Madden Anti Trust Lawsuit To Move Foward

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by cdon2k

Wow "Aholbert", not refuting your qualifications but maybe you need to reread the thread title: Madden Anti Trust Lawsuit To Move Forward. You argued with my initial post, but answer my question, "is the case not moving forward?". No where in my post did I say EA was in jeopardy of losing the case or that the plaintiffs have a decent chance of winning. Some people really get ahead of themselves.

LOL. I dont need to reread your title. Your post brought up a different point then the thread title. You asked if this is the reason that EA is working harder on Madden 10 and I said no and the reason why. But to answer your question, yes it is moving forward.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

No one said that they didnt hope to win. I said in the end it doesnt matter one way or the other when it relates to the final result. Antitrust is covered under many general liability policies. My company happens to have one that includes antitrust and many media companies have GL policies that cover Sherman Act claims. EA wont pay 3-5 mil for this case probably just the deductible.

I still say getting past the motion to dismiss "matters," but we can agree to disagree.

I didn't know that about the insurance...I always thought it was against public policy to insure for intentional misconduct (i.e., antitrust behavior). If true, that's new to me.

[Netherscourge]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

I still say getting past the motion to dismiss "matters," but we can agree to disagree. I didn't know that about the insurance...I always thought it was against public policy to insure for intentional misconduct (i.e., antitrust behavior). If true, that's new to me.

I think the insurance is based on legal defense fees, not fines or "being naughty" - if that's what you meant.

[coogrfan]

More American Needle info:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...0News/2351881/

Quote: Originally Posted by May 29, 2009

The Federal Trade Commission has joined the Justice Dept. in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League...the joint brief urges the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in this case...The brief concludes that the case does not merit Supreme Court review beause of an absence of a split among the courts of appeals and because it does not present an appropriate vehicle for ruling generally whether a sports league and its member teams should be deemed to function as "single entity."

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

I didn't know that about the insurance...I always thought it was against public policy to insure for intentional misconduct (i.e., antitrust behavior). If true, that's new to me.

It depends on whether the EA/NFL contract is considered "intentional misconduct." If i'm EA I'm arguing to the insurer that it wasnt intentional because the EA/NFL deal is no different than the other exclusive deals that the NFL has (Coors Light, Reebok etc.) and that there was no reason to believe that the contract would bring a lawsuit. Then its up to the insurer whether they want to cover it.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Then its up to the insurer whether they want to cover it.

Does ANY insurer ever want to cover ANYTHING? LoL...

[bxgoods]

Is there a case against 2k sports for the MLB contract too?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by GTheorenHobbes

Does ANY insurer ever want to cover ANYTHING? LoL...

Not from my experience.