Povetkin-Wilder lawsuit finally over

September 24, 2019

The long, winding and bitter lawsuit between Deontay Wilder and Alexander Povetkin and his promoter World of Boxing has come to an end with the parties stipulating an end to their lawsuit via a filing last week.

The two boxers were scheduled to fight in May 2016 in Russia but due to a failed drug test for Meldonium by Povetkin, the fight was called off. Semantics may have come in to play as Wilder claimed that Povetkin’s drug test cancelled the fight while Povetkin and his promoter claimed that Wilder’s refusal to come to Russia for the event forced the hand of the WBC to continue the fight.

Dueling lawsuits occurred with a contentious battle between the parties.  Despite a trial which saw a jury determine that Povetkin ingested Meldonium, siding with Wilder’s side, the case did not end there.  Yet, after trial, the Court sided with Povetkin and World of Boxing in its Summary Judgment motion deferring to the WBC’s Bout Agreement which was subject to the World Boxing Council’s Rules and Regulations.

The District Court’s Summary Judgment decision was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where the court affirmed the lower court’s decision.  After the ruling there were threats to appeal the ruling to a full court of appellate judges or even the U.S. Supreme Court.  However, those threats went by the wayside as the parties agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit.  Despite still having a defamation claim against Wilder, Povetkin and World of Boxing agreed to drop the claim.  The parties agreed not to pursue any costs it may have been entitled to.

The END by Jason Cruz on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

It’s likely that the parties wanted to put an end to this lawsuit and agreed to dismiss Povetkin’s alleged defamation claim against Wilder.  Notably, the escrow money in the amount of over $4.36 million that was left by the parties will go back to World of Boxing.  This is likely one of the reasons that Povetkin and World of Boxing was willing to concede on its defamation claim and costs it was entitled to as part of being the prevailing party.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.