NBA tenatively approves Clipper sale, Sterling drops lawsuit.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Sterling reminds me of my grandmother. She too had her prejudices but I think most people of that generation did.

[fairweatherfan]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated. 

[Roy H.]

Coach Hobbs....Since discovery of these remarks came from an illegal wiretap does Sterling have a case in his lawsuit against the league?

I'm certainly not an expert here, but I don't think he has much of a case.  The NBA Constitution, and disputes thereunder, are governed by New York law, which is a "one party" recording state.  The recordings would be admissible and competent evidence there.

[D.o.s.]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

[saltlover]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

[fairweatherfan]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

So he'd first have to undo Shelly Sterling's status as sole trustee, to then nullify her action of indemnification, to then even begin to have standing to sue the league?  Yeah it sounds like the slim shot he had before the sale agreement is quite a bit slimmer now. 

Wonder if this boils down to Sterling's attorneys taking advantage of him or if he really changed his mind (in whatever state it's in these days).  Either way this just seems like tilting at windmills at this point.

[saltlover]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

So he'd first have to undo Shelly Sterling's status as sole trustee, to then nullify her action of indemnification, to then even begin to have standing to sue the league?  Yeah it sounds like the slim shot he had before the sale agreement is quite a bit slimmer now. 

Wonder if this boils down to Sterling's attorneys taking advantage of him or if he really changed his mind (in whatever state it's in these days).  Either way this just seems like tilting at windmills at this point.

No he can sue the league now.  The cost of the lawsuit just gets paid out of the proceeds from the sale, whether he wins or loses.  The only benefit of a win is overturning the ban.

[D.o.s.]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

So he'd first have to undo Shelly Sterling's status as sole trustee, to then nullify her action of indemnification, to then even begin to have standing to sue the league?  Yeah it sounds like the slim shot he had before the sale agreement is quite a bit slimmer now. 

Wonder if this boils down to Sterling's attorneys taking advantage of him or if he really changed his mind (in whatever state it's in these days).  Either way this just seems like tilting at windmills at this point.

No he can sue the league now.  The cost of the lawsuit just gets paid out of the proceeds from the sale, whether he wins or loses.  The only benefit of a win is overturning the ban.

Which is, allegedly, one of the reasons why he first accepted the offer and then rejected it -- he thought negation of the ban and the fine was part of the sale:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-sterling-sale-20140607-story.html

[fairweatherfan]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

So he'd first have to undo Shelly Sterling's status as sole trustee, to then nullify her action of indemnification, to then even begin to have standing to sue the league?  Yeah it sounds like the slim shot he had before the sale agreement is quite a bit slimmer now. 

Wonder if this boils down to Sterling's attorneys taking advantage of him or if he really changed his mind (in whatever state it's in these days).  Either way this just seems like tilting at windmills at this point.

No he can sue the league now.  The cost of the lawsuit just gets paid out of the proceeds from the sale, whether he wins or loses.  The only benefit of a win is overturning the ban.

Gotcha, thanks.  So the indemnification doesn't stop the suit, it just eliminates any financial damages he can get from it.  To actually collect he'd have to negate the indemnification.  I think.

[footey]

This thing is a mess. 

[saltlover]

Shelly Sterling indemnified the NBA from damages in future lawsuits from her estranged husband as part of the sale agreement with the NBA. She negotiated the sale as the sole trustee of the Sterling family trust, which owns LA Clippers LLC, after two neurologists had declared Donald Sterling unable to conduct his own business and legal affairs.
-from realgm

Given this, does Sterling really have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit?  If he's not controlling the trust, he has no say over the sale of the team, I think, and no grounds to sue if the indemnification is legit.  Maybe he could fight the dementia diagnosis somehow, but it seems like this is even more unlikely than it was before the sale was negotiated.

Mostly that just means that if Sterling does sue the league he'll end up footing their legal bills, too.

Unless there's also a suit which attempts to overturn Shelly Sterling's authority to negotiate the sale.  Haven't seen if that suit exists (nor do I have any clue as to whether or not it would be successful).  If Sterling were able to get rid of that indemnification clause, then he would gain by successfully suing the NBA.  That's a lot of if and unlikely events, and the man should just walk away with his billion.

So he'd first have to undo Shelly Sterling's status as sole trustee, to then nullify her action of indemnification, to then even begin to have standing to sue the league?  Yeah it sounds like the slim shot he had before the sale agreement is quite a bit slimmer now. 

Wonder if this boils down to Sterling's attorneys taking advantage of him or if he really changed his mind (in whatever state it's in these days).  Either way this just seems like tilting at windmills at this point.

No he can sue the league now.  The cost of the lawsuit just gets paid out of the proceeds from the sale, whether he wins or loses.  The only benefit of a win is overturning the ban.

Gotcha, thanks.  So the indemnification doesn't stop the suit, it just eliminates any financial damages he can get from it.  To actually collect he'd have to negate the indemnification.  I think.

That is my best understanding of the situation, inasmuch information as we have from media reports and statements from his lawyers.  I suppose he could perhaps try to make his wife on the hook for the indemnification -- such that any costs from the lawsuit that get taken out of the proceeds from the sale come from her share.  Not sure that'd work either, but I think they've just been throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks for 6 weeks now.

As someone in the antitrust field, I REALLY want to see that antitrust argument they say they're going to make.  It just makes me laugh.

[D.o.s.]

What makes me laugh is nonsense like this:



Defending a scumbag like Sterling behind a document you clearly don't understand for political reasons.

[Finkelskyhook]

What makes me laugh is nonsense like this:



Defending a scumbag like Sterling behind a document you clearly don't understand for political reasons.

I'm not defending Sterling but I clearly understand the document. 

[D.o.s.]

Then you understand why the First Amendment has absolutely no bearing on what's happening with Sterling.

At all.

[saltlover]

Looks like Shelly Sterling is making a play to confirm she had authority to negotiate the sale.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/apnewsbreak-shelly-sterling-heads-court-190701911--nba.html

That's the biggest potential thorn in the sale.  If the CA court rules that Shelly Sterling had the right to sell, then the sale agreement is good and the only issue in Donald's lawsuit is the $2.5 million fine and banishment.  If she's ruled against, then it's likely the sale is at least temporarily off, in which case, the circus begins anew.