---
If you're new to the site, or would like a refresher on why we're here, you can check out the sort-of comprehensive trial guide I put together on the eve of the first day. Otherwise, let's take a few moments to talk about things to come this week and beyond.
The day will start with Jamie McCourt under direct examination from her own superstar trial attorney, David Boies. This was very much by design. By hammering Frank on the stand during the latter half of the first week and keeping Jamie to himself by the week's end, Boies effectively won the week. Frank, as would be expected of any of us, wilted some under direct, and Jamie hasn't had to suffer the same experience.
Until this week, that is. While Boies prefers to run at a pretty steady pace and use fatigue as a weapon, you can expect Frank's attorney, Stephen Susman, to attack aggressively. He'll use every available opportunity to force Jamie to concede that, yes, she was indeed concerned about the viability of the couple's business activity, and, yes, she did push for the MPA at the heart of this matter. At least that's what Susman will need to do to put his client in a position to own the Dodgers for the long run.
That's maybe a bigger issue than the trial itself. Yes, this litigation will determine the validity of the MPA. But that's likely just the first step. Whatever Judge Gordon's ruling, there are several specters lurking. First is the threat of continued litigation; whether it is by appeal or perhaps a different legal theory, whichever party loses on the MPA will surely extend this issue in the court room well past the end of next week. Next comes the bigger question: if a McCourt ends up with the team, will he or she have the financial wherewithal and public support to make it work?
It's not likely Jamie can walk with the team. Her lawyers concede that, if she wins on the MPA (and assuming that's the end of the litigation), neither McCourt would have the resources to take the other out. Besides, neither McCourt seems likely to willingly let the other control the team, regardless of who wins. No, if Jamie McCourt intends to own the Dodgers, she'd need help in the form of outside investors. Even more daunting, she'd need to get through Major League Baseball's approval process, which doesn't seem particularly promising at the moment.
For Frank, it's a bit easier, in theory at least. Win on the postnup, survive on whatever comes next, and leave no questions about who owns the club. However, there are voices ranging in volume from whispers to screams saying Frank simply doesn't have the money to keep the club himself. Especially if he's saddled with a hefty obligation to Jamie, the liquidity required to rescue the team from its self-imposed decline might be more than Frank could raise and sustain.
Or maybe not; if nothing else, Frank is a fighter whose ability to make something out of nothing is truly remarkable; it's how he got the Dodgers. In my book, the biggest question facing his long-term ability to own the Dodgers isn't cash, it's credibility. This protracted divorce has cost the Dodgers dearly in the goodwill department, and there is no question that "Anyone Else" is the fan favorite to own the Dodgers. And, unfortunately for Frank, the one surefire fix--winning--doesn't appear especially likely. Not when the young, cheap talent is no longer as young, as cheap, and, well, as talented.
But short of financial ruin or MLB intervention, Frank would get his chance if he survives the litigation. And how he'd handle that chance would be scrutinized as closely as an owner's decisions have ever been.
That's a conversation for a different day. Jamie's winning right now, and how she fares on the stand this week will go a long way toward telling us just how far in the future we should be talking. I checked into my hotel tonight, and I look forward to being at court bright and early tomorrow. Check back here for detailed, but infrequent updates. Follow me on Twitter (@DodgerDivorce) for immediate news and quick analysis.
---
Showing posts with label Trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trial. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Day one wrap.
---
One day into the McCourt divorce trial, this much is clear: Larry Silverstein's conflicting designations of whether the Dodgers are within the scope of the MPA was either an act of cold deceit or potentially the costliest scrivener's error in American legal history. If I'm getting ahead of myself, here's the context: there are two versions of the McCourt MPA. One of them specifies that the Dodgers are Frank's and Frank's alone. The other specifically excludes the Dodgers from the assets made Frank's by the MPA. Resolution of that issue will likely--but far from conclusively--determine the outcome of the litigation.
The day began with Judge Gordon ruling on a series of motions in limine. In English, this meant that he decided on some sorts of evidence which would or would not be admissible in trial. The first motion decided was perhaps the most confusing; each side claimed victory. Judge Gordon ruled that extrinsic evidence will not be allowed as to the MPA. It's not quite that simple, though; the ruling, as I heard it, covered only whether transmutation did or did not occur. Again, in English, outside evidence can still be allowed when relevant to prove or challenge other aspects of the MPA.
The remaining preliminary motions were a bit more straightforward. Both parties stipulated to the admissibility of the two versions of the MPA, which was expected. Jamie then lost on three consecutive points. First, Judge Gordon declined to admit the expert testimony of a lawyer Jamie brought in to testify on legal ethics. Judge Gordon informed Jamie that there were more than enough lawyers in the room to work through that point. Jamie also lost on a bid to admit the current value of the Dodgers assets into evidence. Judge Gordon said that the only relevant valuation at this stage concerns the time the documents were signed, though it might come into play later in the asset division context. Lastly, Jamie lost her argument to examine the MPA under Massachusetts law. This here's California.
Jamie's case in chief began with one of her attorneys, Dennis Wasser, quoting Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, / When first we practise to deceive!" Spoiler alert: he's suggesting Frank cheated Jamie out of the Dodgers. He proceeded to score on a series of body blows; it didn't look good for Frank McCourt when Jamie's team displayed a copy of Larry Silverstein's handwritten notes with variants of the word "exclusive" showing up twice. "The evidence will show," Wasser said, "that [Jamie] questioned the original [version of the MPA]."
Frank's side, of course, disagrees. He says that the Exhibits--clearly described as "for courtesy"--don't hold nearly the same weight as the body of the MPA, which simply cares about title to the various properties. In fact, Frank's lead trial attorney, Steve Susman, called Jamie "likely the first such highly-educated, former CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation to try to get out of a contract she claimed she didn't understand." He didn't stop there, though. "Jamie is seeking to become the first spouse ever in the state of California to invalidate an MPA she proposed."
Perhaps the most surreal aspect of the litigation was something we've seen before: the absurd positions each side needs to take. Frank purchased the Dodgers "with zero experience [and] limited liquidity," one attorney said. Problem: that was Frank's attorney. Susman also characterized the supposed MPA drafting mistake as "insignificant and innocuous." If true, of course, we wouldn't be here today. He also said that "a junior high school student could understand" the effect of the MPA. Susman's a character, and brought a delightful sense of humor to an otherwise-stale proceeding. "Your honor, Jamie's testimony might be the most incredible thing this court has ever heard," he added.
Importantly to the litigation, Susman also claimed that Jamie McCourt "never saw a draft with an error in it." If true, that's a powerful point. The day dragged on, and drew to a merciful close with the couple's estate planning attorney, Leah Bishop, on the stand. Bishop testified that she "snapped" at Frank about the McCourts' lack of individual representation in the execution of the MPA, and that Jamie "had a fundamental misunderstanding" of its effect. She also claimed that Frank told her the MPA he now seeks to enforce was "not what it was supposed to be." Frank's attorneys will counter that those words had to do with something entirely different.
He'll have his chance soon enough. Once Susman cross-examines Bishop, Jamie's attorneys are expected to put Frank McCourt himself on the stand. David Boies, who earned a DNP: Coach's decision today, may well conduct the direct examination of Frank McCourt. Susman explained on the courthouse steps that he is excited for the opportunity to cross-examine Frank, as it is when his true story will come out.
I'll be back late tonight or tomorrow morning with some additional nuggets on the first day's events, as well as a preview of tomorrow's. If this post has seemed rambling, lengthy, and incoherent...well, it's about how I feel. Been a long day. And it gets longer: I will be on the Fox 11 10:00 news this evening to talk about the divorce from the fan's perspective. Gloria Allred will also be in studio, which will certainly be a new experience for me.
---
Let me know if you prefer this comprehensive sort of post, or if you would prefer several more focused ones. Today, this was the only way to go given other obligations, but I want to make the site as helpful as possible. In that vein, feel free to consult and pass along the viewer's guide a couple posts down. As always, I try to be as reachable as possible. Submit any questions or comments, and shoot me an e-mail if you'll be in the courthouse. There was certainly some room to spare this afternoon.
Lastly, look for a chat here featuring Molly Knight tomorrow afternoon. It's not finalized yet; she still needs to sign my Exhibit A that says I get to keep all the traffic she's bound to drive my way.
---
One day into the McCourt divorce trial, this much is clear: Larry Silverstein's conflicting designations of whether the Dodgers are within the scope of the MPA was either an act of cold deceit or potentially the costliest scrivener's error in American legal history. If I'm getting ahead of myself, here's the context: there are two versions of the McCourt MPA. One of them specifies that the Dodgers are Frank's and Frank's alone. The other specifically excludes the Dodgers from the assets made Frank's by the MPA. Resolution of that issue will likely--but far from conclusively--determine the outcome of the litigation.
The day began with Judge Gordon ruling on a series of motions in limine. In English, this meant that he decided on some sorts of evidence which would or would not be admissible in trial. The first motion decided was perhaps the most confusing; each side claimed victory. Judge Gordon ruled that extrinsic evidence will not be allowed as to the MPA. It's not quite that simple, though; the ruling, as I heard it, covered only whether transmutation did or did not occur. Again, in English, outside evidence can still be allowed when relevant to prove or challenge other aspects of the MPA.
The remaining preliminary motions were a bit more straightforward. Both parties stipulated to the admissibility of the two versions of the MPA, which was expected. Jamie then lost on three consecutive points. First, Judge Gordon declined to admit the expert testimony of a lawyer Jamie brought in to testify on legal ethics. Judge Gordon informed Jamie that there were more than enough lawyers in the room to work through that point. Jamie also lost on a bid to admit the current value of the Dodgers assets into evidence. Judge Gordon said that the only relevant valuation at this stage concerns the time the documents were signed, though it might come into play later in the asset division context. Lastly, Jamie lost her argument to examine the MPA under Massachusetts law. This here's California.
Jamie's case in chief began with one of her attorneys, Dennis Wasser, quoting Sir Walter Scott: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, / When first we practise to deceive!" Spoiler alert: he's suggesting Frank cheated Jamie out of the Dodgers. He proceeded to score on a series of body blows; it didn't look good for Frank McCourt when Jamie's team displayed a copy of Larry Silverstein's handwritten notes with variants of the word "exclusive" showing up twice. "The evidence will show," Wasser said, "that [Jamie] questioned the original [version of the MPA]."
Frank's side, of course, disagrees. He says that the Exhibits--clearly described as "for courtesy"--don't hold nearly the same weight as the body of the MPA, which simply cares about title to the various properties. In fact, Frank's lead trial attorney, Steve Susman, called Jamie "likely the first such highly-educated, former CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation to try to get out of a contract she claimed she didn't understand." He didn't stop there, though. "Jamie is seeking to become the first spouse ever in the state of California to invalidate an MPA she proposed."
Perhaps the most surreal aspect of the litigation was something we've seen before: the absurd positions each side needs to take. Frank purchased the Dodgers "with zero experience [and] limited liquidity," one attorney said. Problem: that was Frank's attorney. Susman also characterized the supposed MPA drafting mistake as "insignificant and innocuous." If true, of course, we wouldn't be here today. He also said that "a junior high school student could understand" the effect of the MPA. Susman's a character, and brought a delightful sense of humor to an otherwise-stale proceeding. "Your honor, Jamie's testimony might be the most incredible thing this court has ever heard," he added.
Importantly to the litigation, Susman also claimed that Jamie McCourt "never saw a draft with an error in it." If true, that's a powerful point. The day dragged on, and drew to a merciful close with the couple's estate planning attorney, Leah Bishop, on the stand. Bishop testified that she "snapped" at Frank about the McCourts' lack of individual representation in the execution of the MPA, and that Jamie "had a fundamental misunderstanding" of its effect. She also claimed that Frank told her the MPA he now seeks to enforce was "not what it was supposed to be." Frank's attorneys will counter that those words had to do with something entirely different.
He'll have his chance soon enough. Once Susman cross-examines Bishop, Jamie's attorneys are expected to put Frank McCourt himself on the stand. David Boies, who earned a DNP: Coach's decision today, may well conduct the direct examination of Frank McCourt. Susman explained on the courthouse steps that he is excited for the opportunity to cross-examine Frank, as it is when his true story will come out.
I'll be back late tonight or tomorrow morning with some additional nuggets on the first day's events, as well as a preview of tomorrow's. If this post has seemed rambling, lengthy, and incoherent...well, it's about how I feel. Been a long day. And it gets longer: I will be on the Fox 11 10:00 news this evening to talk about the divorce from the fan's perspective. Gloria Allred will also be in studio, which will certainly be a new experience for me.
---
Let me know if you prefer this comprehensive sort of post, or if you would prefer several more focused ones. Today, this was the only way to go given other obligations, but I want to make the site as helpful as possible. In that vein, feel free to consult and pass along the viewer's guide a couple posts down. As always, I try to be as reachable as possible. Submit any questions or comments, and shoot me an e-mail if you'll be in the courthouse. There was certainly some room to spare this afternoon.
Lastly, look for a chat here featuring Molly Knight tomorrow afternoon. It's not finalized yet; she still needs to sign my Exhibit A that says I get to keep all the traffic she's bound to drive my way.
---
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Why haven't the McCourts settled?
---
Only four days remain before the McCourts will face off in court to determine ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and every indication is that the trial will begin as scheduled. While it appeared that the possibility of a settlement was gathering momentum only a couple weeks ago, my sources are insistent that the trial will go forward. Other observers are hearing the same thing, and I now feel confident enough that I have booked flights and hotel down the street from the courthouse.
So why have the McCourts been unable to reach a settlement? Principally, I think it has to do with how Frank McCourt does business. A line of Frank's trial brief sums it up nicely:
Settling is safe. Trial is risky. But the rewards of winning at trial are enormous. He'd preserve his vast net worth. Dodgers ownership would seem to be safely in McCourt hands for generations to come. And Jamie's name and image would be in the dumpster. Winning at trial represents the best possible outcome for Frank, and, as his attorneys tell the court, he has an extreme tolerance for the risks associated with litigating this matter until the end.
As for Jamie's part, she, too, feels well-prepared for trial. Her argument relies on several theories that, she argues, should lead the court to conclude that the MPA either never existed or should be enforced. As we did with Frank above, let's look at an excerpt from Jamie's trial brief that has meaning beyond its context:
It's impossible to say how much of this is real, and how much is posturing. I do know that an awful lot of damage has been done, and each party is pretty well entrenched. Frank sees, in the trial, the opportunity of a lifetime, and he fervently believes the facts and law are on his side. Jamie feels aggrieved, wronged, and cheated. She believes that the court can come to no valid conclusion other than to rule the MPA null and void.
And that's why we're here today, counting down the hours to trial. Might it be settled in the eleventh hour? Perhaps. But Frank wouldn't hit his home run, and Jamie wouldn't get her vindication. A settlement remains the safe play, but Frank doesn't play safe. A settlement remains the quiet play, but Jamie doesn't play quiet. It's a fluid situation, but it sure looks like we have busy weeks ahead. My bags are packed.
---
Only four days remain before the McCourts will face off in court to determine ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and every indication is that the trial will begin as scheduled. While it appeared that the possibility of a settlement was gathering momentum only a couple weeks ago, my sources are insistent that the trial will go forward. Other observers are hearing the same thing, and I now feel confident enough that I have booked flights and hotel down the street from the courthouse.
So why have the McCourts been unable to reach a settlement? Principally, I think it has to do with how Frank McCourt does business. A line of Frank's trial brief sums it up nicely:
Frank is an entrepreneur at heart and has an extreme tolerance for risky ventures that, potentially, could have big returns.While that sentence was written to provide background for how the McCourts got rich and why Jamie supposedly wanted the MPA, I think it applies here, too.
Settling is safe. Trial is risky. But the rewards of winning at trial are enormous. He'd preserve his vast net worth. Dodgers ownership would seem to be safely in McCourt hands for generations to come. And Jamie's name and image would be in the dumpster. Winning at trial represents the best possible outcome for Frank, and, as his attorneys tell the court, he has an extreme tolerance for the risks associated with litigating this matter until the end.
As for Jamie's part, she, too, feels well-prepared for trial. Her argument relies on several theories that, she argues, should lead the court to conclude that the MPA either never existed or should be enforced. As we did with Frank above, let's look at an excerpt from Jamie's trial brief that has meaning beyond its context:
Jamie trusted Frank as her marital and business partner to make decisions with respect to the way their businesses were structured, finances were arranged, and regarding tax planning matters. Jamie trusted Frank [and Bingham attoryney Lawrence Silverstein] not to present her with something that took away her rights to the very thing that was a life-long dream for her--owning a baseball team, which also represented the vast bulk of the parties' marital estate.Later:
Jamie is an intelligent business woman who would never have knowingly given up her interest in the Dodger Assets in return for the "protection" of residential properties worth far less.The emphasis is Jamie's attorneys'. And it is here we reach the impasse: Frank builds his case on the notion that Jamie had always sought protection from Frank's risky business ventures, which included the purchase of the Dodgers. Jamie contends that she never meant such protection to strip her of the assets in the context of the divorce, and that she never considered the Dodgers all that risky, anyway.
It's impossible to say how much of this is real, and how much is posturing. I do know that an awful lot of damage has been done, and each party is pretty well entrenched. Frank sees, in the trial, the opportunity of a lifetime, and he fervently believes the facts and law are on his side. Jamie feels aggrieved, wronged, and cheated. She believes that the court can come to no valid conclusion other than to rule the MPA null and void.
And that's why we're here today, counting down the hours to trial. Might it be settled in the eleventh hour? Perhaps. But Frank wouldn't hit his home run, and Jamie wouldn't get her vindication. A settlement remains the safe play, but Frank doesn't play safe. A settlement remains the quiet play, but Jamie doesn't play quiet. It's a fluid situation, but it sure looks like we have busy weeks ahead. My bags are packed.
---
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
It's a date.
---
Today, Commissioner Gordon decided that the trial on the validity of the McCourt post-nup will begin on May 24, reports the Times' Bill Shaikin. The Times' Dylan Hernandez also had it on Twitter. Jon Weisman has an interesting link at Dodger Thoughts, as well. The decision is something of a compromise, as Frank was seeking a February start while Jamie wanted to wait until fall. So today's something of a win for Frank, and I think the decision was perfectly reasonable.
Jamie definitely deserves time to build her case, which won't be an easy one. That said, she's got five months--that should be plenty. What's more, today's proceedings likely put the court (and Frank's legal team) on notice of the type of information Jamie needs to make her case. This, combined with a hard deadline, means that she'll have some judicial remedies should Frank's lawyers drag their feet on document production.
So what's it mean on the field? Well, it's tempting to suggest that Frank may have outright ownership of the team (and certainty going forward) by the time of year when adding a piece or two might be appropriate. But even if Frank wins on the post-nup, does that change the availability of funds for this season? Remember, it's only been a week since honcho Dennis Mannion said that whatever impact the divorce had on club finances wouldn't hit player payroll until 2011. As we've discussed, the Dodgers' financial problems aren't limited to the divorce. Cash isn't flowing, possibly due to ugly debt service.
What I hope is that whatever happens will be done before the season is over. Whether that's Frank solidifying control or some alternative, it's in the club's best interest not to hit next offseason with uncertainty. Because if you can't extend Kemp this winter, next year might be the last chance. And you'll have those Kershaw and Billingsley folks to deal with, too.
Bottom line today: A minor win for Frank, and a potentially significant win for the franchise. May 24: save the date.
---
Today, Commissioner Gordon decided that the trial on the validity of the McCourt post-nup will begin on May 24, reports the Times' Bill Shaikin. The Times' Dylan Hernandez also had it on Twitter. Jon Weisman has an interesting link at Dodger Thoughts, as well. The decision is something of a compromise, as Frank was seeking a February start while Jamie wanted to wait until fall. So today's something of a win for Frank, and I think the decision was perfectly reasonable.
Jamie definitely deserves time to build her case, which won't be an easy one. That said, she's got five months--that should be plenty. What's more, today's proceedings likely put the court (and Frank's legal team) on notice of the type of information Jamie needs to make her case. This, combined with a hard deadline, means that she'll have some judicial remedies should Frank's lawyers drag their feet on document production.
So what's it mean on the field? Well, it's tempting to suggest that Frank may have outright ownership of the team (and certainty going forward) by the time of year when adding a piece or two might be appropriate. But even if Frank wins on the post-nup, does that change the availability of funds for this season? Remember, it's only been a week since honcho Dennis Mannion said that whatever impact the divorce had on club finances wouldn't hit player payroll until 2011. As we've discussed, the Dodgers' financial problems aren't limited to the divorce. Cash isn't flowing, possibly due to ugly debt service.
What I hope is that whatever happens will be done before the season is over. Whether that's Frank solidifying control or some alternative, it's in the club's best interest not to hit next offseason with uncertainty. Because if you can't extend Kemp this winter, next year might be the last chance. And you'll have those Kershaw and Billingsley folks to deal with, too.
Bottom line today: A minor win for Frank, and a potentially significant win for the franchise. May 24: save the date.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
