Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 507082, member: 622"] I just read the complaint. It is unimpressive and is less than honest. UM and other plaintiffs are coming to the court with soiled hands. Glaring failures in the complaint include: - Failure to acknowledge UM fully agreed with the Exit fee of 1.25X the annual share - Seeking treble damages on the full amount (per above, this amounts to the same fraud/interference that UM is claiming) - Failing to acknowledge that UM fully agreed to withholding payments of departing schools under the previous agreement - Complaining of the withholding of payments by the ACC while failing to acknowledge that they previously agreed to the 1.25X exit fee - The adoption of the new amendment may have been proper if the amendment included a clause making it effective immediately - Denying that Maryland has provided official notice to the ACC of their withdrawal, by announcing they are leaving the ACC and joining the B1G, they have mode constructive notice and that will suffice, even if a court held that UM did not provide official notice (by the way, they fail to define official notice and the ACC bylaws require notice on or before August 15 for withdrawal effective July 1, the following year) - Issues regarding keeping UM from meetings is foolish in that no conference allows a leaving team to attend meetings other than scheduling meetings Further, they freely open the ACC to pursue potential bad faith dealing. If they or the B1G had any contact prior to the vote, their whole complaint is tainted for bad faith (double dealing). There are other issues, but this is sufficient to warrant the court dismissing the claims and allowing he NC courts to hear the case. This is off the top of my head. Additionally, I think there may be part of the overall agreement missing. There are several boiler-plate clauses that I did not see in my first pass over the agreement. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?