FTC closes second investigation of Zuffa

November 24, 2015

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that the Federal Trade Commission has ended its second investigation of Zuffa without any findings of wrongdoing of the company’s business practices.  Although the investigation has ended, the FTC indicated that it reserved the right to investigate the company again if it saw a need. 

In a letter to Zuffa from the FTC, it indicated that the closing of the investigation should not be construed that a violation may not have occurred, just as the opening of the investigation should not be construed that a violation had occurred. 

UFC’s Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick issued a statement on the FTC’s decision:

“Earlier this year the FTC informed us that it was conducting a non-public investigation, which we believe was instigated by former fighters or their attorneys to bolster a civil action against UFC,” Hendrick added, “After meeting with the FTC, we are pleased that they have sent us a letter stating that no further action is warranted and the investigation is now closed. We maintain full confidence in our business practices and continue to believe that the plaintiffs’ allegations are meritless.”

The letter from the FTC, obtained by the Las Vegas Review Journal is below:

UFC FCC by LVReviewJournal

The FTC investigated Zuffa after it had acquired Strikeforce in 2011.  The investigation came to close with no findings in early 2012.  A Freedom of Information Act request for documents from that first investigation revealed little as to their investigation.

Although the reason for the second investigation was not made public one might conclude it was due in part to the antitrust lawsuit filed by former UFC fighters.

Payout Perspective:

Good news for the UFC as it is clear of the investigation.  Moreover, it need not dedicate legal resources for this.  The FTC indicated that it may revisit the issue but one would think it is unlikely to occur unless something comes out of the antitrust case.

New York granted second extension to respond to Zuffa Preliminary Injunction

November 16, 2015

Judge Kimba Wood has granted the state of New York an extension of time to respond to Zuffa’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction which would allow a UFC event scheduled for April 23, 2016 at Madison Square Garden.  In response, attorneys for Zuffa have expressed concern that the delay may impact the event.

In a letter submitted on November 6th, John Schwartz, Special Litigation Counsel for New York, indicated that due to health issues experienced by his wife, he could not respond to the motion which opposition was due on Friday, November 13th.  It was noted that the second extension was not anticipated.  Schwartz also indicated that he did not believe Zuffa would be prejudiced by this delay.  New York will now have until December 4, 2016 to respond to Zuffa’s motion and Zuffa will have until December 14, 2016 to file a reply.

Letter From Plaintiffs Re 2nd Extension of Time by JASONCRUZ206

Judge Wood granted the request filed by counsel for New York last week.

In a letter dated November 7th, Jamie Levitt, attorney for Zuffa “reminded” the court that this was the second extension request to respond to Zuffa’s lawsuit filed on September 28th  The first was stipulated by the parties on October 9th.  The second, granted by Judge Wood, is due to an illness of the wife of the attorney heading the litigation for this case.  Levitt expressed the concern that the delay in the decision of the Preliminary Injunction may impact the April 23, 2016 event scheduled for UFC.

Letter From Plaintiffs Re 2nd Extension of Time

“The briefing schedule [for the Preliminary Injunction] was carefully negotiated by the parties to ensure that despite Defendants’ [first] extension, the Court would have sufficient time to consider and rule on Plaintiff’s motion by January 2016,” wrote Levitt.  “A ruling after January 2016 would not provide the UFC and MSG sufficient time to finalize and then market the scheduled April event.”

Levitt explains that the MSG licensing agreement and the sanctioning of the event cannot be easily rescheduled.  There was no indication of when another date might be secured for MSG.

Payout Perspective:

This is a delicate situation since it involves a personal health issue.  Zuffa had no grounds to oppose this request without looking totally heartless.  It would be clear that the court would have granted this request.  The unexpected delay may definitely impact an event in April if the court does not decide by the beginning of the year.  With the holidays upcoming, it is hard to say when a ruling might occur.  The Levitt letter puts the court on notice of the injury it may suffer if a decision is not made soon.  While New York argues that moving the date to another time would resolve the issue, it’s clear the UFC has banked on this date.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

UFC preparing for copyright violators for Rousey fight

November 12, 2015

Zuffa has sent out a reminder to media members to not post any highlights from UFC 193 until the UFC says so.  The message comes in anticipation of another Ronda Rousey “vine” ending.

The notice cites 17 U.S. Code section 411 which is an advance notice of potential copyright infringement.

Per the notice from the UFC’s Vice President and Associate General Counsel Dylan Budd:

“As we expect greater than normal interest for this event, we remind you [media member] that unless otherwise provided by Zuffa, LLC, no highlights are authorized for distribution until we distribute the approved guidelines.”

It goes on to note rather ominously that the UFC “will be monitoring compliance.”

The notice does not specifically name Ronda Rousey as the reason for the notice, but it’s clear from her past fights, that the short duration of Rousey’s fights have been able to be put on vine or other types of media (e.g. Periscope).  Many casual viewers and/or curious of the Ronda Rousey phenomenon just wait on social media for someone to post the fight without having to pay the $60 PPV price.

Rousey’s last fight at UFC 190 in August lasted just 34 seconds.  It was posted on social media within minutes after it ended.

We note that the UFC is promoting UFC 193 by showing UFC 190 for free courtesy of sponsor, Xbox’s Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Payout Perspective:

It’s clear that the UFC is gearing up for those trying to watch the Rousey fight for free this Saturday.  In order to do this, it is making sure that media members do not assist in the dissemination of the Rousey fight.  Clearly, if someone with a lot of followers on social media were to post the fight, it could be argued that it is infringement (there is an argument for fair use or First Amendment but that is for another day).  In the past, the UFC has worked hard to enforce its rights to PPV and gone after egregious violators.  From the notice, it appears that UFC Legal will be working hard to enforce its rights to UFC 193 which may mean no “vines” of Rousey-Holm.

New York files appeal brief addressing Zuffa claims

November 4, 2015

On Wednesday, the State of New York filed its brief in opposition to the appeal filed by the UFC in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  New York addresses Zuffa’s contentions related to its appeal related to the Southern District Court of New York’s dismissal of Zuffa’s lawsuit last March.

The two primary claims related to the First Amendment and Vagueness challenge to the state law law prohibiting MMA in the state.  The state liquor law also is challenged in the appeal.

First Amendment

Violence was the key to the state’s argument that the First Amendment did not apply to the law banning MMA in New York.  “The First Amendment does not protect violence,” it argued in its brief citing the fact that the state has the power to regulate violent or dangerous conduct that can inflict actual physical harm.

Distinguishing fighting from speech, it notes that the combat prohibition restricts physical violence and not what they may or may not say.  It argues that the legislative intent of the law was to regulate particular forms of violent conduct rather than speech.

Moreover, it argues that in states that allow MMA, or other dangerous contact sports, they require strict rules to abide by and fighters must obtain a license.  These requirements, according to the argument, would be contrary to First Amendment protection.

Throughout the brief, New York takes jabs at Zuffa’s appeal brief.  For instance, it states that it misreads the statute in its belief that the regulation prohibiting MMA is limited to just a “live performance” (i.e., fighting in front of an audience).  It argues that the interpretation is wrong.  In fact, New York argues that the ban prohibits “physical violence regardless of whether anyone watches the fights.”

It notes that the ban extends beyond conduct of an MMA event in front of an audience:

…the professional combat prohibition is violated any time contestants compete for a monetary prize by engaging in unlawful physical combat—whether the fight takes place in a living room, on the street, or at Madison Square Garden— since the harms caused by such physical violence are present regardless of the size or even existence of an audience. Thus, an ultimate fighting match at a gym with a $100 prize violates the ban even if nobody comes to see such a low-stakes contest. A private fight club in which combatants engage in no-holds-barred fighting with the winner receiving $10,000 would also violate the professional combat prohibition, even if there is no public audience (p. 38 of New York appeal brief)

In the alternative, New York stated that if the First Amendment applied, regulation would be permissible because it would support a governmental interest in preventing serious injuries and death.  Here, New York points to the Legislative History in the 1990s when MMA was in its infancy stages and how less rules than before.  In this instance, the argument goes that New York may inhibit a First Amendment right if it is incidental to the governmental interest of safety.  So, even if it was determined that MMA deserved First Amendment protection, the law banning it would stand because New York has a right to protect people from fighting.


The second major argument in the brief addresses whether the law is vague.  First, New York reaffirms the district court ruling that Zuffa lacked standing since there was no claim or injury until after the lawsuit commenced.  Next, it argued that the correct court to address this issue would be New York state court since it dealt with a New York law.  This was the same guidance stated by Judge Kimba Wood in its order dismissing Zuffa’s lawsuit last March.

New York states that if the court believes Zuffa has standing and a state court is not the appropriate forum for the case, then it should remand (send back) to the district court to decide whether the “martial-arts sponsorship exemption is vague as applied to ultimate fighting.  This was the same thing Zuffa recommended in its brief.  It also suggested that the appeals court could decide that the exemption was not unconstitionally vague.

Payout Perspective:

New York attempts to distance itself from the First Amendment issue contending that the ban relates to the overarching concern of safety.  It seems that the brief focuses on violence rather than describing MMA as sport. Throughout the brief, it offers subtle descriptions and analogies of violence.  While New York argues that it has a right to regulate violence and dangerous conduct, the correlations it makes in its brief relate to activities that are mostly criminal.  Thus, the argument here seem to fall flat as laws that regulate animal fighting or use of weapons are against the law.  Is MMA on the level of these activities?

As for the Vagueness claim, this issue seems to be one that might be the point of contention.  While New York offers the “lack of standing” argument, it also identifies a potential key mistake by Zuffa.  It notes that the case may be best decided by a state court.  Finally, it focuses on legislative history and intent in arguing that the law was always about banning MMA.

How will this appeal be handled in light of the Preliminary Injunction filed in the other UFC lawsuit against New York?  For those interested in legal theory and constitutional law, this case offers several interesting legal theories to explore.

Zuffa will have a chance to offer a Reply to New York’s brief.

MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Rousey’s trainer files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

November 3, 2015

Edmond Tarverdyan has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Los Angeles.  Tarverdyan, the primary trainer for UFC bantamweight champion filed for bankruptcy protection on July 29, 2015.

For most people, there are two types of bankruptcy:  Chapter 7 and Chapter 13.  Chapter 7 is a liquidation of all of your personal assets while discharging most of the individual’s unsecured debts.  Chapter 13 is a reorganization of debts.  Here, Tarverdyan is seeking a Chapter 7.

UPDATED and CORRECTION:  Slight correction.  The Bankruptcy Trustee actually is requesting the production of documents of Bank of America and a request to examine BOA by November 30th at the Trustee’s office in LA.  This should relate to BOA’s documents and the veracity of their claim as they relate to Tarverdyan.  The same will likely occur from other creditors.  Still, Tarverdyan will be examined at some point by the trustee as well as the creditors seeking repayment of debts.

At the examination, he’ll be asked to produce documents pertaining to transaction made related to his creditor’s accounts.  For example, BOA is requesting he produce all documents, records, information and statements between January 1, 2008 and July 29, 2015.  Specifically, this relates to any credit card purchases made.

According to his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing obtained by MMA Payout, he has estimated assets between $0-$50,000 and estimated liabilities between $500,000 and $1 million.

Interesting enough, Tarverdyan’s Glendale Fighting Club where Rousey trains and that presumably Tarvedyan owns, is not listed as an asset in his bankruptcy filing.  The bankruptcy trustee is looking into this potential asset and determining when ownership may have been transferred to another person or entity.  The trustee may seek to liquidate (shut down) GFC if it is determined that the transfer of ownership was not legal.

Tarverdyan states that he does not own a home and does not make a salary.  Per the Bankruptcy filing, their monthly expenditures ($5,380) are $110 more than their income.  For those wondering, in California, the median income for a family of four (Tarverdyan is married with two children) is $79,418 per Bankruptcy standards.

Tarverdyan also admitted in legal filings that he has not filed for taxes for some time stating he was not required to file in 2013 and 2014.

The filing states that he has liabilities (debt) of $725,045.00.

Tarverdyan attempted to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in May but that was subsequently dismissed on July 23rd.  He refiled less than a week later.

Payout Perspective:

Tarverdyan will now appear at a meeting of the creditors (commonly known in the bankruptcy world as a “341” hearing named after the section of the Bankruptcy code which calls for this hearing).  The 341 hearing is relatively short in which the Bankruptcy Trustee (think of the person as the judge in this case) will ask questions of the debtor.  At this meeting, creditors may show up and ask questions of Tarverdyan.  Creditors have already asked for supplemental proceedings they will be able to depose Tarverdyan to find his assets (if any).

Perhaps Tarverdyan’s money problems relate to the recent criticism by Ronda Rousey’s mother as she called him a “bad person.”

Some thoughts on Tarverdyan’s bankruptcy:

  • In this perceived egalitarian MMA community where fans, fighters and managers want fighters to make more, what about the people that help them? Rousey is the highest paid UFC fighter (if we believe her interview on “Ellen”) yet none of her managers or handlers or Tarverdyan himself thought that he should be compensated?  Tarverdyan was going through these financial problems through Rousey’s fight camp and filed for bankruptcy just days before UFC 190.
  • Roots of Fight made a Glendale Fighting Club shirt. Did Tarverdyan get a cut of the sales of the shirts?
  • What about GFC’s other sources of revenue (i.e., classes, t-shirts)
  • Darin Harvey had a similar issue working with Rousey in which he essentially worked for free. The former manager worked in the red from managing Rousey.  Of course, the CSAC released Rousey from her fight contract as the commission determined Harvey did not follow the contractual rules of fight management.  Here, one might conclude that Tarverdyan did not make Rousey sign a contract to train her.
  • Maybe the only concern for the UFC here is whether Rousey may be tied to this in some way.  Moreover, would or could she have to submit to a deposition?

We might assume that Tarverdyan had an agreement in which another entity was paid for his work.  This may negate the questions about why he wasn’t being paid.  This might explain the lack of income and GFC not showing on his bankruptcy paperwork.  Of course, if it is discovered that you are committing some sort of fraudulent scheme to avoid creditors, your bankruptcy discharge may be denied.  At that point, the creditors could take everything.

New York to file opposition to Zuffa appeal this week

November 3, 2015

This week New York will file its appeal brief opposing the appeal brought by Zuffa arising from the original lawsuit filed against the state in November 2011.  In addition to opposing Zuffa’s claim that the New York State law banning professional mixed martial arts violates the First Amendment, it argues that Zuffa has standing to assert its argument that the statute is vague.

You may recall that Judge Kimba Wood dismissed Zuffa’s claim for vagueness citing that the organization lacked standing to sue the state of New York for failure to show that it would suffer injury since it had never attempted to hold an event in the state.  The law prevents a party to file a lawsuit if it cannot show that it would be injured as a result of the law it might be challenging.  Judge Wood determined that if there was any harm to affect Zuffa, it occurred after the lawsuit was filed.  Thus, Zuffa could not claim to be an aggrieved party with an injury resulting in damages.

In its appeal brief, Zuffa argues that it has standing due to the fact the ban addresses the UFC business.  Paul Clement, Zuffa’s counsel, argues in its brief. “UFC is in the business of promoting and producing professional MMA matches and exhibitions.”  It states that the UFC is a licensed promoter for the World Kickboxing Association (“WKA”).  The WKA is an exempt organization, under the Combat Sports Ban that may promote MMA events within the state.  The brief claims that WKA is “reluctant to take that additional step for fear of the criminal and civil penalties they could face if the event went forward, and the unrecoverable costs they could incur if the event were shut down.  Thus, even though the UFC never made a colorable attempt to hold an event in the state, the company had standing to sue.

Additionally, Clement attacks Judge Wood’s belief that standing arose only after the lawsuit was filed in November 2011 was wrong.  It cites New York’s “mid-litigation waffling” with respect to whether or not an exempt organization could promote an MMA event as evidence that harm existed prior to its filing.  Irrespective of the stance by New York, Zuffa claims that the ban has been ongoing prior to and throughout the litigation.  Thus, Judge Wood’s ruling that there was no standing since any alleged harm occurred after the lawsuit commenced.

Notwithstanding its arguments that the UFC has standing to sue, it argues the merits of its challenge that the law is vague on its face and in its application.  Clement argues that the appeals court should remand to the District Court to reach the merits of the vagueness claim.

Because the District Court did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ as-applied vagueness challenges given its erroneous standing holding, at a bare minimum, the Court should remand with instructions to resolve the merits of those challenges.  And in doing so, the Court should also reinstate Plaintiffs’ facial vagueness claim, which the District Court dismissed only by applying a standard that the Supreme Court has since rejected. p. 56 of UFC Appellate Brief

In the alternative, it requests the appeals court to resolve the legal question itself.

Payout Perspective:

The opposition brief from the state of New York will likely support Judge Kimba Wood’s ruling that Zuffa’s lawsuit should be dismissed.  The primary reason for the dismissal is the lack of standing found by Judge Wood.  Perhaps secondary to the vagueness challenge, is the argument that the UFC’s First Amendment rights were harmed.  We see in the UFC’s lawsuit filed in September requesting an injunction that key to its argument is that the law is inherently vague.  Notably, New York shall respond to the UFC’s injunction request in that lawsuit in a couple weeks.  MMA Payout will keep you posted on New York’s appellate brief once it is filed.

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.

Lawsuit filed against World Series of Fighting looks like a sordid mess

October 29, 2015

A lawsuit filed this past Monday in federal court in Las Vegas by an assignee of rights against the World Series of Fighting may reveal some backstory about the inner workings behind the company.

The machinations of the lawsuit introduces the reader to a web of assignment of rights which related to keeping the World Series of Fighting afloat and expanding it internationally.  It involves a power struggle within the organization and a purported cover-up relating to WSOF’s matchmaker pulling dual time as promoter/manager and a violation of commission rules.  The lawsuit is being brought by WSOF Asia, an entity which claims to have the rights to the WSOF trademark outside the United States as well as the distribution rights for the organization outside of America. WSOF Asia, Limited, a Hong Kong Limited Liability Corporation (“LLC”).

The complaint alleges that Shawn Lampman founded WSOF in 2011.  Lampman has his own legal problems but that’s beside the point here.  The WSOF entity is a Nevada LLC known as “MMAWC” according to court documents but operating under the WSOF name.  The filing paints a picture of desperation for a fledgling MMA organization in need of an infusion of money.  A loan and investment of $700,000 was made in October 2012.  One of the investors was Vincent Hesser.

In exchange for the loan, the WSOF negotiated licensing rights and its trademark “WSOF” to Hesser.  A part of the deal also included an assignment to pursue any international expansion branding opportunities for a term of 60 months (i.e., 5 years)  Hesser had contacts in Asia that could have led to the expansion of the brand per the complaint.  In turn, Hesser assigned his rights to an entity named Royal Union Trust for the region of Asia.  Royal Union Trust then assigned its rights to WSOF Asia, the plaintiff.

Interesting enough, the allegation that Abdel Aziz is violating the rule that a promoter cannot also be a manager almost takes a backseat to some of the more serious allegations within the lawsuit.  Abdel Aziz and WSOF CEO Carlos Silva are named defendants in the lawsuit.  Silva was appointed CEO this past July.

The lawsuit claims that WSOF breached its contract with WSOF Asia as Hesser entered into an assignment agreement with WSOF but the MMAWC entity claims to have repudiated the agreement.  Hesser claims in the lawsuit that he and “his assigns” (i.e., the people he assigned the rights to) spent $200,000 in out of pocket expenses to build the WSOF brand overseas.

It is requesting a declaratory judgment validating the assignment of rights to WSOF Asia.  In addition, money damages in excess of $75,000, costs and attorney fees.

WSOF Lawsuit

Payout Perspective:

Notably, the WSOF renewed an agreement with IMG for media distribution rights which may conflict with the alleged assignment by the plaintiff.

The lawsuit will be a sordid mess if it gets past a Motion to Dismiss which is likely to be brought by MMAWC and the defendants.  The lawsuit boils down to various assignments of assets in order to infuse WSOF with capital and build the brand.  Among the many questions will be who had control and authority over WSOF and when they had it.  The central question will be whether there was an assignment of rights and were the assignments valid per the terms of the contract.  The lawsuit might reveal the inner struggles of a startup looking for capital.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Nevada State Athletic Commission and Nick Diaz in settlement talks

October 28, 2015

MMA Fighting reports that representatives for Nick Diaz and the Nevada State Athletic Commission are discussion a potential settlement of his fine and punishment issued last month.

Sources told MMA Fighting that with settlement talks ongoing, Diaz could be back in the Octagon by 2016.  Amy Dardashtian also indicated that the best case scenario is that he is in the Octagon as early as this summer.

Last month, the commission issued a 5 year suspension and fined Diaz $165,000 for failing a drug test for marijuana at UFC 183.  The contentious hearing drew the ire of many fans which felt that Diaz was wrongly prosecuted and unfairly penalized.  Diaz’s lawyers stated that they would file a lawsuit against the NSAC seeking judicial review.  Notably, the NSAC never issued a written finding of Diaz’s suspension and fine per NSAC rules.  Only after the written order is issued and sent to Diaz’s representations could his lawyers file suit.

Interesting enough, Las Vegas law firm Campbell & Williams stepped in on the fighter’s behalf per a twitter post by Diaz.

Campbell & Williams represents the UFC in a variety of matters.  It is the law firm that is representing the UFC in the Wanderlei Silva defamation case.

Payout Perspective:

Clearly, the local influence of Campbell & Williams must have facilitated settlement talks.  Further, the fact that no written order was issued meant that no legal action would be pursued.  I would have to check the NSAC rules to see if there was a time limit for which they needed to issue an order.  Perhaps the NSAC did not figure that the Diaz penalty would have caused such a stir within the MMA community.  But, in the end, we should probably see the sides settle with the proviso that Diaz is able to participate in the Octagon sooner than later.

Parties stipulate for New York to respond to UFC PI by November 15

October 24, 2015

The state of New York is set to respond to Zuffa’s request for a Preliminary Injunction no later than November 15, 2015.  The parties stipulated to an extension for New York to respond to Zuffa’s request to hold an event at New York’s Madison Square Garden this April.

New York was to have filed a response to the UFC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 15, 2015.  However, the parties have stipulated to grant New York an extra month to file its opposition.  The stipulation is conditioned on the promise that the state of New York would not seek any additional delays with the preliminary injunction.

A reply to New York’s opposition will be set for November 23, 2015 per court papers (see below).  The stipulation between parties also grants New York time to answer and/or respond to the Complaint to 30 days after the Court rules on the UFC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Stip and Order to Respond to PI by JASONCRUZ206

Payout Perspective:

The delay should not inhibit a Court ruling on the Preliminary Injunction in time for an April 2016 event at MSG provided the court rules in the UFC’s favor.  Of course, that does not factor in an appeal from New York or from the UFC if the motion does not go their way.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Next Page »