the judge had left out, apparently inadvertently, the timeframe. 这是法官在上礼拜设定好的时间。 The amended order does not necessarily mean, however, that Belkin will take over the teams within a month. The other owners — a group led by Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, Michael Gearon Jr. and Rutherford Seydel — have said they will appeal the decision, and that likely would lead to a stay of the order. 但这不代表 Belkin 必然能於三十天内掌控球队，其他老板已经表明要 上诉。他们应该还是可以掌握球队。 Suffice to say, questions still permeate the case. 这案子还有很多很多问题待解决。 Q: What happens next? 问：接下来会怎样？ A: The owners on the losing side of the Montgomery County (Md.) Circuit Court decision have 30 days to file notice of intent to appeal to Maryland's Court of Special Appeals. Eventually, both sides would file briefs, oral arguments would be heard, and the court would consider whether Circuit Court Judge Eric Johnson committed legal error. The appeals court could reverse or modify the ruling and could send the case back to Johnson for further proceedings. Or it could uphold his ruling. 答：其他合夥人将有三十天的时间向马里兰特别上诉法院请求上诉。上 诉法院将裁决 Eric Johnson 的判决是否有误；他们可以支持、修正或 发回重审。 Q: So how long would all of that take? 问：大概要多久的时间？ A: Probably six to 12 months. 答：差不多六到十二个月。 Q: And who would own and run the teams during the appeals process? 问：上诉审理期间，谁能拥有球队？ A: After filing notice of appeal, the owners other than Belkin would ask the circuit court to stay last week's ruling, in effect maintaining the status quo within the ownership group during the appeals process. Such stays are routinely granted, lawyers say, but the judge could require that the other owners post a bond to protect Belkin against any decline in the value of the franchises during appeals. 答：完成请求上诉的动作後，期於合夥人将要求法院维持现状；此要求 通常会被接受，但是法官可以要求其他发债券给Belkin，以确保Belkin 持有股份的价值不会於上诉期间减损。 Q: If the Court of Special Appeals upholds the ruling, is the case over? 问：如果上诉法院支持判决，案子就结束了妈？ A: Not necessarily. The decision could be appealed further to Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, which would have the option of hearing or not hearing the case. 答：不一定。可以再上诉到马里兰最高法院，他们将决定是否审理。 Q: Even though a court has ruled that Belkin's partners breached their agreement to buy him out and that he now is entitled to buy them out at cost instead, the NBA and NHL constitutions say a team can't change owners without league approval. Would that apply in this case? 问：NBA 以及 NHL 官方可以阻挡Belkin 的买回行动，因为那没有得到 他们的允许吗？ A: Yes, a purchase by Belkin of his partners' stakes would require the approval of 75 percent of each league's board of governors. 答：可以。Belkin的购买行动需得到联盟百分之七时五的管理委员同意 （board of governors）。 Q: And what would happen if last week's ruling is upheld by the appeals court but one or both of the leagues don't approve Belkin as sole owner? 问：那如果 NBA 或 NHL 不同意 Belkin 作为球队的唯一所有人会怎样？ A: Sounds like more litigation. 答：多打几场诉讼吧。 Q: The court said Belkin is entitled to buy the other owners' stakes for their "aggregate contributed capital," or cost. How much would that be? 问：什麽是Belkin 可以用「aggregate contributed capital」或成本 价买下球队？ A: $31.4 million as of Jan. 25, according to an affidavit filed then by Levenson. The amount might have increased because of subsequent capital contributions. 答：一月二时五号，Levenson 的口供书说这个价值为31.4M。此值可能 随接下来投入的资本而增加。 Q: Didn't an appraiser put the value of Belkin's 30 percent stake at about $140 million? 问：不是说有一个估价人认为 Belkin 的三成股份有 140M 的价值？ A: Yes, that was the value put on Belkin's stake by JP Morgan Securities in a December appraisal. A November appraisal by CitiGroup put the value at $88 million. 答：是，那是 JP Morgan Securities 再十二月的估价行动中宣称的。 十一月 CitiGroup 的估价为 88M。 Q: So . . . because the other owners didn't pay Belkin as much as $140 million for his one-third stake . . . they could be required to sell their two-thirds stake to him for as little as $31.4 million? 问：所以说因为其他人不愿意付他 140M 买他三成股份，所以要把七成 股份用 31.4M 卖给他？ A: Yes. 答：你得到他了。 Q: How could that be? 问：还有天理吗？ A: In last summer's purchase-and-sale agreement under which Belkin was to have been bought out, the other owners agreed to pay him "fair market value" for his stake as determined by a series of up to three appraisals. But the agreement also said that if the other owners failed to complete the buyout, Belkin instead could buy them out for "aggregate contributed capital." The judge ruled last week that the other owners breached the agreement when they "failed and refused" to participate in the joint engagement of a third appraiser and that they "failed to perform" their obligation to buy out Belkin, triggering his right to buy them out. "Judicially sanctioned theft," the other owners called it in an earlier court filing. 答：因为去年夏天合夥人与 Belkin 达成的协议中，其他人愿意付 Be- lkin手上股份的市值；此市值由三次估价来决定（可以想成仲裁）。然 後协议里也说了如果买断失败，Belkin有权用成本价买他们的股份。现 在法官认定其他合夥人在第三次估价行动中没有好好配合，所以造成这 样的情况。 Q: What would be the grounds for an appeal? 问：那麽上诉根据何在？ A: The owners on the losing side of the circuit court decision haven't said anything about their appeals strategy beyond calling Friday's ruling "wrong, both on the law and on the facts." One crucial issue before the court was who had the right to retain the second appraiser in the buyout process. Last summer's agreement said either party objecting to the results of the first appraisal had the right to retain the second appraiser — but did not stipulate what would happen if both sides objected to the first appraisal, as they did. The judge ruled that since Belkin objected first — one minute after the appraisal was received — he had the right to hire the second appraiser despite having retained the first. The other owners argued that the purchase-and-sale agreement did not contemplate any such "race to object." They also had sought to more fully explore numerous issues, including the fairness and accuracy of the appraisals, before the court decided the case. The judge wrote in last week's ruling: "Should defendants truly feel that the valuations . . . fail to comport with the terms of the [purchase-and-sale agreement], then defendants are free to pursue a cause of action against the entities who actually performed the valuations." 答：其他合夥人还没说，但他们表示法官的判决在法律面与事实面都是 错的。其中一个重要问题是，谁有权聘第二位估价人。去年夏天的协议 里说反对第一次估价的那一方都有权，但没有说如果两造都反对谁有权 。法官说由於 Belkin 反对的比较快，所以他有权，即使第一个估价人 也是他请的（..）。其他合夥人主张，当初的协议可不是在比谁反对的 比较快（或是竞相玩反对的游戏）。（下略） 资料来源 http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/sports/hawks/stories/0614ownership.html --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.230.38.130