MASN dispute update

[Can_of_corn]

Pretty much. There's only two things you could really blame them for:

1. Using the Proskauer firm as their attorneys, knowing that Proskauer has represented MLB and some of its teams in unrelated matters (including 1 or 2 of the teams whose representatives were sitting on the RSDC when it heard the case). The court said that created the potential for a conflict of interest and bias on the part of the RSDC. But I would respond as follows:

a. Even if that's true, I'd put the blame more on (i) Proskauer, which should have considered whether it had a conflict of interest before it took the assignment, and (ii) the RSDC, which declined to disqualify Proskauer from working on the case. Generally, clients rely on their lawyers to tell them what the rules are on conflicts of interest.

b. I think the court's decision on the conflict of interest issue is questionable. That issue is now on appeal and I won't be surprised if the Appellate Division decides that it was perfectly OK for Proskauer to act as the Nats' lawyers here.

2. Overreaching in their theory of how "fair market value" should be determined. But it's not exactly unusual for a party to take an extreme position in a negotiation or in litigation. MASN's position also was very extreme. In the end, the RSDC did not agree with either of them. I don't see any reason to blame either party for pushing for the position most advantageous to them.

So it is acceptable to receive (and I assume ask for) a loan from MLB which would be paid back after settlement of the arbitration? It would seem to me that such an act would give MLB a stake in proceedings.

[Frobby]

So it is acceptable to receive (and I assume ask for) a loan from MLB which would be paid back after settlement of the arbitration? It would seem to me that such an act would give MLB a stake in proceedings.

My recollection is that the RSDC had already informally apprised the parties of its decision before the loan was made. The official decision was delayed while MLB worked on a possible solution involving a sale of MASN. The loan was made to provide cash flow to the Nats while they awaited the outcome of the decision whether or not to sell MASN. There's no indication that the loan influenced the RSDC, which had already unofficially decided the matter. The court rejected MASN's argument on this issue.

[Frobby]

It appears that there may have been a change in the schedule for hearing the Nationals' latest motion to compel MASN to participate in the renewed RSDC arbitration. According to the original schedule, MASN was due to file its brief last week, but nothing was filed and there is nothing on the court's docket setting forth a new schedule. I'm sure that MASN didn't just choose not to file anything, so my guess is there was a new schedule set that for whatever reason isn't on the docket. Maybe the parties are having settlement discussions and that's the reason for the delay (though I doubt that).

Camden Depot has a pretty detailed article up describing some of what's been going on, and though I don't agree with all of it, it's an interesting read. http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-masn-case-will-case-go-back-to-rsdc.html

[Frobby]

This case has fallen into a mysterious black hole. Briefs that were scheduled to be filed last month were not filed, and hearings that were scheduled to occur last month did not occur. The court's docket says nothing about any change in the schedule. Just radio silence.

Makes me wonder whether the parties have asked the judge to quietly put the case on ice while they have settlement discussions.

[hoosiers]

This case has fallen into a mysterious black hole. Briefs that were scheduled to be filed last month were not filed, and hearings that were scheduled to occur last month did not occur. The court's docket says nothing about any change in the schedule. Just radio silence.

Makes me wonder whether the parties have asked the judge to quietly put the case on ice while they have settlement discussions.

It would be nice to see this settled. It is a shame reasonable minds can't be reasonable (as opposed to throwing complete BS requests at the RSDC). The Os, for all of their belief in Bortz, have to realize that the contracts calls for a reset to "market rates". The Nats probably understand where their market is - near bottom of top 10, that MASN should run at a decent profit, etc.

I would think they could walk back the RSDC decision a good bit - into the mid-upper $40Ms for 2012 with an escalator - and accelerate the Nats ownership of MASN perhaps even past the 33% - and perhaps even de-couple the TV rights fees for the two teams.

[Ohfan67]

This case has fallen into a mysterious black hole. Briefs that were scheduled to be filed last month were not filed, and hearings that were scheduled to occur last month did not occur. The court's docket says nothing about any change in the schedule. Just radio silence.

Makes me wonder whether the parties have asked the judge to quietly put the case on ice while they have settlement discussions.

It would be nice if they were negotiating the sale of MASN for a ton of money.

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Dodgers and Time Warner slash the price of their channel to other cable*companies <a href="https://t.co/xzDLrqAt3Q">https://t.co/xzDLrqAt3Q</a></p>— HardballTalk (@HardballTalk) <a href="

">March 23, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Better hurry!

[Going Underground]

Unable to reach agreement over tens of millions of dollars in fees for the right to televise games, the Orioles and the Washington Nationals are going to pursue help from an umpire of sorts to try to resolve a dispute that has lasted more than four years.

In a court document filed Monday, New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence K. Marks said attorneys in the case chose "to go to private mediation and selected their own mediator," and that the process is scheduled to begin April 12.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-masn-orioles-20160328-story.html

[weams]

Unable to reach agreement over tens of millions of dollars in fees for the right to televise games, the Orioles and the Washington Nationals are going to pursue help from an umpire of sorts to try to resolve a dispute that has lasted more than four years.

In a court document filed Monday, New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence K. Marks said attorneys in the case chose "to go to private mediation and selected their own mediator," and that the process is scheduled to begin April 12.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-masn-orioles-20160328-story.html

While the Orioles have supported the idea of mediation, the Nationals submitted because the judge was likely to require it, according to Stephen Neuwirth, a Nationals' attorney. "Under pressure, the Nationals agreed to mediate," Neuwirth wrote in a memorandum filed in court Monday.

The memorandum identified the mediator as Eric Green, a Boston-based professor who once mediated a Microsoft antitrust case.

"It's an excellent idea," said Stephen Ross, a Pennsylvania State University law professor who wondered why the third-party approach wasn't tried previously. "You have a trained mediator, and their sole goal is to try to get the parties together," he said.

Very good sign for the Orioles.

[Frobby]

Unable to reach agreement over tens of millions of dollars in fees for the right to televise games, the Orioles and the Washington Nationals are going to pursue help from an umpire of sorts to try to resolve a dispute that has lasted more than four years.

In a court document filed Monday, New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence K. Marks said attorneys in the case chose "to go to private mediation and selected their own mediator," and that the process is scheduled to begin April 12.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-masn-orioles-20160328-story.html

The Court's latest order can be found here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=iWVq5JUrACXe8lOY2SfTGA== The gist is that the upcoming April 12-13 mediation is not necessarily for the purpose of reaching an agreement on the rights fees, but rather is for the purpose of trying to reach agreement on the procedure going forward. If no agreement is reached, the court has set a new briefing schedule as follows:

Opposition to the Nats' motion to compel arbitration: May 6

Motion to stay the arbitration (if any): May 6

Reply to opposition to motion to compel arbitration: May 27

Opposition to motion to stay the arbitration (if any): May 27

Reply to opposition to motion to stay the arbitration (if any): June 17

In my opinion this is a pretty leisurely schedule, which is what MASN and the Orioles would have wanted. Essentially, the schedule has been delayed about four months compared to the schedule the Court set when the Nats first filed their motion.

Honestly, I find Justice Marks' latest move to be a head-scratcher. It's pretty clear that he doesn't want to make any more rulings in this case unless he absolutely has to. That's about the only thing that's clear. My educated guess is that the mediation will resolve nothing and the briefing will proceed.

[weams]

The Court's latest order can be found here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=iWVq5JUrACXe8lOY2SfTGA== The gist is that the upcoming April 12-13 mediation is not necessarily for the purpose of reaching an agreement on the rights fees, but rather is for the purpose of trying to reach agreement on the procedure going forward. If no agreement is reached, the court has set a new briefing schedule as follows:

Opposition to the Nats' motion to compel arbitration: May 6

Motion to stay the arbitration (if any): May 6

Reply to opposition to motion to compel arbitration: May 27

Opposition to motion to stay the arbitration (if any): May 27

Reply to opposition to motion to stay the arbitration (if any): June 17

In my opinion this is a pretty leisurely schedule, which is what MASN and the Orioles would have wanted. Essentially, the schedule has been delayed about four months compared to the schedule the Court set when the Nats first filed their motion.

Honestly, I find Justice Marks' latest move to be a head-scratcher. It's pretty clear that he doesn't want to make any more rulings in this case unless he absolutely has to. That's about the only thing that's clear. My educated guess is that the mediation will resolve nothing and the briefing will proceed.

I can't imagine that delaying this is good for anyone other than the Orioles.