New salvo in Hawks/Thrashers owners' battle Atlanta Spirit feud: A new court filing could bring a quicker resolution to the dispute By TIM TUCKER The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 10/12/06 The Hawks' and Thrashers' ownership dispute is working its way up the legal ladder. Saying a Maryland Circuit Court turned "upside down" their agreement to buy out part-owner Steve Belkin, the teams' other owners are asking Maryland's highest court to review the case. In a new court filing, they ask the Maryland Court of Appeals — the equivalent of Georgia's Supreme Court — to hear the case earlier than it ordinarily would "not just because of the important legal issues presented [but also because] these two major professional sports teams are operating under a cloud of uncertainty that hurts the teams, their players, fans, employees and management, as well as the NBA and NHL." Part-owners Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, Michael Gearon Jr. and Rutherford Seydel are appealing a June ruling by Montgomery County (Md.) Circuit Court Judge Eric Johnson that Belkin has the right to buy them out at cost because they missed various deadlines in a contract to buy him out. "Through a series of unprecedented and extraordinary rulings, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County turned the contract upside down, resulting in what the court itself recognized was an 'illogical and unfair' outcome,' " states the petition to the appeals court. The petition says the Circuit Court's ruling "invoked a draconian forfeiture penalty provision that gave Belkin a windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars, stripped the majority owners of all interest in their teams and gave Belkin unfettered right to pursue his avowed goal of purging the teams' management." In July, Johnson stayed his ruling pending appeal, essentially allowing the non-Belkin owners to maintain control of the franchises for now. Belkin holds one-third of the Atlanta Spirit ownership group's voting control, while the other owners collectively hold two-thirds. But unless an appeals court overturns Johnson's ruling, Belkin eventually will be in position to buy out his partners and take over the teams. There are two appellate courts in Maryland: the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals. Appeals of Circuit Court rulings or verdicts typically are heard first by the Court of Special Appeals, but the higher court, the Court of Appeals, has the power to take jurisdiction over a case before it is considered by the Court of Special Appeals. That's what is being sought in this case, in hopes of shortening somewhat an already protracted legal process. The petition to the Court of Appeals says the case "by any measure ... constitutes one of the largest and most significant commercial contract fights brought in the Maryland courts." The Court of Appeals is expected to decide within 60 days whether to take the case or leave it to the Court of Special Appeals. In August 2005, amid a bitter dispute over the Hawks' trade for guard Joe Johnson, Belkin and the other owners signed an agreement under which Belkin was to have sold his 30 percent stake in the franchises for a price to be determined by a series of up to three appraisals. The agreement allowed Belkin to hire the first appraiser and said either party objecting to that appraisal could hire a second appraiser. It did not stipulate what would happen if both parties objected to the first appraisal, which they did. "This material omission lies at the heart of this case," states the petition to the appeals court. The non-Belkin owners are asking the appeals court to review a series of Circuit Court rulings that they call "erroneous and illogical": ‧ The ruling that Belkin had the right to choose the second appraiser because he objected fastest to the results of the first, even though the other owners say the original agreement contemplated no such "race to object"; ‧ Not permitting them to question the fairness of the "race to object" or the appraisals; ‧ The ruling that imposed "a ruinous forfeiture penalty" for their failure to pay Belkin a "disputed purchase price" while litigation was pending. Asked about the appeal, Belkin replied by e-mail: "No comment til this is concluded." The other owners declined to comment beyond their court filing. They have added new counsel for the appeal, Baltimore lawyer Mitchell Mirviss of the firm Venable LLP. The dispute is in Maryland courts because the August 2005 agreement between Belkin and the other owners stipulated that any disputes would be litigated there. 资料来源 http://0rz.tw/b11X8 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.80.121.139