As everyone in the sporting world and beyond knows, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently thundered down from on high meting out his punishment to LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. This included a $2.5 million fine, lifetime banishment from the NBA (including immediately barring Sterling from any contact or business dealings with his own team), and fast-tracking the other NBA owners to force the sale of the Clippers.
This could play out one of two ways. Sterling could agree to Silver's terms. That would include paying the fine, accepting a hands-off policy on the Clippers and, presuming the other NBA owners vote with the three quarters majority necessary by NBA by-laws to strip him of ownership, quickly sell the Clippers to a suitable bidder.
Or -- he can stand his ground and fight all of the above. Given Sterling's litigious history during his 33 year tenure of ownership -- currently the longest in the NBA -- it's likely a pretty safe bet the man isn't going to wave the white flag and go away quietly. Methinks some very shrewd lawyers are already at work weighing various legal strategies on behalf of Sterling.
Nevertheless, let's take a closer look at the "punishments".
The $2.5 million fine. Though it was the maximum allowed by the NBA's own by-laws, such an amount is no more than chump change to a man like Donald Sterling. His reputed total wealth is estimated to be around $2 billion. To put that in perspective, if you have $200, this is like someone demanding a quarter -- twenty five cents. Hardly a big deal to most. Yet if Sterling decides to fight -- he won't pay it. Because by doing so, he would be admitting liability (guilt) on some level, thereby providing the foundation for all the rest to quickly snowball against him. So no, yours truly highly doubts he will voluntarily pay that fine.
Banishment and no contact. Adam Silver, in collusion with the other NBA owners, have the power to ban Sterling from sitting in on NBA Board of Governors' meetings, and to deny him access/admission to all the rest of the teams' venues. Yet when it comes to the Clippers themselves -- things could get a little dicey if Sterling refused to comply and stay away. Here's a hypothetical -- what would happen if Sterling attempted to go to his own office at the Staples Center, home of the Clips, Lakers, LA Sparks and LA Kings? The building itself is owned and operated by an entity called the LA Arena Co. As a business enterprise independent of the NBA, and basically a high-priced "landlord", the LA Arena Co. is under no legal obligation to abide by Silver's mandate regarding Sterling. How might it work out if Sterling showed up and wanted to go to the office and/or luxury suite he has paid big bucks for since moving his team from San Diego to LA way back in 1984? Unknown, but it would be an interesting scenario. And remember, Silver's "restraining order" comes from the offices of the NBA, not a judge somewhere. Therefore it lacks any judicial weight of law, with possible consequences if ignored. It's not like the authorities would haul Sterling off in irons if he attempted to show up at his office. But he probably won't do that because the latest reports (rumors) have it that Sterling is devoting the majority of his attention to the most important issue of all. Which brings me to...
The forced sale of his team. It appears Sterling has indeed decided to fight such an edict handed down by Silver, and this could get very complicated and messy before it's all over. As a billionaire, and given his past history involving litigation (mostly successful), there can be little doubt Sterling has a top-flight team of very good lawyers at his disposal.
Let's assume that when Sterling purchased the San Diego, now LA Clippers back in 1981 (which required a majority of the other owners to approve -- they did), he did so while also agreeing to abide by NBA by-laws. One of those rules apparently states that if a three-quarter majority (now 23) of the other owners comes together and decides he should be stripped of his franchise ownership -- then they have the authority to do so, by the very terms Sterling agreed to in the first place. If so, this could present a formidable hurdle for his legal-eagles to overcome.
Sure, they can and likely will present arguments on several fronts. One of them is First Amendment freedom of speech rights being held against their client to his detriment. Sterling may have uttered remarks found offensive by many, but like everyone else in the USA, he and they absolutely have the right to do so.
And then there's the matter of following the recording itself. Sterling's "girlfriend", one V. Stiviano, may or may not have been justified in recording their relevant conversations, but releasing them to the public domain (media) without Sterling's knowledge or consent was illegal.
Take it to the next step. The media certainly knew, or should have, if they'd done their due diligence, that such a recording was on very shaky legal ground to begin with. Yet they ran with it anyway. This violated historical journalistic ethics, standards, and behavior. While it's understood the media has become a dog-eat-dog world that rewards those that first break a story -- it is still no excuse for not verifying their information came from a legitimate source in the first place.
A step further. The NBA and Commish Adam Silver only became aware of Sterling's comments due to the very tainted chain of custody of the tape(s) mentioned above. If the whole matter of Sterling being forced to sell his team winds up going through the judicial process -- which seems highly likely -- his attorneys could argue that the tape(s) themselves are inadmissible evidence, because of how they were obtained. Would a judge agree with such a motion? Unknown, but if so, without the tape(s) as evidence, the NBA's case against Donald Sterling would quickly collapse. Let's assume that motion is denied.
It gets trickier yet. Somewhere along the line since 1981, quite likely early on, Donald Sterling put the Clippers into a family trust. One reason such a maneuver is typically done is to protect an asset (keep it in the family) in case something unforeseen happens to the principle owner. One never knows what tomorrow might bring -- or if there will even be a tomorrow in their life. Sometimes tragic events can happen suddenly.
Enter Rochelle (Shelley) Sterling, Donald's estranged wife. Though they may be separated, they're also very much still legally married. Not even counting their two adult children, who are likely also included in the trust, Mrs. Sterling could present a major obstacle to the wishes of Adam Silver, other NBA owners and, OMG, the court of public opinion regarding the expedited forced sale of the Clippers.
Mrs. Sterling appeared to signal her future intentions in a recent statement.
"As a co-owner, I am fully committed to taking the necessary steps to make the Clippers the best team in the NBA. That has been my aspiration ever since 1981".
That doesn't exactly sound like someone who is willing, much less eager to sell their share of an asset because her husband currently finds himself under siege.
Talking head legal "experts", some of which will normally be at odds over every other issue (see former prosecutors and defense attorneys), seem to be in agreement that Shelley Sterling's status as a co-owner of the Clippers could be problematic for Silver and the NBA trying to shed themselves of Sterling ownership, regardless of their by-laws.
After all, Rochelle and, let's not forget the kids at whatever level they may be involved, have done nothing wrong. Whether or not league approval was necessary for Donald Sterling to originally put the Clippers in a family trust is unknown. But if so, and the league signed off on it way back when -- then their lawyers have a problem of their own.
How can you force innocent people into liquidating their share of an asset they don't want to sell, which would subject them to big-time capital gains taxes to boot?
Kudos to Adam Silver in one regard. As David Stern's hand-picked successor (which raises questions in and of itself, but that's a story for another day) and now rookie NBA Commissioner, the little skinny guy with the bald head and big ears was presented with an opportunity to show his true grit. On that front, he passed with flying colors. Silver's in charge. He be da man. All hail the mighty Commish, or suffer his wrath.
And so it goes for those taking the entire Sterling affair at face value and jumping on the politically correct bandwagon.
But it ain't over yet. Probably far from it.
Lots of very shrewd lawyers will likely be locking horns soon representing both sides, and the final disposition of this whole mess could take years. No matter who prevails in the early skirmishes, any ruling will surely be appealed to a higher court by one side or the other. It could conceivably go all the way to the Supreme Court before a final decision is handed down.
So while Adam Silver made a big splash in his initial press conference to the masses, as a highly educated lawyer himself (Duke grad, University of Chicago law school), he likely also knows, or should, his original slam-dunk edicts regarding Sterling and the Clippers could get very legally complicated and messy before it's all over.
We shall see.....
No comments:
Post a Comment