ACC files lawsuit against Maryland

[33laszlo99]

I like the argument that the ACC was concerned about the "domino effect." But WHY were they concerned about it? If they had knowledge of MD's "secret" plan, the ensuing email traffic will hold some interesting evidence. Were the discussions about deterring/punishing MD or were they more about fear of financial loss. If there was talk of deterring other schools from following MD, that bolsters MD's case.
Is this why there is no settlement? Does MD need discovery to make their case?

[BD80]

Rutgers agrees to pay $11.5 million exit fee to leave AAC fka Big East.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-...-fee-leave-aac

[Dev11]

Rutgers agrees to pay $11.5 million exit fee to leave AAC fka Big East.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-...-fee-leave-aac

The important text:

The AAC sought $15 million from Rutgers, but the school was able to negotiate a lower amount because Louisville had done so a few months ago, sources told ESPN.

Louisville negotiated an $11 million exit fee because athletic director Tom Jurich informed then-Big East commissioner John Marinatto and South Florida president Judy Genshaft in October 2011 that the Cardinals would leave the league in 27 months, Marinatto told ESPN.

Looking at it optimistically as Duke/the ACC, this doesn't have much bearing on a court's future decision on Maryland, as there is no similar precedent as Rutgers had with Louisville.

[Here is a Turtle]

Not saying that this is going to end with a settlement, Maryland and the ACC are assigned a mediator. The mediator is Johnathan A. Marks, an arbitor from Bethesda, MD.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...-gets-mediator

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...K0000203&clsrd

[OldPhiKap]

Not saying that this is going to end with a settlement, Maryland and the ACC are assigned a mediator. The mediator is Johnathan A. Marks, an arbitor from Bethesda, MD.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...-gets-mediator

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...K0000203&clsrd

Thanks for the links.

Both parties have a lot to lose if the litigation goes south, and years of legal wrangling ahead. As the WP article states, this is a typical step. Mediation resolves (or helps resolve) most cases.

[Henderson]

Thanks for the links.

Both parties have a lot to lose if the litigation goes south, and years of legal wrangling ahead. As the WP article states, this is a typical step. Mediation resolves (or helps resolve) most cases.

I think the use of the word "most" is too strong here, generalizing as it does over hundreds of jurisdictions, dozens of types of cases, and an unfathomable number of individual circumstances. I don't know of any statistics showing that mediation resolves or helps to resolve most cases.

It does help the parties focus on what they have to win or lose by continuing litigation and forces them to face the weaknesses in their respective cases, something a "groupthink" situation can mask as parties and their lawyers get all revved up about the case initially. But the parties have to be motivated to settle and settle early. They always know that the early mediation is not their last hope of settlement, so they can choose to wait, keep talking, and maybe settle later. One reason they might decide to wait is to see, through discovery, what the evidence looks like, so they can make a more informed decision about what the proper settlement would be. (Of course, sometimes a party will settle early precisely to avoid bad facts coming out in discovery.).

But in this case, it seems pretty ripe for settlement early. The facts aren't really in dispute as far as I know, and they're really only talking about money (which always makes settlement easier). Because there aren't many facts in dispute, it seems likely to go out on summary judgment anyway, followed by appeals. If the parties here are motivated to settle (i.e. one doesn't believe it has an airtight slam dunk of a case) -- and I think they are -- this is the sort of case that should. Whether it will in this mediation is another question.

One big advantage of settling as a result of mediation is being able to use the mediation as a smokescreen. A mediated settlement has better optics, because it is less likely to be seen as a capitulation, particularly valuable in a high-plubicity case such as this. It looks more like a reasonable middle ground, win-win result.

So yeah, I think they'll settle. Maybe through this vehicle, maybe not, but eventually almost certainly.

[BD80]

I think the use of the word "most" is too strong here, generalizing as it does over hundreds of jurisdictions, dozens of types of cases, and an unfathomable number of individual circumstances. I don't know of any statistics showing that mediation resolves or helps to resolve most cases.

It does help the parties focus on what they have to win or lose by continuing litigation and forces them to face the weaknesses in their respective cases, something a "groupthink" situation can mask as parties and their lawyers get all revved up about the case initially. But the parties have to be motivated to settle and settle early. They always know that the early mediation is not their last hope of settlement, so they can choose to wait, keep talking, and maybe settle later. One reason they might decide to wait is to see, through discovery, what the evidence looks like, so they can make a more informed decision about what the proper settlement would be. (Of course, sometimes a party will settle early precisely to avoid bad facts coming out in discovery.).

But in this case, it seems pretty ripe for settlement early. The facts aren't really in dispute as far as I know, and they're really only talking about money (which always makes settlement easier). Because there aren't many facts in dispute, it seems likely to go out on summary judgment anyway, followed by appeals. If the parties here are motivated to settle (i.e. one doesn't believe it has an airtight slam dunk of a case) -- and I think they are -- this is the sort of case that should. Whether it will in this mediation is another question.

One big advantage of settling as a result of mediation is being able to use the mediation as a smokescreen. A mediated settlement has better optics, because it is less likely to be seen as a capitulation, particularly valuable in a high-plubicity case such as this. It looks more like a reasonable middle ground, win-win result.

So yeah, I think they'll settle. Maybe through this vehicle, maybe not, but eventually almost certainly.

Another big factor is each party hearing an arbiter react to the arguments. Clients readily believe their own stories and are pumped up by their lawyers' arguments. It is natural to dismiss an opponent's view of the facts as tainted and the opposing argument as hyperbole. In mediation, clients start realizing the case isn't the slam dunk they imagined.

[Class of '94]

I think the use of the word "most" is too strong here, generalizing as it does over hundreds of jurisdictions, dozens of types of cases, and an unfathomable number of individual circumstances. I don't know of any statistics showing that mediation resolves or helps to resolve most cases.

It does help the parties focus on what they have to win or lose by continuing litigation and forces them to face the weaknesses in their respective cases, something a "groupthink" situation can mask as parties and their lawyers get all revved up about the case initially. But the parties have to be motivated to settle and settle early. They always know that the early mediation is not their last hope of settlement, so they can choose to wait, keep talking, and maybe settle later. One reason they might decide to wait is to see, through discovery, what the evidence looks like, so they can make a more informed decision about what the proper settlement would be. (Of course, sometimes a party will settle early precisely to avoid bad facts coming out in discovery.).

But in this case, it seems pretty ripe for settlement early. The facts aren't really in dispute as far as I know, and they're really only talking about money (which always makes settlement easier). Because there aren't many facts in dispute, it seems likely to go out on summary judgment anyway, followed by appeals. If the parties here are motivated to settle (i.e. one doesn't believe it has an airtight slam dunk of a case) -- and I think they are -- this is the sort of case that should. Whether it will in this mediation is another question.

One big advantage of settling as a result of mediation is being able to use the mediation as a smokescreen. A mediated settlement has better optics, because it is less likely to be seen as a capitulation, particularly valuable in a high-plubicity case such as this. It looks more like a reasonable middle ground, win-win result.

So yeah, I think they'll settle. Maybe through this vehicle, maybe not, but eventually almost certainly.

I was curious to know if you or someone else with a legal background understood and could explain to me the relevance of what MD is doing in regards to requesting documents from various ACC schools that supposedly showed contact between a particular ACC school and a BIG school in regards to the ACC (with the guidance of ESPN) allegedly recruiting the BIG schools to join the ACC after MD announced its departure from the ACC to the BIG. What's the big deal about that considering all the rumors of BIG schools doing the same thing by trying to court UNC (with possibly Duke), UVA and GT to the BIG before and after MD announced its departure (in order to expand the reach of the BTN and increase revenues for the BIG)? Also, I wanted to know how citing the ACC market analysis (a supposed confidential document that somehow MD got its hands on) in their court documents could potentially help their case. I'm assuming its to show that the ACC was going to be fine and potentially be better financially with the departure of MD and the arrival of Louisville. Am I correct in that thinking?

At this point, I'd be fine with the ACC and MD settling and just moving on. MD's not changing course and apparently they're already hoisting the BIG logos across campus. I'm not so sure that the move will be as rosy and financially lucrative as MD's thinks it will be; but they made their decision and for better or for worse will have to deal with the ramifications of it. I would like to see the sides settle on an exit fee somewhere between the 21+ million (or simply agree to give up their earnings for this school year) that MD had agreed upon and the 52 million (that was voted upon by the majority of schools). It would be a win-win in that MD negotiated down the exit fee from 52million yet still payed a substantial amount as a reward for not being honest in their dealings with the ACC and how they left the league.

[budwom]

I think it will be settled soon after each side's legal team achieves its revenue target. Should be racking up some nice fees by now...

Just getting rid of Maryland's hideous logo will be worth a few million bucks to the league.

[rasputin]

I think it will be settled soon after each side's legal team achieves its revenue target. Should be racking up some nice fees by now...

Just getting rid of Maryland's hideous logo will be worth a few million bucks to the league.

Gratuitous lawyer-bashing. How original.

[Here is a Turtle]

Any chance of an arbitrator coming any time soon? A mediator seems like it wont be that effective if both sides are as steadfast as they seem to be.

[BD80]

Gratuitous lawyer-bashing. How original.

Speaking on behalf of lawyers, if we had feelings - they would be hurt.