| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 One of the more peculiar aspects of the bankruptcy proceedings of the National Hockey League's Phoenix Coyotes is the keen interest taken in it by Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association.The three leagues aren't creditors of the Coyotes or "interested parties," which are those entities or people effected by a bankruptcy filing. And yet MLB, the NFL and the NBA each filed separate two-page briefs with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. Each league even carried an almost identically worded paragraph in those briefs, which all opposed the Coyotes' proposed sale to Jim Balsillie and his intention to move the franchise to Canada. The NBA, for example, noted, "It is of fundamental importance for any sports league to determine the identity of its members and to select the locations in which its member teams will play. Accordingly, the NBA Constitution provides for rules and procedures governing franchise ownership transfer and relocation, and grants authority over these processes to the NBA Board of Governors -- composed of one representative from each of the thirty NBA teams. ... Thus, the NBA respectfully submits that the Court's determinations in this case should respect the National Hockey League's rules and procedures regarding ownership transfer and relocation, and not set precedent that could severely disrupt the business of professional hockey, basketball and other major league sports." Indeed, each league fears the "precedent" that could be set by a bankruptcy court if a franchise was able to shield itself from a league constitution and force a relocation, and the Coyotes-Balsillie romance makes them nervous. Even so, does this apprehension give the NBA, the NFL and MLB the right to butt in? As Thomas Salerno of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP explains, their involvement falls under the discretion of the court as a result of "amicus curiae." The Latin phrase, which translates literally into "friend of the court," is invoked in legal cases when issues dealing with public policy arise. As a result, the leagues have to file a motion with the court asking to be allowed to submit their statements as an amicus, or friend. "Judges sometimes allow people that aren't technically parties in a case to submit a brief," Salerno says. "That's what they asked to do." The motion was authorized on May 20, adding yet another wrinkle to the Coyotes' case. - Ben Fidler
 Deal Video
    Community
 Elsewhere on The Deal.comDealwatch
The Deal MagazineCorporate Dealmaker
The Deal VideoCategories
Blog roll
Archives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
©Copyright 2009, The Deal, LLC. All rights reserved. Please send all technical questions, comments or concerns to the Webmaster.
