MASN dispute update

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

 

YES.  Develop a plan and stick to it.

I believe MASN is still paying the NATS, at their valuation of what they think they might owe.  That is what they did for the 2012 perod.

Yes, I believe you are correct that MASN has been paying them something.    But it was about $30 mm/yr less than what the RSDC ordered, and I'd imagine the gap grows a little each year.

I'd really like to see the two sides sit down and settle this now, but it seems this is a duel to the death.

[Three Run Homer]

Do we know if the RSDC has continued to use the Bortz/20 percent margin benchmark in evaluating rights fees paid by other RSN's since the MASN dispute began?  

My understanding is that the contract states that rights fees paid by MASN will be determined by the RSDC according to "established methodology".  This doesn't specify Bortz, but if the RSDC uses a radically different benchmark to determine the rights fees paid to the Nats/O's than it used/uses for every other RSDC case before or since, then wouldn't this be an obvious breach of contract by MLB?

 

[spiritof66]

3 hours ago, Three Run Homer said:

Do we know if the RSDC has continued to use the Bortz/20 percent margin benchmark in evaluating rights fees paid by other RSN's since the MASN dispute began?  

My understanding is that the contract states that rights fees paid by MASN will be determined by the RSDC according to "established methodology".  This doesn't specify Bortz, but if the RSDC uses a radically different benchmark to determine the rights fees paid to the Nats/O's than it used/uses for every other RSDC case before or since, then wouldn't this be an obvious breach of contract by MLB?

 

The RSDC proceedings are confidential. I'm going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that the only reason we know about them is that they surfaced when the Orioles challenged the arbitration award by the RSDC. 

I wouldn't expect a 2005 contract setting forth a methodology to be used years in the future to name a methodology. Instead, the contract requires the RSDC, whenever a rights fee dispute comes up, to use the methodology it's using at that time in other related-party situations. 

MLB has no contractual obligations to do anything.  The RSDC did what it did, and there's no remedy for an arbitration panel that gets it wrong. 

Something I stumbled over a year or so ago and had forgotten, and that supports my view that there's some hope for a better result from a new RSDC. One of the 2012 arbitrators, Francis Coonelly, and Manfred were law firm partners, doing labor relations work together for MLB, until MLB hired both of them to work in-house in 1998. (Manfred is two years older.) http://sabr.org/research/law-firm-and-league-morgan-lewis-and-bockius-llp-major-league-baseball-and-mlbcom. Coonelly and Manfred continued to work together at MLB for another nine years before Coonelly joined the Pirates in 2007. Not surprisingly, Coonelly thinks the world of his long-time former colleague. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/12212565/meet-major-league-baseball-new-commissioner-rob-manfred
"Sure, Rob, I mean Mr. Commissioner, old pal, whatever you say."

.

[Beetlejuice]

So basically the "established methodology" portion is somewhat unenforceable?  Regardless of the venue, the only recourse Angelos would have left would be trying to claim malfeasance in the next award.  That or trying to kick it Federal I suppose.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

So basically the "established methodology" portion is somewhat unenforceable?  Regardless of the venue, the only recourse Angelos would have left would be trying to claim malfeasance in the next award.  That or trying to kick it Federal I suppose.

In an arbitration, virtually everything is "unenforceable," in that the arbitrators pretty much can decide what they want and there's nothing that can be done about it. When you agree on an arbitration provision, you should have some faith in the integrity of the arbitrators who are named (or who will be appointed later) and in their competence to decide the issues entrusted to them -- or be willing to accept a lousy decision because the outcome is not that important to you. 

I don't know what you mean by "trying to kick it Federal." Generally, it's a little harder to attack an arbitration decision in federal court than in NY state court -- certainly no easier.

[Three Run Homer]

17 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

In an arbitration, virtually everything is "unenforceable," in that the arbitrators pretty much can decide what they want and there's nothing that can be done about it. When you agree on an arbitration provision, you should have some faith in the integrity of the arbitrators who are named (or who will be appointed later) and in their competence to decide the issues entrusted to them -- or be willing to accept a lousy decision because the outcome is not that important to you. 

I don't know what you mean by "trying to kick it Federal." Generally, it's a little harder to attack an arbitration decision in federal court than in NY state court -- certainly no easier.

Thanks for explaining this. I am surprised that an experienced litigator like Peter Angelos would agree to a contract that would give so much arbitrary power to the RSDC.  He must have known that any arbitration panel appointed by MLB would likely want to jerry-rig an outcome favorable to the Nats.  

[Beetlejuice]

9 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

In an arbitration, virtually everything is "unenforceable," in that the arbitrators pretty much can decide what they want and there's nothing that can be done about it. When you agree on an arbitration provision, you should have some faith in the integrity of the arbitrators who are named (or who will be appointed later) and in their competence to decide the issues entrusted to them -- or be willing to accept a lousy decision because the outcome is not that important to you. 

I don't know what you mean by "trying to kick it Federal." Generally, it's a little harder to attack an arbitration decision in federal court than in NY state court -- certainly no easier.

I meant claiming malfeasance during the next arbitration.  Assuming he doesn't like the next award, he's going to try bring that claim back to court again.  And appeal, and appeal, then appeal to the feds.  Sounds like throwing good money after bad, but if he wants to drag this out...

Would a new suit on another award likely go back to Marks?  I know many states like to maintain continuity.

[spiritof66]

Ordinarily it would. But Marks has been appointed administrative judge fore the state courts, and I don't know what his deal is -- or will be.

[Beetlejuice]

I'd anticipate MLB/Natioanls will press for him to hear it, and the opposite MASN/Os.  The long stall.

[Beetlejuice]

Update  

Anyone know the basics behind this appeal?  I don’t see why MASN would waste the resources to file an appeal they knew would get rejected. The article says the have already filed under another “form” though that is probably a typo for “fora”.   Where else could an appeal be filed?  Does anyone have resources to see the appeals?

If the Nationals didn’t want this delayed any further, they certainly have standing to file a derivative lawsuit.  But I’d imagine there would be a discovery dispute, only delaying things even further.   Might be worth it anyways after the appeal ruling comes down.  MASN is supposed to be looking out for the interests of all its shareholders.

[Frobby]

As I had understood it, most appeals to the New York Court of Appeals are heard at the discretion of the Court, but the right of appeal was automatic in cases of a 3-2 split at the lower level appellate court.    It sounds as if there was some procedural flaw in the kind of appeal MASN took, that MASN thinks can be corrected.   Spiritof66 may have better insight.  

[spiritof66]

14 hours ago, Frobby said:

As I had understood it, most appeals to the New York Court of Appeals are heard at the discretion of the Court, but the right of appeal was automatic in cases of a 3-2 split at the lower level appellate court.    It sounds as if there was some procedural flaw in the kind of appeal MASN took, that MASN thinks can be corrected.   Spiritof66 may have better insight.  

That's right, but the "double dissent" rule is a little more complicated than that.

I can guess what's going on, but that's all -- I can't figure it out from the article, and I can't find anything else on the Internet. If I can make sense of this or find any useful information about what the court did or what its significance might be, I'll pass that on. 

[Beetlejuice]

Why would the same court decline an appeal and then listen to another for the same case?

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Beetlejuice said:

Why would the same court decline an appeal and then listen to another for the same case?

A court wouldn't be too likely to do that, if in both instances it is in a situation where it is deciding whether it wants to hear the appeal. But there are several categories of cases in which the losing party has a right to have its appeal heard by the NY Court of Appeals (the highest court in NY State). That is, the Court of Appeals has to take the appeal if it falls into one of those categories, and it has to decide in those appeals whether the case falls in the category or categories specified by the appealing party (here, MASN and, I assume, the Orioles).

It appears from the media report that the Court of Appeals decided, not that it doesn't want to hear the appeal, but that the appeal doesn't fall into the right-to-appeal category specified by MASN and the Orioles. I can't figure out where MASN and the Orioles are going from there, but I'll try to do that.

[Going Underground]

And from the Post:

 

Litigation between the Nationals and Orioles over Mid-Atlantic Sports Network television revenue has been lost in a mess of legal twists and turns. The dispute, over whether the arbitration ruling that initially awarded the Nationals nearly $300 million should stand, has been carried far from its basic question: How much of MASN’s revenue should come the Nationals way?

Another legal twist came Thursday, when a procedural ruling stalled another Orioles appeal. Basically, the Orioles had appealed a previous decision that the dispute should be heard again by Major League Baseball’s Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC), the same body the Orioles argued was neither neutral nor unbiased in its initial ruling because MLB officials and owners comprise the RSDC. The Orioles will still appeal that decision, meaning the case could still go back to the RSDC but will do so through another legal avenue. Both sides expected Thursday’s ruling, and neither side’s plan changes dramatically because of it.

“Today’s action just means that MASN’s appeal should proceed through a different procedural route,” MASN attorney Thomas Hall said in a statement. “Having won vacatur of the prior award due to MLB’s evident partiality and disregard for fundamental fairness, MASN will continue to press its appeal on the question of whether MLB is disqualified from rehearing the parties’ right fees dispute.”

But the ruling does highlight the convoluted progression of the litigation, which likely will not be settled for years. As a result, the Nationals will probably be forced to operate under the assumption that the television revenue they are owed — however much the court decides that is — will not arrive in time to help meet payroll in the short term.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/11/17/nationals-masn-money-is-still-tied-up-and-deal-for-stadium-naming-rights-hasnt-been-reached/?utm_term=.f2118d69e307