Top Rank files Second Amended Complaint against Haymon

October 31, 2015

Top Rank Boxing filed its Second Amended Complaint against Al Haymon and his assorted businesses on Friday in federal court in Los Angeles.  The third try at suing Haymon provides more detail about its allegations in hopes of surviving another attempt to dismiss its action.

The court granted Al Haymon’s Motion to Dismiss last month.  Our summary of the dismissal is here.

The Second Amended Complaint is more than double the original complaint in page length as it totals 105 pages.  The lawsuit sues Alan Haymon, Haymon Boxing , LLC, Haymon Sports, LLC, Hamon Holdings LLC and Alan Haymon Development, Inc.  It does not include Waddell & Reed Financial as the court determined in its previous ruling that suing this entity would be futile for Top Rank.  Top Rank accuses Waddell & Reed of bankrolling Haymon’s effort with PBC by “rigging the boxing industry.”  It cites the market of Championship-Caliber Boxers with which Top Rank challenges the purported monopoly in which Haymon, et al. control both the management and promotion of many of these boxers.  As has been discussed, the Antitrust theories of “tie-in (or out)” and “tying”

Similar to the first two, it claims that Haymon has violated Antitrust laws, Muhammad Ali Act and state business regulations.  Unlike the first two, it provides more detail including the names of boxers that allegedly rebuffed other promotions due to the fact that Haymon “managed” them.  It also cites how and where it obtained its information.  Mainly, Top Rank obtained the information for its complaint from various web sites as discovery in the lawsuit had not occurred.

Specifically, it names Deontay Wilder, Keith Thurman, Marcos Maidana, Adrien Broner, Lamont Peterson, Abner Mares and Errol Spence as fighters that Top Rank had “a reasonable probability of future economic benefit.”

Screenshot 2015-10-31 09.38.28

Screenshot 2015-10-31 09.38.46

As it did in the previous complaints, a check Instragrammed by Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. after his fight with Andrzej Fonfara was included to show the blurring of business relationship. The check is from Haymon Sports, LLC to JCC for $1.75 million with the notes line stating: “Purse 4/18/15.” The assertion here, as it made in its prior complaints, is that payment of the purse is the promoter responsibility and not the job of a true manager. JCC removed the Instagram post, but it was too late.

Screenshot 2015-10-31 09.41.21

The complaint also embeds a tweet from boxing writer Dan Rafael as he reported Haymon boxer Charles Martin thanked “my promoter Al Haymon.”

Screenshot 2015-11-01 00.41.33

In dismissing Top Rank’s prior complaint, the court stated that Top Rank just showed one instance in which a promoter was blocked to make a fight with a Haymon managed fighter. In order to show that Haymon blocked promoters from fights, Top Rank names several fights that were prevented due to Haymon.

Screenshot 2015-11-01 00.41.17

In addition, Top Rank brings up a “modified form of payola” devised by Haymon when acting as an “illegal promoter.” This strategy is based on giving away content and airing it on as many networks as it can in order to exclude other promotions from airing on those networks. This short-term loss, according to Top Rank, is an effort to foreclose the market to others.

The lawsuit also describes the “sham” promoter scheme and the blocking of venues from access by Haymon.  These are similar to the previous claims by Top Rank.

Payout Perspective:

The more detail, the less likely Top Rank believes its lawsuit will get dismissed.  The lawsuit is a rehash of most of the claims it had in its previous lawsuits against Al Haymon and his businesses except it sets forth more specifics.  We shall see if the additional details shall help it sustain the lawsuit.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.