• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Update on Fedor/Affliction Lawsuit

August 18, 2010 by Jason Cruz 4 Comments

It has been a little over a year since Affliction had to cancel its third PPV at the last minute. Fedor Emilianenko, the company’s main attraction filed suit as a result of Affliction’s sudden demise. 

In October 2009, Fedor Emilianenko and M-1 filed suit against Affliction for breach of contract in Los Angeles. Fedor and M-1 Global, Fedor’s promotional group, seek damages as a result of Affliction’s cancellation of its third PPV. Fedor’s contract guaranteed three fights. The lawsuit claims that Affliction did not make reasonable attempts to find a suitable replacement for Fedor’s opponent, Josh Barnett. Barnett was taken off the card as he was denied a license to fight due to a failed drug test.

The following are developments in the case:

  • In February, Affliction’s original attorney, Michael Bassiri, was replaced by Judd Burstein of New York. Steven Silverstein of Orange, California is Affliction’s local counsel. According to Burstein’s web site, he currently represents Oscar de la Hoya and has represented boxer Lennox Lewis, Don King and Donald Trump.
  • On July 15th  the Fedor/M-1 legal team filed a motion to depose Affliction co-owner’s Tom Atencio and Todd Beard. Legal filings between the opposing sides show a failure to agree on dates to schedule the depositions.
  • On July 28th, on a motion filed by the Fedor/M-1 legal team, the court moved the trial date from November 16, 2010 to June 7, 2011.

Payout Perspective:

Based upon the recent court filings, the lawsuit aims to be a tough battle inside and outside the courthouse. The depositions of Atencio and Beard should be interesting, if not contentious. The hiring of a New York attorney that has handled high profile figures reveals a possible shift in litigation strategy for Affliction. It will be interesting to see the amount of information that will be obtained through the discovery process.  Hopefully, the information may shed light on the unique contractual relationship between M-1 and Affliction.

Filed Under: Affliction, legal, M-1 Global

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. shawn says

    August 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Who cares m-1 global are the biggest shit heads around f*** m-1

    Reply
  2. Jonathan says

    August 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    I’d imagine Fedor’s next contract won’t go for much so now M1 wants to milk it while they can.

    Reply
  3. Rick says

    August 19, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Die, Die M1 global your terd parisite of a company..i hate them all!!

    Reply
  4. Stevo says

    August 20, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    M1 Global is pathetic. Live on Affliction you rock!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Stevo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Court moves Ortiz case to arbitration

Dominance responds to Motion to Compel

Pac-May II set for September

Judge hears arguments in Golden Boy TRO request

Golden Boy files Reply Brief in support of TRO

Ortiz files opposition to TRO

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Wolfe downgrades TKO after strong rally

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

For the first time, here's a link to "Private Equity in College Sports," written by @SunealBedi, John Holden and myself, and forthcoming in Volume 111 of @MinnesotaLawRev:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6349318

Failed MMA fighter, but successful plumber and drafter of a cut and paste version of the mUhammAD aLi act takes over of Homeland Security

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Kristi, you’re fired!

(Yes, I had this ready)

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports