In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the American-owned Haas Formula One team cut ties with its title sponsor Uralkali. The team also cut the Russian-born Nikita Mazepin from the team, replacing him with Kevin Magnussen. Following the dissolution of the relationship, Uralkali released statements hinting at the possibility of litigation related to the funding the company provided to Haas F1. One particular statement read: “As most of the sponsorship funding for the 2022 season has already been transferred to Haas and given that the team terminated the sponsorship agreement before the first race of the 2022 season, Haas has thus failed to perform its obligations to Uralkali for this year's season. Uralkali shall request the immediate reimbursement of the amounts received by Haas.” Uralkali formally wrote to Haas F1 regarding these compensation claims setting forth the demands of the former sponsor. Haas, it has been reported, has formally responded to the demand outright rejecting the compensation claims and even demanding compensation of lost profits of their own. So, what is the potential legal argument from each side? Uralkali’s main argument is the most basic contract argument that can be made: Haas F1 breached the contract by removing Uralkali as a sponsor of the team when Uralkali had already performed their side of the contract by providing around $13 million in funding. They will also argue that Haas had no basis to terminate the contract and therefore Haas is responsible for repaying Uralkali the money that was provided to the team. Haas articulated in a reply letter to Uralkali their argument as to why the contract was rightfully terminated. Haas also said that Uralkali’s actions caused a loss of profits for the team. Haas based these statements on a clause in the sponsorship agreement stating Uralkali shall not “injure, bring into dispute, ridicule, or lessen the public reputation, goodwill of favourable image of Haas”. Haas claims that, Uralkali’s owner, Dmitry Mazepin’s ties to the Kremlin along with numerous EU sanctions against the company triggered this reputation clause. Haas went on to cite case law stating that the party that terminates the contract based on a breach by the other party is under no obligation to return what the party received. Using this argument, they stated they were under no obligation to return the $13 million. The team adds that it is entitled to profits lost that the team says it would have made if the agreement with Uralkali had not been breached and subsequently terminated. Haas demanded $8 million dollars, which should be paid in a matter of about a week. Haas went on to bolster the demand by stating that it would not provide Uralkali with one of Mazepin’s 2021 Formula One car, another provision in the agreement, if the sum was not paid. Haas has also reportedly refused to pay out the salary of Nikita Mazepin following his termination. Uralkali has been left in disbelief by the response from Haas F1 and has stated of Haas “they seem to be fine with spending Russian money - and even are asking for more - but don’t want to have any Russians around. It's a truly shocking treatment toward a title sponsor who stepped up last season when [Haas] badly needed resources and who had offered to go above and beyond the contracted amounts to provide additional bonuses to team staff to achieve better results for all involved.” With both parties at odds, it seems to forecast impending litigation finalizing the tumultuous relationship between the two parties. Haas F1 has started off their 2022 campaign strong on the track, but impending litigation could bring unneeded distractions throughout the season. Justin Mader is a 3L at the University of New Hampshire School of Law where he serves as Lead Articles Editor for IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property. He can be reached on Twitter: @maderlaw and LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-mader-15a602119/.

As first reported today by Todd Archer of ESPN, police are seeking to speak with Dallas Cowboys Kelvin Joseph in connection to a fatal shooting on March 18th. Cameron Ray was 20 years old when he was fatally shot and killed after a March 18 altercation with a group of individuals that appeared to include Joseph. That is because there is allegedly video evidence of an individual wearing a YKDV necklace. Kelvin Joseph goes by the rap name “YKDV Bossman Fat.” Aspiring attorneys are taught day 1 of law school to never speak to law enforcement without their attorney present. In this case, law enforcement likely has a strong suspicion at a minimum Mr. Joseph has information regarding the incident. They may believe that he may be the shooter himself. If Mr. Joseph is to speak to law enforcement, my advice would be to have your attorney present. The optics do not matter (i.e. I look guilty getting an attorney). Even if you did know you did nothing at all, always have an attorney present when speaking to law enforcement. The number of Defendants in the country whom have had false confessions coerced in the last hundred years is staggering. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement especially as a former felony prosecutor who saw first-hand all the good they do for the community. That being said, law enforcement officers are human and they do make mistakes and they do cut corners. Unfortunately, there are situations where law enforcement develop theories right at the crime scene and they only see the evidence that supports their initial theory. It doesn’t matter how smart you think you are, they will lie to you and trick you during an interrogation. Why? That is because it is perfectly legal for law enforcement to lie to a suspect. They will also do good cop, bad cop to get you give you a confession. That is because with a confession, they know a conviction is very, very likely. That is because with a confession, the suspect’s criminal defense attorney will try to suppress it but if they can’t, they know a conviction is all but assured. That is because juries are always weighing the idea of whether the Defendant committed the act. With a confession, they did not need to think about the case long. They will vote to convict and move on. It doesn’t matter who you are, if law enforcement asks to speak with you, politely respond that you would like your attorney present. An individual need only say the word “attorney” or “lawyer” and all questioning must cease immediately. Law enforcement is supposed to read you Miranda if the conversation turns from investigatory to accusatory, but they rarely do. The prosecution will then fight to keep the likely unconstitutional statements in because it gives them leverage in plea negotiations. Prosecutors LOVE to try cases where the evidence is overwhelming. They expect to win and they will be serenading by their office when they do. They will very unlikely give a favorable plea recommendation if they think they have you dead to right. Many prosecutors fight to get significant trials. When I was a prosecutor, I observed many prosecutors who just pushed paper all day wondering why they are not getting trials. That is because very strong cases (murder cases excluded) rarely go to trial. They usually end in pleas. It is the weaker cases that usually go to trial. Those prosecutors who are clamoring for trials do not want to try a weak case and lose. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

Daniel Wallach, Conduct Detrimental’s co-host, reported that Judge Christopher McGraugh, who presided over every motion from St. Louis and the NFL before the matter settled in November, agreed to hear the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s motion to unseal the court records from that lawsuit. The motion is scheduled for May 13, 2022. Most of the court records, including depositions from Stan Kroenke, Kevin Demoff, among others, are sealed from the public view. Since the St. Louis Post Dispatch motioned for the records to be unsealed, they must convince Judge McGraugh why these records must be unsealed. The NFL and the Rams must convince Judge McGraugh that the records should remained sealed. The NFL and the Rams may feel like they are at a disadvantage since Judge McGraugh is a circuit court judge in St. Louis, and he dismissed all but one motion the NFL brought forth in his courtroom before they eventually settled the lawsuit with St. Louis. This process is going to be intriguing because if this motion is granted, the public could view the depositions and other sealed documents that could reveal the NFL’s “dirty laundry.” An example is Commissioner Goodell stating the NFL Relocation Guidelines must be followed and are binding; however, he and the Rams did not follow those guidelines when the Rams played their last season in St. Louis in 2015. According to Ben Frederickson, writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and Randy Karraker, 101 ESPN’s Karraker and Smallmon cohost, Kroenke had this plan from the very moment he took over as owner in 2010. His plan took action when he hired Jeff Fisher as the head coach in 2012. Fisher had experience relocating a club, the Houston Oilers to Tennessee, where they were rebranded as the Tennessee Titans. This was the first sign Kroenke had no intentions to remain in St. Louis, although he told the media in 2010 that he was a loyal Missourian and would do everything in his power to keep the Rams in St. Louis. In 2014, after Rams quarterback Sam Bradford tore his ACL in a preseason game, he called COO Kevin Demoff to see the Los Angeles site that eventually became SOFI Stadium to see how marvelous the site was, and how he had dreams to bring football back to Los Angeles. The attorneys for St. Louis’ legal team discovered Kroenke made a conference call to Roger Goodell and other owners about his Los Angeles plans as early as 2013. Kroenke did not care about winning in St. Louis, the only thing he won there was the arbitration battle for renovations to the then named Edward Jones Dome. He and the Rams asked for a $700 million renovation, but St. Louis asked for a $125 million renovation. The Rams’ lease with the Regional Stadium Authority, who owns and operates the now named Dome at America’s Center, could be broken after twenty years if the Dome was not in the NFL stadiums’ top tier. Top tier means the top twenty-five percent. The Dome was among the worst stadiums in the NFL. This clause allowed Kroenke to break the lease and file for relocation. With help from Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, on January 12, 2016, he and the Rams could move to Los Angeles after thirty owners voted in favor for Kroenke’s stadium plan. Should Judge McGraugh grant the motion, this could show what truly occurred leading up to the relocation. This motion is a tremendous deal for St. Louis, and it could reveal evidence that may have been revealed had this case gone to trial.

A few weeks ago here at Conduct Detrimental, we highlighted Fordham Law’s tremendous success at the Tulane Baseball Arbitration Competition. While that particular competition might be regarded as the most regarded and widely known at the moment, it is not the only sports law competition out there. There is a growing number of well-run competitions across the country centered around various different sports. If you’re a law school student who’s passionate about hockey, the newly formed New England Hockey Arbitration Competition (NEHAC) hosted by Western New England University School of Law is exactly what you’re looking for. To learn more about it, I had the pleasure of talking with Scott DeCaupa, a 2L at Western New England Law School, who provided great information about the inaugural competition that will take place this summer on July 2nd & 3rd. Seeing the success of the numerous baseball, football, and basketball competitions hosted by various law schools across the country, the Sports and Entertainment Law Society and Western New England felt like there was an opportunity to put on a fun and unique competition in a different sport: hockey. In preparation for the inaugural July competition, WNE Law went above and beyond to ensure the competition will be viewed as one of the premier sports law competitions out there. Like most law school moot court competitions, the NEHAC's main goal is to provide participants with the opportunity to sharpen their oral and written advocacy skills. The competition is a unique opportunity because it allows law students to sharpen these skills within the specialized context of NHL salary arbitration proceedings in front of professional hockey executives. Some of the executives that will be in attendance will be Scott Howson (AHL President), Daniel Milstein (Player Agent and CEO of Gold Star Sports Management), Aaron Schwartz (Director of Hockey Affairs, Carolina Hurricanes), Brad Andrews (Sr. Director of Hockey and Business Ops, Winnipeg Jets AHL affiliate Manitoba Moose), and others. While analyzing, formulating, and presenting about a topic of interest is definitely a valuable experience, one of the aspects that make a sports law competition great is the caliber of experienced professionals that help moderate it. With no shortage of esteemed executives listed above, it’s clear that the NEHAC is certainly in good hands. For any law student aspiring to work in hockey one day, the opportunity of hearing feedback from some of the most respected individuals in the game could prove to be an invaluable experience. In the competition, competing JD students don’t need to be affiliated with an internal society or association to participate in this event, but teams do need to be made up of 2-3 students who go to the same law school. Located in Springfield, Massachusetts, Western New England University School of Law already has a great tie-in with the hockey community. The AHL’s headquarters are located just miles from campus, so the Sports and Entertainment Law Society at Western New England wants to lean into that local connection with the game. This competition should be a great forum for passionate hockey fans to engage in competition. Sports law competitions highlight the growing popularity of sports law as a whole. Conduct Detrimental’s growth over the past year certainly shows this as well. The Tulane Baseball Competition used to be the only heralded sports law competition nationwide, but now that is not the case. Sports law has extended beyond just one sport, one law school, or one region. The newly founded New England Hockey Arbitration Competition at Western New England University School of Law is just another example of this. It will be fascinating to see the results here in a few months! You can follow the competition’s official Twiiter page at @nehac_2022.

As a part of the deal to move the Carolina Panthers’ headquarters to South Carolina, South Carolina agreed to $115 million in tax credits. Now, South Carolina State Senator Wes Climer argues that the tax credits will go away if the team does not move its payroll to South Carolina by 2024. Initially, the Carolina Panthers, through its real estate holding company GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC, agreed to a Fee In Lieu of Tax and Incentive (FILOT) Agreement with York County, South Carolina, which included $225 million in pre-approved infrastructure bonds from the City of Rock Hill. The infrastructure provided by the bonds would include roads, sewage, water, and electricity. However, the City never issued the bonds, maintaining the position that the Panthers did not submit enough details to issue the bonds. In March, the Panthers paused construction on the new facility after having spent over $170 million on the project due to concerns over the lack of funding from the city, including the failure to furnish the $225 million in infrastructure bonds. On March 21, in an effort to restart construction on the Project, York County passed a resolution to amend the FILOT agreement with GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC by allowing the Panthers to pay for the $225 million in infrastructure and offering to reimburse GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC through property tax credits over a 30-year period. On March 28, Rock Hill passed a resolution supporting York County’s resolution. To date, the Panthers have not responded to York County’s alternative fee arrangement, which has upset lawmakers and led to Senator Climer’s comments. The Carolina Panthers are now in a curious position. They could accept the new fee arrangement from the county. The problem—beyond it not being the original agreement—is that, for the Panthers to get fully reimbursed, the Panthers are bound to the property for 30 years. While Panthers fans would like to ensure the team sticks around forever, the Panthers may want more flexibility in the future. Another option is to sue York County or the City of Rock Hill for breaching their agreements. But litigation takes a lot of time, and the Panthers would rather get the facility up and running to recoup the costs of construction and ensure that they receive the tax credits from the state. Thus, the time (and the costs) it would take to reach a resolution likely does not appeal to the organization. Now, the Panthers are likely working behind the scenes to try and work out a deal that can resume construction on the project. According to Governor Henry McMaster, Panthers owner David Tepper has assured him that it is only a pause. Until a resolution is finally worked out, the construction will remain paused, and the Carolina Panthers will not be moving to South Carolina. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

Two trainers for the Philadelphia Flyers have sued the team following cancer diagnoses they allege are the result of exposure to chemicals from the Zamboni machine. On April 12th, Salvatore Raffa and James McCrossin filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against 11 defendants, including Comcast and its holding companies, which own the Flyers. They are represented by the Law Firm of Kline & Specter, which litigated an $8 Billion product liability case against Johnson and Johnson in 2019. Raffa and McCrossin are suing in consortium with their wives. In the complaint, which Crossing Broad first reported, the Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. They allege that the Flyers used gasoline or other fuel that contained carcinogens for the Flyers’ Zamboni machine while other comparable devices do not require carcinogen-emitting fuel. Additionally, they allege that the defendants kept the Zamboni in a room with improper ventilation for machinery emitting carcinogens. The Zamboni storage room was near the training room where Raffa and McCrossin primarily work. This proximity, combined with the extensive hours both trainers worked, led to exposure to the carcinogens. According to the allegations, this exposure proximately caused the two trainers to develop rare medical conditions, two of which are incurable. The Flyers have responded with a statement claiming the allegations are without merit but reserving further comments due to the upcoming litigation. McCrossin began working for the Flyers in 1998, where he served as the Head Athletic Trainer until being promoted to his current role, the Director of Conditioning, in 2014. Salvatore Raffa has worked as an Assistant Athletic Trainer for the Flyers since 2006. Source: https://www.crossingbroad.com/2022/04/flyers-trainers-sue-comcast-others-after-cancer-diagnoses-allegedly-resulting-from-zamboni-chemicals-in-voorhees-practice-facility.html Lawrence Kurtz is a first-year law student at Fordham University School of Law. He can be reached by email at [email protected], on Linkedin, or on Twitter @kurtz_lawrence.

On the heels of South Carolina lawmakers speaking out against the Panthers halting the construction of the Panthers’ headquarters in South Carolina, GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“GTRE”)—Panthers owner David Tepper’s real estate holding company—has terminated its agreements with the City of Rock Hill. Specifically, the termination is due to City’s failure to issue bonds “or provide the funding for the public infrastructure for the project.” On March 18, GTRE sent the City a default notice. Article XI of the “Amended and Restated Finance and Construction Administration Agreement” between the City and GTRE gave the City 30-days to cure any default. To date, the City has not provided the bonds nor any other public infrastructure funding (although the City maintains the position that the City was ready to issue the bonds). Instead, on March 21, York County passed an alternative fee arrangement, which, if GTRE agreed to it, would have allowed the County to reimburse GTRE through property tax credits over a 30-year period. The City passed a resolution supporting York County’s proposed arrangement. Apparently, GTRE was not satisfied with the alternative arrangement, likely because it would require GTRE to pay the $225 million upfront. On top of the City and County’s failure to adhere to the original deal, South Carolina lawmakers began expressing their frustrations with the Panthers’ pausing construction, to which the Panthers responded by stating, “[i]t is unfortunate that some recently decided to conduct a misguided, destructive public relations campaign to obscure their failures.” All of this added up to the Panthers terminating their agreements with the City. Importantly, the agreement does contain an arbitration provision (Section 11.4) for disputes over bond-funded infrastructure, which allows for an expedited resolution and avoids a public lawsuit. However, the City has an uphill battle to climb due to the City admitting to failing to supply the infrastructure bonds. For now, the Panthers are open to coming to the table to reach a resolution on termination and avoid a drawn-out dispute. On the other hand, lawsuits against NFL teams are not uncommon. Although different circumstances, just last year, the NFL and the Los Angeles Rams settled their lawsuit with the city of St. Louis, shelling out $790 million in the process. Even though the City failed to supply the bonds, the City could try a similar lawsuit. One thing is for sure, this chapter in the Carolina Panthers’ history will not be over soon. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.

A lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, April 19th against Seattle Mariners’ 2021 2nd round pick, Edwin Arroyo. The lawsuit was filed by Los Angeles-based management agency Amuse Sports USA (“Amuse”) in LA Superior Court. Arroyo, an 18-year-old Puerto Rican shortstop, was the 48th overall pick in 2021, coming out of Central Point Christian Academy in Florida. Arroyo was one of the youngest players selected in the draft at just 17 years old. Amuse claims that in 2020, they noticed Arroyo’s talents and later “made his dreams [of playing professional baseball] a reality.” On May 15, 2020, Edwin Arroyo and Amuse entered into an advisor agreement, which provided that Arroyo would pay Amuse 5% of his signing bonus of any contract signed with a professional baseball team participating in the Major League Baseball draft. Arroyo was a minor at the time of signing. In return, Amuse was to hold showcases and give Arroyo a chance to demonstrate his talent to prospective teams. Amuse claims it incurred costs associated with those showcases, including staff fees, staff transportation, staff lodging, meals for staff and Arroyo, as well as Arroyo’s reimbursable expenses. According to the complaint, around April 30, 2021, Arroyo notified Amuse of his intent to “unilaterally” terminate the advisor agreement. Arroyo confirmed this in a telephone call to Amuse on May 8, 2021. This was all prior to the 2021 MLB draft, which took place from July 11 to July 13, 2021. The only monetary value to the contract for Amuse was 5% of Arroyo’s signing bonus upon getting drafted. With that, Amuse tried to settle with Arroyo as it was clear to them he was not going to honor the agreement. On May 10, 20201 Amuse offered Arroyo a waiver of the 5% advisor fee in exchange for one lump sum payment of $70,000 or two payments of $40,000, due two months apart. Arroyo declined the plaintiff’s offer. Then, the MLB draft commences. Arroyo doesn’t hear his name get called in the first round, but he soon after lands with the Seattle Mariners at pick 48 overall. The Mariners, led by General Manager Jerry Dipoto, awarded the shortstop with a $1,650,000 signing bonus. Therefore, on July 26, 2021, Amuse sent Arroyo an invoice for $82,500.00 (i.e., five percent of Arroyo’s signing bonus) pursuant to the Advisor Agreement, which, according to Amuse, was not subject to unilateral termination and was still in effect. Since then, Arroyo has not paid the invoice and Amuse filed this lawsuit in response. Amuse also names Does 1-20 as defendants, alleging that one or more “does,” with intent to cause harm, undertook conduct that caused Arroyo to terminate the parties’ contract. Amuse claims that one or more does offered Arroyo a contract at a different sports talent agency while he was signed with Amuse. Amuse claims inducement to breach contract and intentional interference of contractual relations against the unnamed defendants. Relevant portions of the contract between Amuse and Arroyo may be seen below: Jason Morrin is a third-year law student at Hofstra Law School in New York. He is the President of Hofstra’s Sports and Entertainment Law Society. Additionally, he is a Law Clerk at Zumpano, Patricios, and Popok. He can be followed on Twitter @Jason_Morrin and reached by email at [email protected]. Image via MLB.com

In the aftermath of the Brooklyn Nets’ Game 2 loss in their first-round series against the Boston Celtics, it was only natural for fans to play the finger-pointing game. The one question that loomed was: where is Ben Simmons? Well, Nets' fans finally got their answer Friday afternoon, when ESPN Senior NBA Insider Adrian “Woj” Wojnarowski announced that Simmons plans to play in Game 4 of the series barring any setbacks. Simmons has not played a game for the Nets this season after being traded from the Philadelphia 76ers right before February’s trade deadline. Prior to being traded, Simmons refused to play in the 76ers’ pre-season and regular season games, and also sparingly participating in their training camp activities. Simmons cited his mental health as the reason for his limited participation and refusal to play in games. [1] In the offseason, Simmons received a $16.5 million advance of his $33 million salary. Philadelphia insists that Simmons breached his contract under the CBA and had the right to recoup the money advanced to Simmons before the season. Starting with Simmons’ first paycheck, the 76ers deducted the $360,000 per-game salary for each game he missed this season. Now, Philadelphia has been withholding almost $1.3 million of Simmons’ salary in each of his paychecks, minus the amount for escrow that the NBA withheld. This has continued since he became a Net. Since the last paycheck is scheduled for April 30, the same deductions are set to carry over after the end of the season. Simmons and his representatives attempted to resolve this matter without arbitration, but no agreement was reached, leading to Simmons filing a grievance to challenge the roughly $20 million that the 76ers are withholding from him. Simmons and the 76ers had disagreements over the amount of accessibility that the team and its medical staff were given to diagnose and affirm his mental health. The NBA’s CBA states that a grievance must be initiated within 30 days from the date of the occurrence, or within 30 days from the date when the facts of the matter became known to file the grievance. Shortly after Simmons began to comply with the team and meet with a team-recommended medical specialist to discuss his mental health, Simmons’ agent Rich Paul told The Athletic’s Shams Charania that the 76ers imposing fines and negative publicity were furthering the damage to his mental health.[2] Philadelphia never questioned Simmons’ mental health claims, they just wanted to receive more information about his progress. The 76ers told Shams that they believed Simmons should partake in all team activities until there is information revealed that would preclude Simmons from playing. There will be an arbitration hearing in the coming weeks to attempt to resolve this matter, but if Simmons succeeds on his claim, it can have a rippling effect on the rest of the NBA. Although mental health has been more of an open topic in the NBA in recent years, this arbitration could set a precedent on the handling of mental health and contract matters in the future. There are multiple factors to this case that make it even more interesting, such as Simmons citing back discomfort a week after Philadelphia suspended him for the regular-season opener for conduct detrimental to the team. According to Woj, Simmons underwent brief treatment before the medical staff cleared him to work out. Without participating in any basketball activity the next day, Simmons told the 76ers that he “wasn’t mentally ready to play to his expectations and needed time to step away,” per Wojnarowski. There have been rumblings throughout social media that Simmons is using a back injury as an extra layer of cover. If Simmons returned to play for the Nets shortly after he was traded, how would that be viewed in his arbitration? If an arbitrator rules in Simmons’ favor, would that open the door for other disgruntled star players to simply cite mental health as the reason why he cannot play for his current team any longer? A ruling in Simmons’ favor could give players a new method for getting out of their current team situation, so the NBA must take that with a grain of salt. Expect these talks to heat up as we approach Simmons’ season debut in Game 4 of the Nets’ first-round series. Zachary Koenig is a 2L at New York Law School and is the NYLS Sports Law Society's Co-Events Chair. You can follow Zachary on Twitter @koenigz18. [1] (Ramona Shelburne, 2022) [2] (Toporek, 2022)

Mississippi and Tennessee have each amended their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) laws to allow schools to facilitate NIL deals. Mississippi’s NIL Amendment Mississippi amended its NIL law to give institutions and their athletic departments more involvement in NIL. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed Senate Bill 2690 on April 18, 2022. The amendment provides for the following changes: Revising the definition of “student-athlete” to include a “prospective student-athlete,” meaning student-athletes do not need to be enrolled at a school prior to entering into a NIL deal. Allowing institutions to facilitate NIL opportunities for student-athletes with third parties, and permitting communication with third parties interested in providing NIL opportunities to student-athletes. Modifying the warning language that is required to be included in NIL contracts. Tennessee’s NIL Amendment Similar to Mississippi, Tennessee’s state legislature adopted an amendment to the state’s NIL law to allow more involvement by institutions in facilitating NIL deals. The amendment was signed by Tennessee Governor Bill Lee on April 20, 2022. The Tennessee state legislature posted a summary of the bill which provides the following changes: Removing the reference that a student-athlete must be “at an institution” to earn compensation for the use of their NIL and removing the provision that NIL compensation may only be provided by a third party. Eliminating the prohibition against an institution and its athletic department officials from being involved in the development, operation, or promotion of a student-athlete’s NIL, and instead allowing the school to be involved in the support of NIL activities, provided that the school does not coerce, compel, or interfere with the athlete’s decision to earn compensation from or obtain representation in connection with a specific NIL opportunity. Removing the provision that prohibited an entity whose purpose includes supporting or benefitting the institution or its athletic program from compensating or causing compensation to be provided to a current or prospective student-athlete for the athlete’s NIL if the arrangement is contingent on the athlete’s enrollment or continued participation at an institution. Adding that parents, siblings, grandparents, spouses, and legal guardians of a student-athlete who represent the athlete for the purpose of NIL deals are not considered to be athlete agents, and are not subject to the requirements for an athlete agent. Adding that an athletic association’s (e.g., NCAA) governing actions, sanctions, bylaws, and rules must not interfere with a student-athlete’s ability to earn NIL compensation and must not otherwise impact a student-athlete’s eligibility or full participation in athletic events, unless the athlete has violated the rules of the school or the athletic association or the law is invalidated or rendered unenforceable by operation of law. Key Takeaways Collectives operating in Mississippi and Tennessee now have the ability to communicate and interact directly with the school’s athletic department officials and coaches in order to facilitate NIL deals. Previously, collectives were not permitted to contact the school’s athletic department officials and coaches in order to facilitate NIL deals. Prospective student-athletes in Mississippi and Tennessee are now permitted to enter into NIL deals without being enrolled at an institution. Previously, athletes could not sign a NIL deal until they were enrolled in the school. Tennessee now allows NIL deals that are contingent on the athlete’s enrollment or continued participation at a particular school. However, according to the NCAA’s Q&As for its interim NIL policy, NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular school is prohibited. What’s Next? Schools located in Mississippi and Tennessee should update their NIL policies and internal procedures in light of these changes. For example, Ole Miss’s FAQs on NIL provide that “[Ole Miss] may not be involved in any form of brokering NIL-related contracts.” Tennessee’s general rule on NIL tracks the language of the NCAA’s interim NIL policy, which prohibits NIL compensation contingent upon enrollment at a particular school. To maintain a competitive edge in recruiting, other states will adopt similar NIL laws or amend existing NIL laws. For example, the Louisiana State Senate passed Senate Bill 250 to help schools and their boosters facilitate NIL deals and the bill will now move to the House of Representatives. Illinois State Senate and House of Representatives have also passed an amendment to House Bill 1175 to, among other things, (i) permit institutions to facilitate and negotiate NIL deals on behalf of their student-athletes with third parties, (ii) provide a definition of “booster,” which is defined as a person or entity who within the last five years has donated more than $1,000 to the school’s athletic department or booster organization, (iii) allow NIL deals to be conditioned on attendance at a school (but NIL deals conditioned on athletic performance are still prohibited), and (iv) encourage educational programming for student-athletes. Schools in states with more restrictive NIL laws will continue to have a recruiting disadvantage against those with more permissive NIL laws. States will likely continue to pass NIL laws that permit institutional involvement, allow prospective athletes to benefit from NIL, and authorize schools to condition NIL deals on attendance at a school. If that trend continues, the NCAA may be forced to revise its NIL interim policy until federal legislation or new NCAA rules are adopted. Ryan Whelpley is an Associate at Morse in Waltham, Massachusetts, where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Practice Group and focuses on venture capital financings, M&A transactions, and general corporate work for startup and emerging growth companies. He is a graduate of Albany Law School (2019) and Union College (2016). At Union, Ryan was a member and three-year captain of the Men’s Basketball Team. You can connect with him via Twitter (@Whelpley_Law) and LinkedIn.

Last Monday, High Stakes Poker Player Alex Foxen publicly accused fellow High Stakes Player Ali Imsirovic of cheating. The allegations range from looking at an opponent’s hole cards to chip dumping and using RTA (Real-Time Assistance). There is also a push to gets these players put on a Poker Blacklist which would effectively ban them from playing poker around the world. I am a recreational player myself meaning I sometimes play in tournaments with pros. However, I am an amateur (I once won a ticket to the World Series of Poker Main Event). This article will cover the legal implications of those allegations. Alex Foxen alleged last Monday on Twitter to noticing Ali’s eyes were wondering. If you watch the video in the thread, it does appear Ali’s eyes wander towards his opponent’s hole cards. That being said, I cannot say for certain that was his intent nor am I alleging that. However, the allegations do not end there. Mr. Foxen goes on to show a video from the next day of play where Mr. Imsirovic is now wearing sunglasses (Foxen claims he has never seen Ali wear sunglasses when he plays). Wearing sunglasses allows a poker player to mask any potential tells the player may do with his or her eyes. Mr. Foxen also goes on to allege that Mr. Imsirovic is banned from GGPoker for chip dumping to horses and using RTA (Real-Time Assistance). Chip dumping to horses is intentionally losing chips to a player. Often times the player who is “chip-dumping” may have bought a piece of the player he is chip dumping chips to. Thus, Player A is losing chips like crazy and does not believe a rebound is likely. However, Player A bought 25% of Player B. If 1st prize is $1,000,000 and Player B wins, Player A gets 25% or $250,000 since he bought a piece. Player A chip dumps to Player B by betting high amounts of chips on hands where he suspects Player B is much stronger and thus more likely to win. Thus, if Player A knows he can’t win but thinks Player B might, Player A will find a way to ensure his chips end up in Player B’s stack. Also, Player B might have an agreement with Player A to do the same thing. It works both ways. RTA (Real-Time Assistance) is using software to basically guess the range of hands their opponent has and how their own hand would fair. Example: Player A has the 10 of spades and the J of spades as his hole cards. His opponent Player C just bet 3x the big blind of 1000 chips (Thus, betting 3,000 chips). Player A only has 10,000 chips in front of him. Player A cannot simply call the 3,000 and leave himself with under 7BBs (Big Blinds). He must either fold his hand or shove all his chips into the middle. Before Player A decides, he runs a simulation of hands that Player C probably has and realizes that if his opponent just 3-bet with an Ace of Hearts and a 7 of hearts, he has a roughly 43% chance of winning the hand based on 10,000 simulated hands. That is a strong likelihood of success for being behind with the starting hand and knowing that Player C likely figures himself to be ahead. Player A shoves his chips and Player C calls. Player A wins the hand because a Jack comes up on the flop and Player C’s hand never improves. Now that we understand what is being alleged, let’s discuss the legal ramifications. One potential cause of action would obviously be Defamation. There are two types: Libel and Slander. Libel is written. Slander is spoken. These allegations were made on Twitter and as such likely be found to be written. Thus, libel. To prove Defamation in Nevada, you must establish four elements: That the defendant made false statements of fact about you. (Ali cheating was found to be false) That the defendant made an unprivileged publication of the statement(s) to a third party. (Told his 12,000 followers on Twitter) That the defendant acted negligently, recklessly, or intentionally; and (Likely point of contention. If statements found to be true, highly unlikely this element is met). That as a result of the statements, your reputation was damaged. (Likely has been) Finally, a consideration is whether Ali is a public figure. Since he is a celebrity, a strong argument can be made that he is a public figure. If Ali were to sue Alex for defamation, Ali would have to prove these elements above. Alex’s defense would merely be truth. That means if Alex can prove Ali is in fact a cheater, Alex is immune from civil liability. Remember poker is a lot like golf in the sense that players made a good bit of money off endorsements. That is because poker is televised and what a player wears on his or her shirt/outwear is prime advertising space. Some players have Poker companies (GGPoker, PokerStars, 888Poker etc.) and others have everyday companies. Someone of Mr. Imsirovic’s talent and success would have the pick of any endorsement he would want. That is because potential companies are very confident that he will routinely have eyes on him because he seems to be always playing deep into tournaments. Since he plays in High Roller events around the world, Mr. Imsirovic has Worldwide appeal. These allegations put a real dent in his reputation. Before Monday, Mr. Imsirovic was widely considered one of the most talent poker players in the World. Now the poker community doesn’t know what to think about him. Are the allegations true? I honestly do not know. Do I think Mr. Imsirovic sues? Likely yes if he knows the allegations to be false. However, Mr. Foxen’s witness list would undoubtedly include executives from GGPoker where Mr. Imsirovic is allegedly banned from. The first question during a deposition would be, “Is Mr. Imsirovic banned from GGPoker?” If the answer is yes, the follow up would be, “Why is Mr. Imsirovic banned from GGPoker?” If the answer is for chip dumping and using RTA then Mr. Foxen would be immune from civil liability on those particular allegations. UPDATE: Bryn Kenny who is #1 on the All-Time Money List has also been accused of cheating. Matthew F. Tympanick is the Founder/Principal of Tympanick Law, P.A., located in Sarasota, Florida, where he focuses his practice on Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Law. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he served as a Public Interest Fellow and as a Staff Editor on the UMass Law Review. He was previously a felony prosecutor for over three years and civil attorney for nearly two years in Sarasota, Florida. As a prosecutor, he tried nearly forty jury and non-jury trials and prosecuted thousands more. You can follow him on Twitter @TympanickLaw. Arrested or Injured? Don’t Panic…Call Tympanick (1-888-NOPANIC). www.tympanicklaw.com

The city of Anaheim and the state of California have reached a settlement agreement and submitted a stipulated final judgment that will resolve their dispute over the city’s 2019 land sale of Angel Stadium to SRB Management LLC, a land-holding company owned by Angels Owner Arte Moreno. Background In October 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law certain amendments to the California Surplus Land Act, which requires the city to first offer public land to developers that can build homes for low-income families. The amendments include requiring cities to take a formal action in a regular public meeting to declare land “surplus land,” and the city must support the declaration through written findings. Further, for a first violation, the amendments authorized the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue a monetary penalty of thirty percent of the sales price. Notably, the amendments would not go into effect until January 1, 2020. Importantly, the amendments carve out an exception to the application of the amendments. Section 54234 of the Land Surplus Act states, “if a local agency, as of September 30, 2019, has entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement . . . the provisions of this article as it existed on December 31, 2019, shall apply . . . .” In December 2019, SRB agreed to purchase Angel Stadium and an additional 153 acres of Anaheim-owned land for $320 million. As a part of the purchase, the Angels agreed to remain in Anaheim until at least 2050. In April 2021, the (HCD) sent a warning letter to the city warning the city that the city may have violated California’s Surplus Land Act. Specifically, the city failed to declare the land as either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” as required by the amendments. In December 2021, the HCD sent a Notice of Violation to the city. In turn, the city responded by denying that the Surplus Land Act applied to the sale of the property. Specifically, the city has maintained the position that the exception applied to the city’s deal with the SRB. The city entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with SRB prior to September 30, 2019. Thus, the city did not need to issue any declaration as to the property. When the city revealed its position, residents were left wondering why the negotiating agreement was never publicly discussed during council meetings. Settlement Now, it appears that the parties have resolved their dispute. As a part of the settlement, the city will put roughly $96 million (30% of full purchase price) into a trust fund to fund affordable housing in the city within five years. The city of Anaheim estimates it could build up to 1,000 units. Notably, the city did not admit to a violation of the Surplus Land Act. Even though it will take years to see the fruits of this agreement, leadership throughout the Anaheim is touting the agreement as a victory. For now, Anaheim gets to keep their baseball team, and new housing is on the horizon. Landis Barber is an attorney at Safran Law Offices in Raleigh, North Carolina. You can connect with him via LinkedIn or via his blog offthecourtdocket.com. He can be reached on Twitter @Landisbarber.