Posted on 07/28/2014 3:55:54 PM PDT by iowamark
LOS ANGELES -- A judge ruled against Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling on Monday in his attempt to block the $2 billion sale of the Los Angeles Clippers to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
In the tentative ruling, Superior Court Judge Michael Levanas sided with Sterling's estranged wife Shelly Sterling, who burst into tears when the ruling was announced.
"I can't believe it's over. I feel good," she said.
Shelly Sterling negotiated the sale of the team after the 80-year-old billionaire was banned by the NBA for making offensive remarks about blacks.
She sought approval from a probate judge for the deal she struck after removing her husband from the trust that owned the team when doctors found he had signs of Alzheimer's disease and couldn't manage his affairs.
Donald Sterling claimed his wife deceived him about the medical exams.
He later revoked the trust after she negotiated the record-setting sales price and his lawyers argued that the move killed the deal. They said the case didn't belong in probate court because the trust had been dissolved...
With the NBA threatening to seize the team and auction it, Sterling initially gave his wife of 58 years permission to negotiate a sale but then refused to sign it. He said he would sue the league instead and then revoked the trust...
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
This ain’t over...
this sounds like fraud on the wife’s part.
Even billionaires aren’t safe in this PC-crazy society. Maybe Che was right after all - “Viva la revolution”.
And people wonder why judge body parts are routinely found rotting along the highway in South America.
I agree....She’s a b.....
Of all of the rights (even gun ownership), it was property rights that the Founder’s knew had to be rock-solid to maintain a free and “fair” Republic.
This unelected judge says, “Not so much.”
It may be so, but it seems like she swung a very good deal.
Now officially a forced sale and not taxable.
Yeah it is. He has Alzheimer, Franchise Agreements really give incredible power to the Franchisor ... this one is over. Doesn’t mean there may not be an appeal by a Guardian, but it’s done.
Owning an NBA team is like owning any other franchise. You can be ousted per the franchise agreement.
It’s not a property rights issue at all, it is a franchise by-laws issue.
That was the real purpose of the court case.
Exactly what provision of the franchise agreement did he violate.
If her name is anywhere on his financial affairs, then she has a say. I don’t think she could have conducted the sale without having a stake in the first place.
Well, if he had Alzheimer’s, then he wasn’t responsible for his racist remarks and the NBA should not have been able to force him out, wouldn’t you think?
There is probably a proviso that says if an owner does something that hurts the value of either the franchise or league he can be terminated as owner.
At the time, sponsors were dropping support for the clippers and other teams.
No, the NBA certainly could and would force an owner with Alzheimers to sell. The issue before this court was whether Shelly Sterling did have the right, because of his disability, to take control of the family trust which owned the Clippers.
Donald Sterling met with Steve Ballmer last week and was reportedly considering accepting the sale.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/07/21/donald-sterling-l-a-clippers-steve-ballmer-sale/
I don’t know. But this is being portrayed as a property rights issue when franchise law applies. Franchise law is governed by the Franchise Agreement. That is all the judge or arbitrator concerns himself with.
Very different.
Actually the NBA franchise agreement terminations clauses only apply to a failure of a franchise to meet its financial obligations.
The is also a bylaw that requires players “to be of good moral character”. That bylaw ignored on an ongoing basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.