Ordinarily, the filing of a status report is an exercise in legal banality. However, FSU's report caught my attention for a couple of reasons.
First, #FSU's claimed damages have inexplicably risen from $572 million in its amended complaint to $700 million in its status report. Neither figure holds water, given FSU's method of amalgamating the value of media rights, an actual exit fee, and broadcast fees—distinct contractual elements for which the statute of limitations on any grievances has expired. Moreover, FSU's portrayal of the ACC as holding its media rights hostage is misleading. Under contract law, any retention of FSU's media rights by the ACC would necessitate equitable compensation to FSU. Contract law, especially, does not allow for an undeserved financial windfall for the #ACC. I have explained my deep skepticism of FSU's damages here: x.com/mckenzielaw/st…
Second, I don’t understand FSU’s reliance on the two cases it submitted to the court as exhibits—as if the North Carolina Business Court lacks access to #Lexis+ or #Westlaw—and both are misaligned with the actual issues at stake.
The du Pont case, centered on environmental regulatory enforcement by State of North Carolina, deals with public welfare and sovereign actions—elements starkly absent in a contractual dispute between an athletic conference (ACC) and a state agency (FSU). (By the way, and again, there is no sovereign immunity for contract disputes. Plus, despite FSU’s argument of how the ACC is taking from a “sovereign,” which is literally one of the most absurd arguments I have heard in my entire career, the ACC actually has no state powers and can do no taking under the United States Constitution. FSU's argument here is for the birds. Awful.) FSU's attempt to draw parallels here stretches the bounds of legal reasoning, as the ACC-FSU conflict hinges on private contractual obligations and not on state-led regulatory enforcement.
Similarly, FSU’s reliance on In Re Southeastern Eye Center, which pertains to business disputes and a hotly contested receivership, is inapposite. That case is about procedural management in a context vastly different from the conference governance and contractual disputes of the ACC-FSU litigation. The procedural nuances of stay orders in such business disputes cannot be directly applied to the current intercollegiate athletic conflict, which primarily concerns conference contracts, conference management, and intellectual property rights.
As for the ACC’s status report, much of it aligns closely with what I previously explained here: x.com/mckenzielaw/st….
Otherwise, the North Carolina Business Court's request for a status report was not a request for argument. FSU’s decision to infuse its report with arguments—particularly through the use of inapplicable precedents—was consistent with the remarkably weak legal position it occupies and its prior weak pleadings. You can read about my thoughts on FSU’s lousy position here x.com/mckenzielaw/st… and here x.com/mckenzielaw/st…. FSU’s legal position is truly terrible.
https://x.com/mckenzielaw/status/1780755...OBPKLg0WDw
/
Twitter Rumor on ACC/ESPN/FSU/Clemson Settlement
![[Image: rawImage.jpg]](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/62/15/00/13160462/4/rawImage.jpg)
