Bellator files opposition for Friday hearing in Alvarez lawsuit

Bellator has filed its opposition briefing for Eddie Alvarez’s preliminary injunction. It includes two declarations which supports the contention that the organization had matched Zuffa’s offer.

On Friday, January 25th, the Court will hear Alvarez’s Order to Show Cause regarding a preliminary injunction sought by the lightweight so that he may seek a contract with Zuffa.

Bellator’s opposition includes two declarations. The first is from Main Events boxing CEO, Kathy Duva. Duva’s declaration states that matching rights clauses are commonplace in fight contracts and that guaranteed purses are the customary measure to determine whether a third party has matched terms of the contract. Duva also indicated that she is an attorney-at-law with a law degree from Seton Hall.

The next declaration is from former Showtime exec, and current EPIX TV consultant, Ray Langbord. Mr. Langbord addressed two issues in his declaration. First, he addresses the right to match issue. In reviewing the contracts in question, he opines that Bellator matched Zuffa’s offer and actually offered more non-speculative monetary compensation. Langbord also indicated that matching rights measure is guaranteed payouts as Duva addressed in her declaration. He also goes into a discussion about weighing Fox versus SpikeTV and states that Spike TV is more experienced in MMA than Fox.

Langbord, also an attorney, addresses the PPV issue. He states that despite the fact that Bellator has not run a PPV it still is capable of doing so.

As for the legal brief, we addressed the elements needed to prevail here. The most notable argument is whether Alvarez would likely prevail on the merits. Bellator argues that New Jersey does not require “matching of immaterial terms, or what appears to be the same thing, [and] do not let insubstantial variations between the third party offer and the right’s holder offer to defeat the right.”

Bellator also brings up the issue of a “poison pill” clause that has been addressed by courts in New Jersey. Essentially, poison pill clauses violate the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. Bellator attorneys cite a USA Cable vs. World Wrestling Federation case as authority.

Payout Perspective:

It will be interesting to see what happens Friday. Certainly, Bellator attorneys make a good case against the injunctive relief sought by Alvarez. The declarations are helpful for Bellator but necessarily instructive for the court. Yet, it does support Bellator’s belief that it matched the guaranteed money offered by Zuffa.
The poison pill clause is something that has been used in the NFL and NBA. Jeremy Lin’s contract with the Houston Rockets is an example of such a poison pill. Basically, the poison pill is something in the contract that the other side cannot or will not be able to match.

http://mmapayout.com/2013/01/bellator-files-opposition-for-friday-hearing-in-alvarez-lawsuit/

WAR BELLATORS attorney!!!!

Eddie is denied injunction to UFC 159. This was a pretty clear cut case IMO. Eddie had a matching clause and Bellator matched. Simple enough for a judge to deny Eddie in one day for UFC 159. The battle will continue but he will probably either have to fight for Bellator or possibly wait out the duration for the contract which I believe is 3 1/2 years. I am sure he is not going to sit out the prime of his career. That would ruin his career. He will take the $250K bonus and all the money Bellator is throwing at him which was the same as the UFC guarantee.

CDF47 wrote:Eddie is denied injunction to UFC 159. This was a pretty clear cut case IMO. Eddie had a matching clause and Bellator matched. Simple enough for a judge to deny Eddie in one day. I am sure there will be an appeal but he will lose that too. He will either have to fight for Bellator or possibly wait out the duration for the contract which I believe is 3 1/2 years. I am sure he is not going to sit out the prime of his career. That would ruin his career. He will take the $250K bonus and all the money Bellator is throwing at him which was the same as the UFC guarantee.

Got a source for this by any chance?

https://twitter.com/MikeChiappetta

Mike Chiappetta MMA ‏@MikeChiappetta

BREAKING: Court denies Alvarez's application for an injunction that would have allowed him to fight at UFC 159. The legal fight goes on.

Mike Chiappetta MMA ‏@MikeChiappetta

"Holy irony ... I'm on hold to speak to Bjorn Rebney and instead of hold music, there is audio of Chandler's win over Alvarez."

Eddie trusts lawyers way too much. Of course they will tell you your going to win. They make money either way. This is a really dumb move by Eddie. This case looked weak as hell from the get go.

retrocausality wrote:Eddie trusts lawyers way too much. Of course they will tell you your going to win. They make money either way. This is a really dumb move by Eddie. This case looked weak as hell from the get go.

Yeah, Eddie has no case hear. I think we will be seeing Chandler/Alvarez II soon.

retrocausality wrote:Eddie trusts lawyers way too much. Of course they will tell you your going to win. They make money either way. This is a really dumb move by Eddie. This case looked weak as hell from the get go.

He self admitted to not knowing the finer details of the contract. Thanks for dragging Bellators name through the mud UFC and Eddie! You lose!

stu3ufc wrote:

retrocausality wrote:Eddie trusts lawyers way too much. Of course they will tell you your going to win. They make money either way. This is a really dumb move by Eddie. This case looked weak as hell from the get go.

He self admitted to not knowing the finer details of the contract. Thanks for dragging Bellators name through the mud UFC and Eddie! You lose!

I can't believe the Sherdog lawyer posters were so far off on this one....LOL

ahahahahah OH MY!!!

I'm not too up on US law. so I'm right assuming anything the UFC could potentially offer i.e ppv cut does not apply in this matching of rights.

If Eddie refuses to sign the Bellator contract does he get sued? and how much for violation of contract? will he get another chance still to sign with bellator?

How does this work?

stu3ufc wrote:ahahahahah OH MY!!!

I'm not too up on US law. so I'm right assuming anything the UFC could potentially offer i.e ppv cut does not apply in this matching of rights.

If Eddie refuses to sign the Bellator contract does he get sued? and how much for violation of contract? will he get another chance still to sign with bellator?

How does this work?

I think he will have the option to sit out the duration of the contract which I believe is 3 1/2 years. He's not going to do that in the prime of his career. This will kill his career. He could also retire which he's not going to do.

I expect to see Chandler/Alvarez II in the not too distant future.

I wouldn't reward Alvarez an instant title shot.

He should be placed in another tournament.

^It was stated in court that he would get a title shot against Chandler on PPV. That is what the Bellator legal team represented in court to the judge.

"Are you representing to the court that you have a fight lined up for him, vs. [Michael] Chandler, on a pay-per-view?" Judge Linares asked him.

"I am representing to the court, yes," he said. "Subject to all the things that can happen. Injury, etc. But yes, I am representing that."

That's pretty lame.

How would a Bellator PPV even work?

wekka wrote:That's pretty lame.

How would a Bellator PPV even work?

Probably similar to the way UFC built up PPVs on Spike TV. Bellator would probably stack a PPV with title fights and hopefully cross-promotional champ vs. champ super fights.

Well, it would make sense with how they're having to place tournament bouts on the prelims this season.

I just think it's crappy that they have to change their system just to appease to one fighter. Huge risk, in my opinion.

wekka wrote:Well, it would make sense with how they're having to place tournament bouts on the prelims this season.

I just think it's crappy that they have to change their system just to appease to one fighter. Huge risk, in my opinion.

Yeah, it's a bit risky but I am pretty certain they are going to have to follow through on this PPV as they represented in court or Eddie will probably be able to sue.

I know credible people who believe that Couture would have beaten Zuffa in court. But that would have taken a very long time, during which he would have had to sit out fighting. Alvarez has lost almost no time so far, fighting in April and October of 2012.

Don't think Fertitta's lawyers are that good. My friends at the Culinary Union Local 226 creamed their Station Casino counterparts at the NLRB: http://www.culinaryunion226.org/detail.asp?id=385

nhbnews wrote:I know credible people who believe that Couture would have beaten Zuffa in court. But that would have taken a very long time, during which he would have had to sit out fighting. Alvarez has lost almost no time so far, fighting in April and October of 2012.

Don't think Fertitta's lawyers are that good. My friends at the Culinary Union Local 226 creamed their Station Casino counterparts at the NLRB: http://www.culinaryunion226.org/detail.asp?id=385

Yeah, Fertitta lawyers got smashed in court today.

I like this bit. Oh the irony.

states that Spike TV is more experienced in MMA than Fox.