Owners still fighting in court July 6 date might help determine ultimate outcome By TIM TUCKER The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 06/28/06 Will Steve Belkin take over the Hawks and Thrashers next month? Or will the teams' seven other owners remain in charge while they appeal a court's ruling that Belkin is entitled to buy them out at cost? A Maryland judge has scheduled a hearing for July 6 to consider those questions. Montgomery County (Md.) Circuit Court Judge Eric M. Johnson, who earlier ruled that Belkin shall buy out the other owners by July 13 because they breached an agreement to buy him out, will hear arguments on a motion for a stay of the ruling pending appeal. The motion by the non-Belkin owners asks Johnson to grant a stay without requiring them to post a bond during the appeal process, which could last six to 12 months. Belkin's attorneys have not yet filed a response to the motion but are expected to ask that, if a stay is granted, the other owners be required to post a bond to protect Belkin against any drop in the value of the franchises. The other owners — a group led by Bruce Levenson, Ed Peskowitz, Michael Gearon Jr. and Rutherford Seydel — speculated in court papers that Belkin will seek a bond "in the hundreds of millions of dollars." They didn't say whether they'd be willing or able to post a bond set that high. John Lynch, a University of Baltimore law school professor who co-authored a book on Maryland civil procedure, said a stay "is probably appropriate if the [appeal] issues are not frivolous." A more difficult question is the bond, he indicated. Lynch said that in a typical case where the appellant has been ordered to pay monetary damages, the appeal bond would be the amount of the judgment. But in this unique case, where the appellant has been ordered to sell majority interests in two major-league sports franchises, Lynch said it's unclear what size bond, if any, might be appropriate as a condition of a stay. "The court could order some sort of security as a condition or could order some sort of behaviors," he said. "There is really no intelligent basis in the case law ... on which to speculate." The non-Belkin owners have asked that, in lieu of a bond, the court attach certain requirements to a stay, one being that no changes could be made to senior management of the Hawks, Thrashers and Philips Arena during the appeal process without Belkin's consent. Adding another entanglement to the ultra-tangled case, approval by both the NBA and NHL boards of governors is required for any change in the teams' ownership. Getting approval of an ownership change that might later have to be undone because of an appeals court decision could be difficult. "There is no guarantee that either league will approve a buyout pending appeal," say court papers filed by the owners seeking the stay. "Refusal of the two leagues to grant approval has the potential to spawn further litigation. ... A stay pending appeal would avoid the potential for flip-flopping ownership of the teams." Belkin agreed last summer to sell his 30 percent stake in the teams and arena rights to the other owners for a price to be set by a series of up to three appraisals. Belkin filed suit in November when both sides objected to the results of the first appraisal — commissioned by Belkin — and claimed the right to retain the second appraiser. The court ruled that Belkin was entitled to retain the second appraiser because he objected fastest to the results of the first. The court later ruled that the other owners breached their agreement to buy out Belkin by missing deadlines to seek a third appraisal and to pay Belkin the amount of the second appraisal (about $140 million). Rejecting the argument that it was Belkin's litigation that derailed the process, the court found that the other owners' breach triggered Belkin's right to become a buyer rather than a seller. 資料來源 http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/sports/hawks/stories/0628owners.html --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.230.34.229