Sports In the Courts Blog

The Clemens Retrial - Advantage Rocket

Chris Fusco — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:06:51 -0500

Retrials are not particularly great for the prosecution.

Remember in a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of each and every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is highest burden in our law at trial. One of the tools that a prosecutor has is keeping his trial strategy secret (as part of attorney work product) until the opening statement is delivered. During a prosecutor's opening statement, the defendant and his counsel hear, for the first time, how the government's proof will be introduced, through witnesses and other evidence, against a defendant. Yes, the defense attorney may already have strong hunches about what the evidence will be but an opening is the prosecutor's road-map of how the government intends to obtain a guilty verdict against a criminal defendant, like Roger Clemens.

Here, however, Clemens' attorneys have already heard the prosecutor's first opening statement in the original trial. This means that the government's hand has been officially "tipped."

It may be a small advantage but knowing the precise evidentiary road-map against your client is good fo the defense. For now, Clemens' legal team has a quick strike one on the prosecution.

New Orleans Saints Post Makes Cover of Claims Management Magazine

Chris Fusco — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:40:58 -0500

During the NFL’s 2011 lockout, we learned a few important facts. First, when you have a $9 billion industry, there actually is enough money to go around that can make the players and the owners happy. Second, if you are smart you will just play the game, make tons of money and don’t ever contemplate killing the golden goose.

However, as the storm clouds of a potential protracted labor dispute and work interruption passed, the mighty NFL seems to face another growing challenge to its financial dominance. As opposed to a labor struggle, this time a myriad of growing lawsuits may have the NFL and its insurers playing some complicated defense.

Across the country the NFL has been facing a series of lawsuits mostly related to former players’ claims arising from head trauma and concussion-related injuries. For example, in the State of California, the NFL’s workers compensation carrier, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (a Travelers’ subsidiary), is fighting claims by former players for brain injuries. In general, many former players, filing under California’s liberal workers’ compensation laws, are claiming that they are entitled to receive benefits for brain injuries and related dementia from their work in the NFL. In those types of case, there is a pitched battle on the application of the statute of limitations to the claimants. In turn, the former players are making allegations that the NFL covered-up the long-term medical effects of concussions.
Besides the workers’ compensation battles, the NFL and its helmet vendor, Riddell, have been sued by 75 former players, including Mark Duper of the Miami Dolphins and Rodney Hampton of the New York Giants. The plaintiffs allege that Riddell and the NFL failed to protect the former players from head injuries while concealing the chronic risks of concussions and brain trauma.

So what does all of this have to do with the New Orleans Saints’ bounty scandal anyway? Well, from an insurance prospective, there is now enough litigation and the threat of additional significant personal injury claims to raise concerns. Specifically, there is no question that under the right legal and factual circumstances, the NFL and its vendors (and all their respective insurers) would be an enticing and welcomed “deep-pocket” target for the plaintiff’s bar. As for the $9 billion golden goose, she may need to learn a three-step drop to avoid a legal sack.

As an initial matter, most of the prior concussion related lawsuits (while potentially significant), were first brought by non-star players who were suffering serious financial hardships from oppressive medical costs. Based on recent events, the Saints’ “bounty” mess could involve star players and a more definitive path to potential liability. According to the NFL’s investigation, the Saints’ defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, paid his players upwards of $50,000 to target opposing players to be injured (especially knocked out) during games.

We all know that football is an inherently violent and punishing game. From my couch-potato perspective, there is nothing more exciting than watching a defense impose its will on a game with big hits and intimidation. So what’s the problem with a little extra pain and suffering? As NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell outlined the NFL’s “on field” responsibility is to protect player safety and the integrity of the rule of the game. A team sponsored bounty program not only violates those principles but could open the door for personal injury lawsuits against the team which could trigger insurance.

For its part, while the NFL concedes that a team sponsored bounty program, designed on intentionally injuring a player, could lead to civil liability for torts sounding in negligence and intentional conduct, the league is somewhat dismissive of these potential suits. The NFL points out that U.S. Courts “tend to defer to self-regulation, choosing not to interfere with on-field … discipline issues unless the conduct in question is far outside the range of what a player can expect to happen in game … Courts generally don’t want to get involved and potentially chill or impact how the game is played …”

Yet, therein lies the trap play. There is no question that players in professional sports assume the risks of injury, even catastrophic injury, when they take the field. The question, from a legal and insurance prospective, is where does that player’s assumption of the risk end? Do the white lines, on a professional football field, insulate the NFL from all personal injury suits of any nature (we know that wasn’t the case with the NHL)? Lastly, will an injured player who was targeted by a bounty on his head, feel a sense of urgency to commence a lawsuit given that the average NFL career is only about 3 years and medical costs could be incurred for a lifetime?

According to many legal commentators , as well as Sports Illustrated, no player assumes the risk of being targeted for purposeful injury, unconsciousness and even death in the most extreme circumstance. Moreover, no player assumes to bear the risk that a team, like the Saints, will ignore the NFL’s policy against player bounties. In essence, a planned targeting of a player for injury, in violation of the NFL rules, could shatter the cloak of fair play and assumption of the risk thereby creating the potential for civil liability.

Without question, a legal quagmire could be created if an injured player brought “an intent to injure” and negligence suit against a team and the NFL. Given the on-going battle between the former players and the NFL’s workers’ comp insurer, it seems that a prospective bounty plaintiff would avoid this forum and seek to institute a personal injury action. Yet, we will have to wait to determine how this type of case could play out until there actually is a pending action.

You have to wonder, for example, if Brett Favre elected to sue the Saints for his injuries sustained in the 2010 NFC Championship game. As a threshold factual matter, Favre didn’t work for the Saints and there is no question that the Saints purposely violated the league’s prohibition against the use of bounties. Now, Saints head coach, Sean Payton, and general manager, Mickey Loomis, have issued a statement admitting that “… violations disclosed by the NFL … happened under our watch” and they take “full responsibility.”

We do not know what “full responsibility” means at this point? Is it the loss of draft picks, suspensions or fines? Maybe “full responsibility” could mean significant personal injury suits (with insurance issues) unleashed by angry players targeted for injury.

The Saints' Bounty Scandal Postscript: No Leniency, No Lawsuits?

Chris Fusco — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:20:27 -0500

When the New Orleans Saints Head Coach, Sean Payton, appealed his yearlong suspension from the game, his legal team pointed out that when Bill Belichick was caught in the “Spygate” scandal, the Patriots controversial coach’s punishment did not include a suspension. The Saints argued that given the fact that the NFL found that Belichick was involved an alleged cheating scandal (which goes to the integrity of the game) and he did not lose a game on the sidelines. Why then should Sean Payton lose a whole year? More importantly, why shouldn’t NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reflect on all that Payton has accomplished in New Orleans and offer the Super Bowl winning coach some leniency after Payton had shown some remorse and taken responsibility for his actions.

As set forth, herein, Commissioner Goodell is in no mood for leniency. The NFL, despite the inherent violence of its game, has grown sensitive of the need to protect itself from lawsuits. The league (and its insurers) is currently defending workers compensation suits, across the nation, from players who claim to have suffered head trauma and other injuries. The NFL has shown it has no desire to be targeted by players who sustained a “bounty injury” for personal injury lawsuits.

Commissioner Goodell has established three pillars to protect the NFL and its vendors (like helmet makers) from personal injury actions from players. First, the Commissioner has articulated a no tolerance policy against illegal hits that can result in head trauma. The NFL has attempted to draw a line between a good legal tackle as opposed to a hit designed to induce a head injury. However, the Saints’ bounty program made a mockery of the commissioner’s rules against illegal hits.

The second tenant involves early detection of a head injury so that the trauma of a concussion can be immediate reduced and controlled. This concept makes tremendous sense; if a head injury can be contained then a lawsuit will be less likely. Unless, of course, you are the Cleveland Browns and put your quarterback, Colt McCoy, right back on the field after a massive (and illegal) helmet to helmet hit by the Steeler’s James Harrison. The Browns’ decision to put McCoy back on the field was deemed as a “total system failure” by the NFL Players Association.

The final pillar involves the NFL’s theory that the league (and the league alone) is responsible for policing the game. The NFL believes that if it strictly enforces its rules and keeps the game violent but “clean”, this factor should protect it from lawsuits. I think of it as a self-created cloak of immunity. Its really not a bad a approach, it the league and its teams actually sticks to it the program.

In light of all of this, you can imagine the look on Commissioner Goodell’s face when he heard the taped comments of former Saints Defense Coordinator Gregg Williams (who is indefinitely suspended) urging his players to “kill the head and the body will follow.” Williams also was caught imploring his players to see how many times they could hit 49ers running back, Frank Gore, in the head.
So now its time to re-ask the question, why Goodell refused to give Sean Payton and the Saints any leniency for the bounty scandal? The answer is that the good commissioner is beyond furious (you can insert a stronger word of your choice here). Over the last few months, he has watched all the pillars of his lawsuit protection program be crushed by coaches and teams that lied to him or ignored league’s protocols. Goodell knows that this type of improper conduct is the root of lawsuits. Goodell’s only remaining option to protect his anti-litigation plan is to punish heavily, show no leniency and make examples of those who defy him.

Penn State Sandusky Update

Matthew Stockwell — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:09:36 -0500

The press is afforded substantial freedom in covering judicial proceedings, and high profile criminal prosecutions such as that of Jerry Sandusky are no different. However, states are permitted to regulate what attorneys (both Prosecutors and Defense lawyers) say to the press while cases are pending. Generally, if there is a "substantial likelihood" that either side will be "materially prejudiced" by what is being said, a Court can issue limitations. Attorneys have a responsibility to avoid engaging in public debates/arguments to the detriment of either an accused defendant, or to the fair administration of justice.

Judge John Cleland issued a "gag order" to the attorneys involved in the Sandusky case, but also extended the order to law enforcement investigators, and anyone working on behalf of any of the attorneys in the case. The Judge's order basically permits only general statements about the case, and does not permit either side to state their opinion as to whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent, or to comment on the reputation, credibility or criminal history of Sandusky or any witness.

Since just about the entire nation is aware of this case, a change of venue (or a jury pool from a neighboring county - a "change of venire") is not necessarily going to help either side. In fact, Judge Cleland already denied the Commonwealth's motion for a change of venire. By issuing the "gag order," Judge Cleland is doing his best to avoid either side trying their case through the media, in front of the potential jurors. Trial is scheduled to commence on June 5, and will be one of the most closely followed trials in recent memory.

UFL Lawsuit

Matthew Stockwell — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:57:46 -0500

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh has filed suit in state court in Manhattan against the United Football League ("UFL") and its teams, alleging that the League and its teams have failed to pay approximately $3.1 million in additional premiums, loss reimbursements, adjustments and other costs. National Union provided workers' compensation coverage in 2009 and 2010.

The Complaint seeks to compel the UFL to submit to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the payment agreements, but also contains a count for breach of contract. Normally, these workers' compensation additional payment disputes are resolved. Given the UFL's recent reported contraction and financial issues, however, it may not have the capability to pay National Union.

Chelsea Player Adrian Mutu, Appeals to Circuit Court

Matthew Stockwell — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:30:47 -0500

Soccer player Adrian Mutu was recently ordered to pay approximately $22 million to the English Premier League's Chelsea Football Club, for breaching his contract by testing positive for cocaine use in 2004. The League originally found that Mutu was in breach of contract, and a Switzerland arbitration panel upheld the League's finding. In 2008, FIFA ordered Mutu to pay Chelsea the fee it had paid to Mutu's former team, as well as Mutu's signing bonus and his agent's fee. After Mutu exhausted his appeals, Chelsea filed suit in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, to enforce the award. Mutu claimed the penalty clause was unenforceable, but the Court rejected this claim.

Since the United States favors arbitration agreements in international contracts, Mutu had to prove one of the defenses to enforcement of the arbitration decision - in this case, that enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the United States. Since there was a relationship between the penalty clause and the actual damages suffered by Chelsea, the Court decided that enforcement did not violate public policy.

Mutu has since appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it does not appear that he will be successful.

The Mets-Madoff Settlement: Give the Judge an Assist

Chris Fusco — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:26:19 -0500

With much media coverage, the Mets’ ownership settled their case with bankruptcy trustee, Irving Picard, who represents the victims of the Bernie Madoff scam. At first blush, the settlement appears somewhat favorable for the Mets owners as they were given 3 years to pay a reduced amount.

The detail that did not get much media notice is how Judge Rakoff made this settlement the inevitable outcome. When Judge Rakoff ruled that Picard couldn’t recover the astronomical sum of $1 billion from the Mets’ owners for their alleged knowledge of Madoff’s fraud and held that the most the Mets could pay was $303 million, the court set a financial “ceiling.” In turn, when the court ruled that the Mets owners were on the hook for at least $83 million in fictitious profits, the judge set a financial “floor.”

With a ceiling and floor built by the court, all the parties had to do was to choose a number in-between and that’s precisely what occurred. Once the court boxed the parties into a settlement range, the was no incentive to “roll the dice” on an expensive trial with an uncertain ending.

Chris Fusco's Analysis of Ryan Braun for MLB Network

Chris Fusco — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:41:28 -0500

Check out Chris Fusco's analysis on MLB Network.

Syracuse Drug Scandal

Mitchell Ayes — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:41:12 -0500

In a year where a lot of negativity keeps surrounding big time athletic programs, from sexual molestation to conference realignment and the loss of hundred year old rivalries to accepting illegal benefits, the second ranked Syracuse Orange find themselves back in the news, and not for its suffocating zone defense. As March Madness heats up and the conference tournaments are in full swing, Syracuse is defending allegations of drug abuse by former players of the men's basketball team. Over a year ago, Syracuse self reported possible violations of its internal drug policy, and the school was quick to point out that the report did not include any current student-athletes. According to Yahoo Sports, it conducted a three month investigation of the men's basketball program and concluded that since 2001, 10 players tested positive for a banned substance, and while they should have been suspended, they were allowed to practice and play in games. The report further stated that at least 1 of the 10 players continued to play after failing four tests. Based on the NCAA rules, if Syracuse is found to have knowingly violated its own drug policy, it could be found to be a "willful violator" and the NCAA's investigation could date back to when the infractions began, similar to the University of Miami's violations last year. At the time when the Miami scandal broke, commentators were suggesting that the willful violators clause may trigger the "death penalty", however, that did not occur as there were only suspensions handed out and monetary payments required by the student-athletes involved. As there are no current players alleged to have violated the policy, suspensions, except for Boeheim, are not possible. Rather the NCAA may sanction the school and force it to make a monetary payment, withhold scholarships, or ban tournament play. Fear not Orange faithful, the only thing that will derail Syracuse's run to a championship will be a hot shooter to overcome the tenacious zone defense or a big man who commands a double team, this investigation will take months to complete and we shouldn't expect a decision before the end of the tournament.

The Mets' Madoff Scandal: Judge Grants Motion for Summary Judgment

Matthew Stockwell — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:14:10 -0500

In January, we wrote that Irving Picard, the Trustee attempting to claw back money for Madoff victims, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a determination that the Mets owners ("Wilpon") obtained approximately $83 million in fictitious profits and therefore must pay this money back to the Trustee as a matter of law. In turn, Wilpon cross-moved for summary judgment, dismissing all of the Trustee's claims, on the grounds that Wilpon received profits in return for "fair value," and further, that its principal had been invested in good faith.

With a trial date of March 19, 2012, Judge Jed Rakoff granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment, and denied Wilpon's cross-motion. Thus, Judge Rakoff set a "floor" of what Wilpon will owe, at $83 million. The Court has not yet determined how this amount will be allocated among all of the defendants (such as Saul Katz, Wilpon's companies and other related defendants). With regard to Wilpon's cross-motion, although Judge Rakoff expressed skepticism as to whether the Trustee would be successful, the Court found an issue of fact (described by Judge Rakoff as a "residue of disputed factual assertions") as to whether Wilpon acted in good or bad faith, which must be resolved by a trier of fact.

Although this may seem as a loss on its face, consider that Wilpon was originally faced with a $1 billion lawsuit. The Trustee's case has now been whittled down to $83 million, plus the possibility of $303 million - the Trustee must first convince a trier of fact that Wilpon turned a blind eye to Madoff's fraudulent activities.

It is not insignificant that Judge Rakoff wrote that he was skeptical whether the Trustee could recover the remaining $303 million. Both sides would be wise to immediately commence settlement negotiations, and manage the risk associated with going to trial.

Family Former NFL DB Dave Duerson Sues Both Riddell and the NFL

Matthew Stockwell — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:04:14 -0500

In what seems to be an unprecedented move, the family of former Chicago Bears and New York Giants defensive back Dave Duerson sued the NFL for wrongful death, as a result of Duerson's self-inflicted, fatal gunshot wound. Duerson killed himself in February of 2011, and the lawsuit blames the suicide on the NFL's mishandling of concussions. Helmet manufacturer Riddell is also named in the Complaint.

Although there have been numerous lawsuits filed against the NFL by retired players seeking recovery for concussion-related injuries and symptoms, this litigation goes a step further, and will require medical evidence of a causal connection between the injuries Duerson sustained in his playing days and his decision to shoot himself.

The burden of proof will be difficult for the plaintiffs. A review of the comments posted to the various articles on this lawsuit reveals that the public is quite skeptical. If the case cannot be settled, the plaintiffs will have to convince the jurors of the connection between Duerson's concussion symptoms and his suicide through convincing medical expert testimony, and will have to show that the NFL deviated from accepted standards of care for handling concussions. It will definitely be interesting to see what the outcome of this case will be.

Former New York Mets Equipment Manager, Charlie Samuels Pleads Guilty

Matthew Stockwell — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:51:31 -0500

In May of 2011, NY Mets longtime equipment manager Charlie Samuels was indicted on criminal possession of Mets equipment and memorabilia, which the Queens County District Attorney alleged Samuels stole from the Mets clubhouse during his 27 years with the team. Samuels stole an estimated $2.3 million worth of equipment, and faced significant jail time.

This week, Samuels pled guilty to criminal possession of stolen property, and tax evasion. However, Samuels walked away with only 5 years probation, and must pay restitution and fines of approximately $75,000, which is essentially the bail money he posted.

Samuels' greed cost him a dream job. Samuels had access to Mets players throughout his tenure, and received enormous tips. The Mets declared the prosecution a success, and Samuels is now banned from Citi Field and other Mets facilities.

UVA Lacrosse Verdict: The Lessons Remain for Observers

Chris Fusco — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:35:56 -0500

The next time you hear a legal commentator tell you a case is an "all or nothing" case - beware.

Time and time again, jurors show that they love to compromise their verdicts. In the Huguely trial, the jury knew the defendant killed Yeardley Love, but they questioned degree of his conduct. At the same time, the jury wasn't buying (from the defense) that this homicide was an accident.

After only 9 hours of deliberations on a homicide case (on the short side), the jury saw a clear path to closure and compromise. They could reject the prosecution's demand for a conviction on Murder 1 (premeditation) and the defense theory of criminally negligent homicide by splitting the difference. Sitting right before them was the crime of Murder 2 (violent killing without premeditation). This verdict would provide a murder conviction but not the death penalty or a life sentence for the young Huguely.

In the end, the jury found the perfect compromise to end a very tragic episode.

WVU Lawsuit Settled

Mitchell Ayes — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:21:42 -0500

In the battle for collegiate conference supremacy, West Virginia University, paid big time to get what they wanted. While WVU's athletic director, Oliver Luck, said the terms of the settlement were confidential, it has been reported that the settlement totaled $20 million. It is unknown how the settlement proceeds will be paid, however, they will not come from state, taxpayer, tuition, or other academic dollars, rather exclusively from private sources and money the athletic department raised independently. This settlement stems from WVU's suit against the Big East challenging the enforcability of the Big East's by laws so WVU could leave for the Big 12 prior to the 2014 season, a 27 month requirement. After WVU filed suit, the Big Easy sued WVU in another venue, alleging that WVU breached its contract with the Big East and was required to remain in the Big East for two years. Recently, WVU's motion to dismiss the Big East's lawsuit was denied, which most likely prompted the settlement. As part of the settlement and dismissal of the suits, WVU agred to have a West Virginia court enter a judgment declaring the Big East's by laws valid and enforceable. By leaving the Big East, WVU should receive between $18 and $19 million per year from the Big 12's lucrative television deals, nearly double what it would have received from the Big East. With the settlement, WVU is cleared to join the Big 12, and will begin conference play at home against Baylor on September 29, 2012.

The UVA Lacrosse Trial: The Medical Proof Hurts the Defense

Chris Fusco — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:00:49 -0500

It is former UVA Lacrosse Star, George Huguely's defense that he didn't intentionally kill Yeardley Love. Huguely claims they had a rough physical encounter in which Love "freaked out" in mixed of alcohol and Adderall.

But Tuesday, the Assistant Medical Examiner told the jury that Love's blood alcohol level of .14 and normal level of Adderall (for some on who takes it) in her blood did not cause her death. The medical examiner instead explained to the jury that Love's brain sustained such intense blunt trama it was like she was in car accident. According to the prosecution, the trauma to the brain was so severe it would cause a slowing of breathing and cardiac arrest.

This type of devastating medical evidence will be very difficult to overcome for the defense. Testimony about massive brain trauma causing Love to suffer a cardiac arrest is "impartial evidence" of violent intentional murder. This type of evidence will prove, for the moment, the Love's death caused a vicious and dangerous person.

UVA Lacrosse Murder Trial: Did the Jury and George Huguely have a Moment?

Chris Fusco — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:15 -0500

The prosecution's theory of murder against former University of Virginia lacrosse star, George Huguely, is simple. The state claims that, in a rage, he brutally murdered his ex-girlfriend, Yeardley Love.

Huguely, for his part, contends, that they both consumed large amounts of alcohol and that Love was also taking Adderall which caused her to "freak out." Huguely claims that they might have struggled but he never intended in kill her (no premeditation for Murder 1).

On the last trial date, the prosecution decided to play Huguely's interrogation video showing when the police told him that Love was dead. On the video and live in court, Huguely began to cry. His open emotion caused Love's sister to cry in an inconsolable fashion. More importantly, at least 2 jurors were seen in tears.

So was this a positive moment for the defense? Was Huguely's pain enough to humanize him for the juror and cause him to become a sympathetic figure?

Many court observers seem to think so but trial moments can be fleeting. Just because there was shared pain over the death of Love does not mean that the jury will nullify a murder charge. The court will also instruct the jurors that sympathy has no place in their deliberations. It seemed to me that inexperienced trial reporters may have placed too much emphasis on a passing emotional moment.

These same commentators failed to recognize the brutality of the alleged crime and how badly beaten Love was at the time of her death. Huguely will have the jury believe that her injuries were self-inflicted or from lacrosse games. But the jurors will see that Huguely literally may be put Love's head through a door in his rage.

That horrible image will last longer than a moment of tears.

Practice? Iverson in Trouble with the Law Due to Jewelry Debt

Matthew Stockwell — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:54:41 -0500

Former 76er Allen Iverson had no "answer" to a Judge that ordered him to pay approximately $859,896.46 to a jeweler that he allegedly stiffed. Rather than pay the $375,000 bill when he was sued, Iverson ignored the lawsuit, and a Georgia Court entered default judgment against Iverson for $859,896.46, which includes attorneys' fees and interest. As a result, the Court has taken control of Iverson's bank account and will likely garnish his income to repay the debt.

Iverson has a history of legal and gambling troubles, and in November of 2010, there were rumors concerning Iverson's poor financial situation. Iverson had surgery approximately a year ago, and was attempting to make a comeback during the NBA lockout. However, it is not clear whether he is currently playing. The jeweler certainly hopes that an NBA team will sign him soon.

CLM Publication: Will Insurance bring the UFC to NYC?

Chris Fusco — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:17:49 -0500

Check out Chris Fusco's contribution to the new Claims Management Magazine.

The Mets' Madoff Scandal: The Trustee Goes on Offense

Chris Fusco — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:32:35 -0500

At first bankruptcy trustee, Irving Picard, was seeking to recover about $1 billion from the New York Mets' ownership for alleged fictitious profits and claims of fraud. However, a bankruptcy judge dismissed many of Picard's claims against the Mets' owners, leaving about $385 million for Picard to extract.

While the Mets principal owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz have won some early battles against Trustee Picard, now Picard is looking for a game changer. While trial on Picard's Madoff-related claims against the Mets' owners isn't scheduled until this March, Picard wants a victory now.

Last week, Picard filed a motion for partial summary judgment to obtain $83 million of the $385 million from the Mets' owners. By filing this motion, Picard is telling the court that there is no factual dispute that the Mets received $83 million in fictitious profits and those sums (as part of the claim) should be recovered now.

To avoid this outcome, the Mets' ownership, already strapped for cash, will have to convince the court that there are factual reasons why these funds are not owed back the the bankruptcy trustee. Given the unclear financial future of Mets' ownership and their drastically reduced payroll, you have to wonder if the Wilpon/Katz team could even survive an $83 million hit.

Penn State Scandal: Trending in Sports?

Matthew Stockwell — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:30:30 -0500

As the Penn State scandal moves along, there are smaller-scale (but perhaps equally significant) incidents coming to light involving sports figures and coaches.

It is being reported that an underage sex sting operation in Florida resulted in approximately 40 arrests, including a swim teacher and former PGA Tour Professional Steve Thomas. Thomas was charged with seducing an underage girl, and using a computer to entice a legal guardian or parent to commit sexual acts on an underage girl. Apparently, Thomas was caught in an operation set up similar to NBC's "To Catch a Predator," where he attempted to meet with a girl he thought was 13. The swimming coach arrested is Bryan Woodward of the Gator Swim Club. Mr. Woodward coached children of various ages since he was hired in 2010.

Also, a former NFL lineman committed suicide this week, as he was about to enter a plea in Oregon to five counts of sexual abuse and one count of luring a minor. According to the District Attorney, the charges involved three victims, all under the age of 14.

This kind of conduct is not new, but high profile cases such as Penn State will lead to reporting of additional abusive situations. Locally, a Catholic High School coach was recently arrested for videotaping boys in the shower room. Although there was no evidence of any sexual contact, Immaculata High School's Pat Lott was arrested on multiple counts of endangering the welfare of children. A search of Lott's computer allegedly revealed multiple photographs of underage boys in the shower, and a hidden camera was later found in the shower area.