Breaking News: Sterling's wife tells Barbara Walters she will fight any attempt

[celtsfanforlife]

Chris Mannix reports shortly after that a Sterling will owen Clips next season because they have limitless resources to fight this.  Player revolt?  I know this has been covered in other threads, but it sure would be nice to get a lottery pick from the Clips next year!

[RebusRankin]

Legally isn't she only entitled to half the team? Wouldn't they just sell the club and give her the $?

[celtsfanforlife]

I might add that Magic Johnson said recently that the players would not play for anyone named "Sterling".  Chris Mannix says that a Sterling will almost certainly remain owner through next season as legal process plays out.

2+2=?

[CeltsAcumen]

There are a host of issues facing the NBA.

The fact that the Commish stated Ms. Sterling was not in trouble with the NBA during his press conference will come back to bite him in the back side.

Also, estimates of what the Sterlings would pay in Capital Gains taxes is over $300 million, depending on sale price of course, Sterlings can argue that the NBA does not have the right to force them to sell and pay that excessive tax.

The rumor here in LA, i am an entertainment and media litigator, is that Donald is filing a 1.7 Billion dollar anti-trust lawsuit next week.

She has retained a top attorney from a big law firm and Donald has retained Mannatt who is another large law firm

If the players want the Sterlings gone, they will have a long wait.

So yeah, the Clipper pick could be very valuable.

Now the NBA has to decide whether they want Doc, Griffin, and Paul to be nobodies on a nobody team for the next 2 years of litigation.  No free agents will sign with the Clippers next season unless they are desperate.

[oldtype]

She has every right to fight imo. Forcing Donald Sterling to sell is something I can get behind, forcing his estranged wife to sell her shares will be an entirely different matter.

It's not as if she'll be controlling the team or anything, she's just a shareholder. If she knows what's good for her she'll attend games in the privacy of her box and remain silent as to the day-to-day operations of the club.

Of course, if it causes unrest for the Clippers and improves our draft pick next season I'm all for it.

[PhoSita]

Of course she'll fight.

The NBA will have to root out the Sterlings entirely to really rid the Clippers of the stain.

[Roy H.]

She'll fight, but the NBA Constitution seems to give the Board of Governors the power to remove her.  In short, if the Board of Governors has enough evidence to terminate an individual owner, then they're allowed to terminate (through forced sale, among other avenues) all owners of a franchise.  There's an exception made if the owner being discharged owns less than 10% of the franchise, and the Board of Governors have discretion, but it seems like if they want Shelley Sterling gone for Donald Sterling's indiscretions, they can do so.  (Article 14(g)).

[Celtics18]

At this point, the only thing I care about in this whole farce is whether or not we get a better draft pick. 

[footey]

So far, only the NBA has been working the news outlets, like Sports Illustrated and ESPN, to get out the position that they are very confident they have the right to remove Donald Sterling as owner.  I just don't think the documents they have released so far (the constitution and by-laws) is very clear that they have this right. Recently, they  switched their legal grounds from violation of the constitution to violation of moral clause agreements.  To my knowledge, they have not released these other agreements,so it is impossible to judge this claim.  When the documents (such as the constitution) are unclear as to their right to force a sale under these circumstances, when the stakes are this high, when the other side has deep pockets, and is a professional litigator, it seems very likely that this thing will drag out for a very long time. The League may prevail in the end, but this is not something that is going to be decided in a few weeks, or even a few months.  The only thing I don't know is whether Sterling has the will to fight this out.  Or the mental capacity. His age and reckless behavior makes me wonder.

[hwangjini_1]

NBA also has a plan to oust his wife, silver and his lawyers have done some homework it seems.
 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140509/donald-sterling-legal-analysis-nba-clippers/


Quotes follow:
 
The removal of Donald Sterling from the NBA becomes more complex each day, while rumors of pending litigation grow louder. Sources familiar with the NBA's strategy have provided SI.com with key legal insights on how the NBA plans to oust both Donald Sterling and his wife, Shelly Sterling.
 
Shelly Sterling is a non-controlling owner of the Clippers
The league, sources say, is not worried about Shelly Sterling's long-term involvement with the team. Currently, she is?as she stresses to the media?a "co-owner" of the Clippers. She and her husband own the team through a family trust. Her husband is barred from any involvement with the Clippers, not because he may later be forced to sell the team, but rather because he has been banned for life. Shelly Sterling, as commissioner Adam Silver has made clear, is not subject to any ban. She can attend games and partake in all activities consistent with those of co-ownership.
But Shelly Sterling's ownership of the Clippers should not be confused with control of the Clippers. This distinction reflects the different layers of NBA ownership. Most NBA owners are not in charge of their teams. They have been approved by the NBA to own some percentage of a franchise, but they do not represent their franchise on the NBA's Board of Governors and are not considered the official voice of their franchises. They are regarded as "non-controlling" owners. There are many perks to being a non-controlling owner, including attendance privileges, inside access to team operations and the ability to tell the world that you own an NBA team. But actual control over the team is not one of those benefits. Shelly Sterling is a non-controlling owner of the Clippers.
Donald Sterling, in contrast, is in a more exclusive and powerful category as one of the NBA's 30 controlling owners. Until his ban, he had final say over all matters Clippers and represented the team in league matters. In his absence, the office of the NBA commissioner has become de facto controlling owner. Earlier today, the league?not Shelly Sterling?installed a new CEO, former Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons, to run the team. While Shelly Sterling has signaled support for the move, her support is irrelevant under the law.
If Shelly Sterling wants to become controlling owner of the Clippers, the league would have to approve such a step. The NBA would not approve Shelly Sterling as controlling owner, sources close to the situation tell SI.com. The league would have compelling grounds to deny her attempt, as it would seem to constitute an "end-around" of the NBA ousting her husband. Shelly Sterling has also been implicated in some of the allegations of racism against her husband, particularly those concerning their ownership and management of housing properties in Los Angeles. Consequently, the NBA could refer to those transgressions as legal justifications to deny a transfer of her ownership from non-controlling to controlling.

California law works against Shelly Sterling keeping the Clippers
California is a community property state, which means that spouses in California jointly own assets acquired during their marriage. Shelly Sterling's ownership of the Clippers is thus inextricably intertwined with Donald Sterling's ownership under California law. In fact, it's believed the NBA could not take Donald Sterling's equity in the Clippers without also taking Shelly Sterling's equity, as the Sterling's joint ownership is legally one entity. There has been much speculation that California law would help Shelly Sterling keep the team, but attorneys familiar with the NBA believe the opposite is true: the unity in spousal assets achieved by California law means that Shelly Sterling must leave the NBA if the same fate befalls her husband.
 
13(d) is more limited in scope, but, crucially, does not require Sterling intended to harm the league. 13(d) states that an owner cannot "fail or refuse to fulfill....contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely." Sterling's failure to adhere to covenants contained in his franchise agreement and joint venture agreement, among other documents, arguably meant that he failed to satisfy his contractual obligations. The fact that players threatened a boycott and sponsors dropped their support of the Clippers after Sterling's words were made public suggest that Sterling adversely "affected" the NBA and its members adversely.

The NBA also interprets article 13 to mean that if Donald Sterling's financial interest in the Clippers is terminated, the same holds true for others who have legal claims in that interest. As the Clippers are owned through a Sterling family trust, all members of the trust would lose their ownership if the NBA ousts Donald Sterling. Put bluntly, once Donald Sterling is out, the same holds true for the rest of the Sterling family.
 


 



 

[pearljammer10]

Griffin to Boston for Sully, contract of Wallace and 3 first round picks.

[sed522002]

NBA's response:

[Kuberski33]

Silver handled this the right way in that his first objective was to avoid a media debacle right as it was about to enter its peak season of interest - i.e. playoffs.  But I have a feeling this is going to turn into the NBA's worst nightmare.  Sports leagues have always skirted the boundaries of being monopolies and this is just going to reopen the arguments.

This may turn out to be the biggest sports legal case to date, period. And it has the potential (my opinion only) to really damage the NBA.

The fact that there are two Sterling parties involved only mucks the waters up further.

[saltlover]

Silver handled this the right way in that his first objective was to avoid a media debacle right as it was about to enter its peak season of interest - i.e. playoffs.  But I have a feeling this is going to turn into the NBA's worst nightmare.  Sports leagues have always skirted the boundaries of being monopolies and this is just going to reopen the arguments.

This may turn out to be the biggest sports legal case to date, period. And it has the potential (my opinion only) to really damage the NBA.

The fact that there are two Sterling parties involved only mucks the waters up further.

I do a lot of anti-trust work.  I would be surprised if anything anti-trust resulted from this.  Courts and federal regulators are both giving a lot of leeway on those rules right now.  I know this is a slightly different situation, but I'm hard-pressed to see how a good claim can be made under the Sherman or Clayton Acts.

[Kuberski33]

I do a lot of anti-trust work.  I would be surprised if anything anti-trust resulted from this.  Courts and federal regulators are both giving a lot of leeway on those rules right now.  I know this is a slightly different situation, but I'm hard-pressed to see how a good claim can be made under the Sherman or Clayton Acts.

I have no legal background whatsoever.  But I do have a business background. Wouldn't forcing someone to divest an asset that could be worth upwards of $1 billion -- and subjecting them to the tax liability- due to something they simply said - be in violation of those acts?