Court seems to see Belkin for snake he is

[coachx]

In the link below it looks like the courts are seeing Belkin for the scoundral he is !

http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/business/...ial_belkin.html

Belkin strikes me as the type of owner the Suns have. He would look to trade 1st round picks away for nothing if it helps his wallet.

The ASG seem far more "fan friendly" then Belkin. Plus they have Atlanta roots which normally means they care more about the team and do not see it strictly as a business like Belkin seems to.

As you can see I am definately on the ASG's side and have been from day #1 !

[DeacKillsaDevil]

Providing support for values to appraisers is quite common practice. I see it every day.

[coachx]

Providing support for values to appraisers is quite common practice. I see it every day.

Do you see it in a 3 year, and counting, court case where there have been 2 different appraisal companies hired as mandated by a court order ?

Or do you see this when small busines A is trying to buy small business B through as private transaction or through an arbitrator. I have seen many small business transactions where either side gives the company data to effect the sale value but not when 2 sides cannot come to resolution on their own and the court mandates certain orders to come up with a value. At that point should both sides not stay out of it ? Should one side be allowed to influence the appraisal firm which they already picked and hired ?

Is that the way the court allows business to be done ?

Edited February 20, 2009 by coachx

[AHF]

I think the issue here is that the ASG is arguing that Belkin was precluded from offering things that happened after August 17 (the date on which the value of the franchise was supposed to be fixed) in order to determine the value as of August 17 but did so anyway. It also appears that Riccio may have fabricated some of the numbers such as the alleged excrow numbers he claims he got in a memo that doesn't appear to exist. If improper information was used in the valuation, it is obviously of more limited value.

Bear in mind the ASG already produced evidence that:

Belkin hired Game Plan, a Miami Beach-based banking and consulting firm for the sports and entertainment industry, to assist with the [Citigroup valuation] process, court documents from the other partners said. Belkin agreed to pay Game Plan more money if CitiGroup’s valuation of the teams “exceeded specific thresholds”

Belkin will have his say on this stuff, too, so it is best not to jump to too early a conclusion but it is clear that Belkin tried every way he could to push the line and play the system on the buyout. That is all fine as long as you don't cross the line.

[AHF]

Or do you see this when small busines A is trying to buy small business B through as private transaction or through an arbitrator. I have seen many small business transactions where either side gives the company data to effect the sale value but not when 2 sides cannot come to resolution on their own and the court mandates certain orders to come up with a value. At that point should both sides not stay out of it ? Should one side be allowed to influence the appraisal firm which they already picked and hired ?

Is that the way the court allows business to be done ?

The Court was out of the process. This was the negotiated contractual arrangement for valuating the teams and the Court came into play because the ASG claims that Belkin violated that process (and thus breached the contract) and/or the process itself was so vague that the Court needs to resolve the ambiguity in the agreement.

[Packfill]

The Court was out of the process. This was the negotiated contractual arrangement for valuating the teams and the Court came into play because the ASG claims that Belkin violated that process (and thus breached the contract) and/or the process itself was so vague that the Court needs to resolve the ambiguity in the agreement.

Who is the ASGs counsel? It seems every contract that have prepared for the ASG is full of ambiguity.