MLB last night filed opposition paperwork with the N.Y. Supreme Court, making its case why MASN’s bid to vacate a league award for the Nationals in their ongoing TV rights fee dispute should be denied. The league took aim at each of the RSN’s primary claims, arguing its Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee acted properly and independently in lifting the Nationals’ annual rights fees from $41M to about $60M, and denying MASN’s claim it is compromised by legal conflicts of interests. The filings arrive in preparation of a trial scheduled for Dec. 15. “MASN’s claims based on ‘corruption, fraud, or undue means,’ excess of powers, and manifest disregard of law are meritless,” the league’s filing reads in part. “Even if the court were to vacate the decision, there is no basis to rewrite the parties’ contract and send the dispute to a new arbitral forum.” Unanswered in the filing, however, is exactly how the RSDC constructed its decision for the Nationals and why it was superior to a formula developed by Bortz Media & Sports Group used for years by MLB and advocated for by MASN. The batch of league filings including its own briefings, a reply from the Nationals, and affidavits from league COO and Commissioner-elect Rob Manfred, Senior VP and General Counsel Tom Ostertag, then-RSDC members Stu Sternberg (Rays), Frank Coonelly (Pirates) and Jeff Wilpon (Mets) that rendered the decision in favor of the Nats, team partner Ed Cohen and Proskauer Rose partner Brad Ruskin. MASN in its petition alleged the league has long planned to use the RSDC to reconfigure an ’05 relocation agreement between MLB and Orioles Owner and MASN Controlling Partner Peter Angelos. The league responded that the RSN has not come close to meeting its burden of proof on that claim. “MASN falls back on its far-fetched and unsupported theory that MLB, the Nationals and the RSDC…conspired beginning in 2004 to restructure the economics of, and breach, the March 28, 2005 agreement by conducting a corrupt and fraudulent RSDC proceeding.” MASN will have an opportunity to respond formally to MLB’s reply next month prior to the trial.
COMPROMISING POSITION? The filings also expose an interesting legal question with regard to MASN’s claim that the RSDC process was compromised by Proskauer Rose LLP representing MLB, the Nationals and members of the RSDC. MLB, Manfred and others say in their documents that MASN never asked a court to have Proskauer disqualified from the RSDC proceedings, and as a result, the claim is specious. But the MLB Constitution broadly forbids clubs from taking legal action against any other club or league entity. MASN has filed its bid for vacature with the N.Y. Supreme Court, more narrowly arguing that is the proper forum for specifically appealing an internal arbitration decision, and as a result, could not have previously filed suit.
