ESPN: Sterling OKs Clippers sale.

[Kane3387]

FYI this is already in the main sterling thread

[Ogaju]

Nice move by Sterling. With this move he may put the NBA on the defensive because they have to disenfranchise his wife now. Who really has not done anything wrong. He made a nice chess move. Side out. 

[Roy H.]

Nice move by Sterling. With this move he may put the NBA on the defensive because they have to disenfranchise his wife now. Who really has not done anything wrong. He made a nice chess move. Side out.

Not really, though.  The NBA Constitution gives the Board of Governors absolute authority to terminate the entire ownership's interest because of the actions of one owner.

[CoachBo]

Nice move by Sterling. With this move he may put the NBA on the defensive because they have to disenfranchise his wife now. Who really has not done anything wrong. He made a nice chess move. Side out.

Not really, though.  The NBA Constitution gives the Board of Governors absolute authority to terminate the entire ownership's interest because of the actions of one owner.

Exactly.

If Sterling is sincere about selling out, good for him.

If this is gamesmanship, he cannot win any more than he can win in court.

Game over.

[Ogaju]

Handing the team to the wife changes the narrative in court.

If it is true that the team is owned by a trust, then you have to deal with the reality that DTS does not really own the team. He has already ceded the team to a TRUST. What does the NBA Constitution say about that? Did they consent to the transfer of ownership to the Trust? Things may prove interesting for the NBA if the court recognizes the Trust as the owner of the club.

There are many instances in law where individuals are shielded from liability when they have transfered property to a trust. OJ Simpson is one example. The trust he set up in Florida protected his pension from the civil judgment against him.

[Roy H.]

Handing the team to the wife changes the narrative in court.

If it is true that the team is owned by a trust, then you have to deal with the reality that DTS does not really own the team. He has already ceded the team to a TRUST. What does the NBA Constitution say about that? Did they consent to the transfer of ownership to the Trust? Things may prove interesting for the NBA if the court recognizes the Trust as the owner of the club.

There are many instances in law where individuals are shielded from liability when they have transfered property to a trust. OJ Simpson is one example. The trust he set up in Florida protected his pension from the civil judgment against him.

Sterling is the appointed Governor of the Clippers.  If his interest is terminated, the entire ownership interest is terminated.  It doesn't matter if the team is owned jointly with his wife, held jointly with a business partner, held by a corporation, or held by a trust.  Once Sterling is gone, the entire ownership group is.  The Constitution is very clear on this.

[Roy H.]

Looks like Sterling is backing out of letting his wife sell the team, and is threatening to fight to the "bloody end".

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10993013/donald-sterling-strongly-responds-nba-draconian-penalties

[saltlover]

I'll be interested to see how his wife controlling the sale will work.  Also known as, I'll believe it when I see it.

In light of the recent news posted by Roy, I'll just quote myself from earlier.

[Fafnir]

Looks like Sterling is backing out of letting his wife sell the team, and is threatening to fight to the "bloody end".

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10993013/donald-sterling-strongly-responds-nba-draconian-penalties

Yeah you have to wonder if he's just changing his mind or if the whole thing was a tactic to try and get the board of governors to delay the vote ousting him.

Or maybe have it both ways, try to fight it in court but also try and influence the selling process if court challenges fail.

[Moranis]

Looks like Sterling is backing out of letting his wife sell the team, and is threatening to fight to the "bloody end".

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10993013/donald-sterling-strongly-responds-nba-draconian-penalties

and this seems to be the slippery slope that Cuban warned about.

Sterling specifically references Orlando Magic owner Richard DeVos, who, in his words, "has made highly controversial comments against individuals with HIV/AIDS and generously supports anti-homosexual causes with impugnity."

[D.o.s.]

Looks like Sterling is backing out of letting his wife sell the team, and is threatening to fight to the "bloody end".

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10993013/donald-sterling-strongly-responds-nba-draconian-penalties

and this seems to be the slippery slope that Cuban warned about.

Sterling specifically references Orlando Magic owner Richard DeVos, who, in his words, "has made highly controversial comments against individuals with HIV/AIDS and generously supports anti-homosexual causes with impugnity."

Yeah DeVos is a creep who donates millions to things like Prop 8.

That still affects the NBA's bottom line way, way less than an owner being recorded asking his mistress/assistant/whatever not to bring black people to his games.

Also, given Cuban's recent history with incredibly shortsighted false equivocations, I'm not sure he's the best guy to be citing in a case like this.

[CeltsAcumen]

Handing the team to the wife changes the narrative in court.

If it is true that the team is owned by a trust, then you have to deal with the reality that DTS does not really own the team. He has already ceded the team to a TRUST. What does the NBA Constitution say about that? Did they consent to the transfer of ownership to the Trust? Things may prove interesting for the NBA if the court recognizes the Trust as the owner of the club.

There are many instances in law where individuals are shielded from liability when they have transfered property to a trust. OJ Simpson is one example. The trust he set up in Florida protected his pension from the civil judgment against him.

Sterling is the appointed Governor of the Clippers.  If his interest is terminated, the entire ownership interest is terminated.  It doesn't matter if the team is owned jointly with his wife, held jointly with a business partner, held by a corporation, or held by a trust.  Once Sterling is gone, the entire ownership group is.  The Constitution is very clear on this.

Yes, what you said above is correct, the one monkey wrench is if the Sterlings file for divorce.  If they do, the Clippers are community property.  The California court would have jurisdiction to divide the estate and the NBA will have no say in that.  If the Court decides that Shelley gets 50% then the NBA will have a very hard time forcing her to sell the team.  Even if they do, that divorce will not be over for 2 + years and under California Family Code, there is a restraining order against the sale of any marital asset during the divorce.

This would be the nuclear option, but it would delay the sale of the team and the NBA can try all it wants but the California Family Court will not care about their Constitution.  What matters is that the Clippers are essentially half owned by Shelley as community property.

They never got a divorced before bc they know the Court would either make one pay half the value to the other, $500 million, or sell the team and split the profits which would cost them in Capital gains taxes. 

[saltlover]

Handing the team to the wife changes the narrative in court.

If it is true that the team is owned by a trust, then you have to deal with the reality that DTS does not really own the team. He has already ceded the team to a TRUST. What does the NBA Constitution say about that? Did they consent to the transfer of ownership to the Trust? Things may prove interesting for the NBA if the court recognizes the Trust as the owner of the club.

There are many instances in law where individuals are shielded from liability when they have transfered property to a trust. OJ Simpson is one example. The trust he set up in Florida protected his pension from the civil judgment against him.

Sterling is the appointed Governor of the Clippers.  If his interest is terminated, the entire ownership interest is terminated.  It doesn't matter if the team is owned jointly with his wife, held jointly with a business partner, held by a corporation, or held by a trust.  Once Sterling is gone, the entire ownership group is.  The Constitution is very clear on this.

Yes, what you said above is correct, the one monkey wrench is if the Sterlings file for divorce.  If they do, the Clippers are community property.  The California court would have jurisdiction to divide the estate and the NBA will have no say in that.  If the Court decides that Shelley gets 50% then the NBA will have a very hard time forcing her to sell the team.  Even if they do, that divorce will not be over for 2 + years and under California Family Code, there is a restraining order against the sale of any marital asset during the divorce.

This would be the nuclear option, but it would delay the sale of the team and the NBA can try all it wants but the California Family Court will not care about their Constitution.  What matters is that the Clippers are essentially half owned by Shelley as community property.

They never got a divorced before bc they know the Court would either make one pay half the value to the other, $500 million, or sell the team and split the profits which would cost them in Capital gains taxes.

I'm fairly certain you're wrong on this.  My understanding is that their state of marriage matters little.  Donald Sterling and his wife collectively could hold 50%, and you hold the other 50%, and you're wiped out the same as they, because Donald Sterling is the controlling owner.  The California Courts will decide who gets what portion of the proceeds from the sale, but I doubt they have any power to interfere with a business agreement presumably signed in New York.  The controlling owner can't change without approval by the Board of Governors, and they're not going to approve Shelley Sterling any more than Donald.

[footey]

I read the legal response by his lawyer last night.   The arguments were very clearly and forcefully presented.  This is not necessarily a dilatory tactic, as there is legal substance to Sterling's defense.. The heart of their case is that CA law admonishes the use of illegally obtained evidence, e.g. the illegal wiretapped conversation.  I am not in a position to assess that particular issue. I will say this: putting aside the strong arbitration clause in the NBA's Constitution (which may be insurmountable), if this case was presented to an impartial judge for a decision, it is unlikely the Commissioner and other owners would succeed in ousting Sterling. 

[Moranis]

Looks like Sterling is backing out of letting his wife sell the team, and is threatening to fight to the "bloody end".

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10993013/donald-sterling-strongly-responds-nba-draconian-penalties

and this seems to be the slippery slope that Cuban warned about.

Sterling specifically references Orlando Magic owner Richard DeVos, who, in his words, "has made highly controversial comments against individuals with HIV/AIDS and generously supports anti-homosexual causes with impugnity."

Yeah DeVos is a creep who donates millions to things like Prop 8.

That still affects the NBA's bottom line way, way less than an owner being recorded asking his mistress/assistant/whatever not to bring black people to his games.

Also, given Cuban's recent history with incredibly shortsighted false equivocations, I'm not sure he's the best guy to be citing in a case like this.

But it still affects the NBA's bottom line.  That is the point.  Where do you draw the line?  You can't speak badly against blacks, but against the gays is ok even where you donate millions of dollars to anti-gay causes.  I mean is that really the position the NBA wants to be in.  That is the rub.