Latest news with #Kessler
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
23XI Racing, Front Row Make Third Try for Injunction Against NASCAR
In their third attempt for a preliminary injunction against NASCAR, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports on Monday petitioned U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would ensure the two teams keep racing three chartered cars for the remainder of the 2025 Cup Series season and through a trial scheduled for December. In a statement shared with Sportico, a NASCAR spokesperson called it 'unfortunate' that 'instead of respecting' the two previous defeats, 23XI and Front Row 'are now burdening the District Court with a third motion for another unnecessary and inappropriate preliminary inunction.' NASCAR also claimed it has followed the judges' recommendations that the parties try to settle. NASCAR said it has made 'multiple requests' to 23XI and Front Row to try to reach a deal but 'we have yet to receive a proposal from 23XI or Front Row.' More from NIL Collectives Face Uncertain Fate as House Attorneys, CSC Bicker College Sports Commission Curbs NIL Collectives via Deloitte Review LIV's Patrick Reed Loses Appeal in $750M Golf Channel Defamation Suit In Monday's filing, 23XI and Front Row attorney Jeffrey Kessler argued his clients should be granted the rights and face the obligations of the 2025 charter agreements without having to agree to a mutual release provision that would prevent the antitrust lawsuit. Kessler wrote that public policy justifies the desired injunctive relief. He maintained that requiring 23XI—which is co-owned by Michael Jordan, Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk—and Front Row to sign the release would 'deprive the most efficient antitrust enforcers (NASCAR teams) of remedies provided by the antitrust laws to challenge an unlawful monopoly as a condition of being able to compete at all.' Kessler further contended that, through pretrial discovery and expert testimony, his clients have cultivated a more robust and evidenced-based argument that NASCAR 'has engaged in exclusionary acts designed to maintain its monopsony in the market for premier stock car racing.' Kessler also insisted that while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last month vacated a preliminary injunction that had been in his clients' favor, the appellate court did so without sufficiently addressing relevant public policy arguments. The Fourth Circuit stressed that the result that 23XI and Front Row seek is unprecedented in contract law—essentially compelling NASCAR to enter a new (and undesired) contract by requiring the association to supply the benefits of a charter to 23XI and Front Row without those teams, unlike charter teams, having to agree to a release of claims. It wasn't the first setback for the antitrust suit. Last November, U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney denied 23XI and Front Row a preliminary injunction. He reasoned the alleged harm from racing without a charter was too speculative and uncertain. Along those lines, Whitney found that a possible loss of revenue, drivers and sponsors to 23XI and Front Row seemed more conjectural than concrete. But a month later a new presiding judge, Bell, issued an injunction. Bell found 23XI and Front Row had sufficiently detailed prospective harms that would arise without an injunction. 23XI driver Tyler Reddick, for instance, suggested that the absence of a charter would cause a breach of his driver and personal services agreement while 23XI driver Bubba Wallace indicated he might switch teams to race for one with a charter. As mentioned above, however, the Fourth Circuit last month ruled that Bell erred in requiring NASCAR to effectively adhere to contractual terms it did not, and would, not offer. Bell has given NASCAR until Wednesday to file a response to the temporary restraining order demand made by 23XI and Front Row. If Bell grants the teams a TRO, NASCAR will appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit and hope for another win at the appellate court. Although a trial is scheduled for December, and although NASCAR claims 23XI and Front Row won't engage in meaningful settlement talks, the odds of the parties reaching a deal before trial remain more likely than not. The parties have vast financial resources to pursue legal maneuverings, but at the end of the day, they are disputing core business issues: money and control. Chances are that as a trial date nears and as the prospect of Jordan, Hamlin, Polk, the teams' drivers, NASCAR CEO Jim France and other NASCAR officials having to testify in court becomes more pressing, the parties find common ground. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
6 days ago
- Business
Argument over 'valid business purpose' for NIL collectives threatens college sports settlement
Less than two weeks after terms of a multibillion-dollar college sports settlement went into effect, friction erupted over the definition of a 'valid business purpose' that collectives making name, image and likeness payments to players are supposed to have. The new College Sports Commission sent a letter to athletic directors last week saying it was rejecting deals in which players were receiving money from collectives that were created solely to pay them and don't provide goods or services to the general public for profit. A lead attorney for the players responded by saying those instructions went against settlement terms and asking the CSC to rescind the guidance. 'This process is undermined when the CSC goes off the reservation and issues directions to the schools that are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms,' attorney Jeffrey Kessler wrote to NCAA outside counsel Rakesh Kilaru in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. Yahoo Sports first reported details of the letter, in which Kessler threatens to take the issue to a judge assigned with resolving disputes involved in the settlement. Kessler told the AP that his firm was not commenting on the contents of the letter, and Kilaru did not immediately respond to the AP's request for comment. Yahoo quoted a CSC spokesman as saying the parties are working to resolve differences and that "the guidance issued by the College Sports Commission ... is entirely consistent with the House settlement and the rules that have been agreed upon with class counsel.' When NIL payments became allowed in 2021, boosters formed so-called collectives that were closely tied to universities to work out contracts with the players, who still weren't allowed to be paid directly by the schools. Terms of the House settlement allow schools to make the payments now but keep the idea of outside payments from collectives, which have to be approved by the CSC if they are worth $600 or more. The CSC, in its letter last week, explained that if a collective reaches a deal, for instance, for an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, that collective does not have a 'valid business purpose' because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit. Another example of a disallowed deal was one an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because, the CSC guidance said, the purpose of 'selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose." Kessler's letter notes that the 'valid business purpose' rule was designed to ensure athletes were not simply being paid to play, and did not prohibit NIL collectives from paying athletes for the type of deals described above. To prevent those payments 'would be to create a new prohibition on payments by a NIL collective that is not provided for or contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, causing injury to the class members who should be free to receive those payments," Kessler wrote.
Fox Sports
6 days ago
- Business
- Fox Sports
Argument over 'valid business purpose' for NIL collectives threatens college sports settlement
Associated Press Less than two weeks after terms of a multibillion-dollar college sports settlement went into effect, friction erupted over the definition of a 'valid business purpose' that collectives making name, image and likeness payments to players are supposed to have. The new College Sports Commission sent a letter to athletic directors last week saying it was rejecting deals in which players were receiving money from collectives that were created solely to pay them and don't provide goods or services to the general public for profit. A lead attorney for the players responded by saying those instructions went against settlement terms and asking the CSC to rescind the guidance. 'This process is undermined when the CSC goes off the reservation and issues directions to the schools that are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms,' attorney Jeffrey Kessler wrote to NCAA outside counsel Rakesh Kilaru in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. Yahoo Sports first reported details of the letter, in which Kessler threatens to take the issue to a judge assigned with resolving disputes involved in the settlement. Kessler told the AP that his firm was not commenting on the contents of the letter, and Kilaru did not immediately respond to the AP's request for comment. Yahoo quoted a CSC spokesman as saying the parties are working to resolve differences and that "the guidance issued by the College Sports Commission ... is entirely consistent with the House settlement and the rules that have been agreed upon with class counsel.' When NIL payments became allowed in 2021, boosters formed so-called collectives that were closely tied to universities to work out contracts with the players, who still weren't allowed to be paid directly by the schools. Terms of the House settlement allow schools to make the payments now but keep the idea of outside payments from collectives, which have to be approved by the CSC if they are worth $600 or more. The CSC, in its letter last week, explained that if a collective reaches a deal, for instance, for an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, that collective does not have a 'valid business purpose' because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit. Another example of a disallowed deal was one an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because, the CSC guidance said, the purpose of 'selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose." Kessler's letter notes that the 'valid business purpose' rule was designed to ensure athletes were not simply being paid to play, and did not prohibit NIL collectives from paying athletes for the type of deals described above. To prevent those payments 'would be to create a new prohibition on payments by a NIL collective that is not provided for or contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, causing injury to the class members who should be free to receive those payments," Kessler wrote. ___ AP college sports: recommended Item 1 of 3
Hamilton Spectator
7 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Argument over ‘valid buisiness purpose' for NIL collectives threatens college sports settlement
Less than two weeks after terms of a multibillion-dollar college sports settlement went into effect, friction erupted over the definition of a 'valid business purpose' that collectives making name, image likeness payments to players are supposed to have. The new College Sports Commission sent a letter to athletic directors last week saying it was rejecting deals in which players were receiving money from collectives that were created solely to pay them and don't provide goods or services to the general public for profit. A lead attorney for the players responded by saying those instructions went against settlement terms and asking the CSC to rescind the guidance. 'This process is undermined when the CSC goes off the reservation and issues directions to the schools that are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms,' attorney Jeffrey Kessler wrote to NCAA outside counsel Rakesh Kilaru in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. Yahoo Sports first reported details of the letter, in which Kessler threatens to take the issue to a judge assigned with resolving disputes involved in the settlement. Kessler told AP his firm was not commenting on the contents of the letter, and Kilaru did not immediately respond to AP's request for a comment. Yahoo quoted a CSC spokesman as saying the parties are working to resolve differences and that 'the guidance issued by the College Sports Commission ... is entirely consistent with the House settlement and the rules that have been agreed upon with class counsel.' When NIL payments became allowed in 2021, boosters formed so-called 'collectives' that were closely tied to universities to work out contracts with the players, who still weren't allowed to be paid directly by the schools. Terms of the House settlement allow schools to make the payments now, but keep the idea of outside payments from collectives, which have to be approved by the CSC if they are worth $600 or more. The CSC, in its letter last week, explained that if a collective reaches a deal, for instance, for an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, that collective does not have a 'valid business purpose' because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit. Another example of a disallowed deal was one an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because, the CSC guidance said, the purpose of 'selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose.' Kessler's letter notes that the 'valid business purpose' rule was designed to ensure athletes were not simply being paid to play, and did not prohibit NIL collectives from paying athletes for the type of deals described above. To prevent those payments 'would be to create a new prohibition on payments by a NIL collective that is not provided for or contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, causing injury to the class members who should be free to receive those payments,' Kessler wrote. ___ AP college sports: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
7 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Argument over 'valid buisiness purpose' for NIL collectives threatens college sports settlement
Less than two weeks after terms of a multibillion-dollar college sports settlement went into effect, friction erupted over the definition of a 'valid business purpose' that collectives making name, image likeness payments to players are supposed to have. The new College Sports Commission sent a letter to athletic directors last week saying it was rejecting deals in which players were receiving money from collectives that were created solely to pay them and don't provide goods or services to the general public for profit. A lead attorney for the players responded by saying those instructions went against settlement terms and asking the CSC to rescind the guidance. 'This process is undermined when the CSC goes off the reservation and issues directions to the schools that are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms,' attorney Jeffrey Kessler wrote to NCAA outside counsel Rakesh Kilaru in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. Yahoo Sports first reported details of the letter, in which Kessler threatens to take the issue to a judge assigned with resolving disputes involved in the settlement. Kessler told AP his firm was not commenting on the contents of the letter, and Kilaru did not immediately respond to AP's request for a comment. Yahoo quoted a CSC spokesman as saying the parties are working to resolve differences and that "the guidance issued by the College Sports Commission ... is entirely consistent with the House settlement and the rules that have been agreed upon with class counsel.' When NIL payments became allowed in 2021, boosters formed so-called 'collectives' that were closely tied to universities to work out contracts with the players, who still weren't allowed to be paid directly by the schools. Terms of the House settlement allow schools to make the payments now, but keep the idea of outside payments from collectives, which have to be approved by the CSC if they are worth $600 or more. The CSC, in its letter last week, explained that if a collective reaches a deal, for instance, for an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, that collective does not have a 'valid business purpose' because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit. Another example of a disallowed deal was one an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because, the CSC guidance said, the purpose of 'selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose." Kessler's letter notes that the 'valid business purpose' rule was designed to ensure athletes were not simply being paid to play, and did not prohibit NIL collectives from paying athletes for the type of deals described above. To prevent those payments 'would be to create a new prohibition on payments by a NIL collective that is not provided for or contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, causing injury to the class members who should be free to receive those payments," Kessler wrote. ___
