This past Thursday, attorneys for Vince McMahon and Alpha Entertainment filed Amended Counterclaims in which they provide more background as to its claims against Oliver Luck.
The Defendants build on their allegations against the former XFL Commissioner by citing claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Premised upon the 3 key issues in the case. Luck disregarded company policy by signing a player that had a checkered past, he left his post as Commissioner to head home during the pandemic and he did not send over a phone that McMahon and Alpha Entertainment claim was owned by the XFL and should have been returned immediately. They also allege that he used the phone for personal purposes.
In Alpha Entertainments Counterclaims the issue of Oliver Luck not turning over iPhone owned by #XFL is stressed yet again #sportslaw pic.twitter.com/AM6ld7bY3A
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) February 22, 2021
Most damaging was the allegation that Luck sent confidential information to his brother-in-law, William Wilson, an employee of sports agency Wasserman Media Group. This included “unauthorized disclosure of…XFL requests for proposals, meeting notes, presentations, draft contracts, and analysis of players.”
The Amended Counterclaims reflect the bad blood that is ongoing in this lawsuit. It paints Luck as someone that disregarded Vince McMahon’s edicts as he signed Antonio Callaway despite the mandate that the XFL would only take players with “good character.” It also lists specific meetings which Luck did not attend as a result of leaving the office to return home last March. Finally, the iPhone debate rages on as it appears that the XFL’s latest allegation paints Luck as sharing confidential information from the league to his brother-in-law that works at a sports agency. Certainly, this breach, if proven, could make McMahon/Alpha’s case stronger.
Yet, as pointed out by Sportico, Luck won a pretrial discovery ruling which will require that McMahon/Alpha Entertainment provide all documents and communications about Luck’s job performance. This is in response to Luck’s contract which indicates that he should have been given a written notice of any issue related to his job performance in order to cure any alleged deficiency in 30 days. The obvious inference is that Luck knows that there is nothing internal, or nothing known to him, where he was informed of poor job performance. This would negate Defendant’s allegation that Luck was terminated for ‘cause.” A termination for cause would mean that McMahon would not have to pay Luck.
MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply