Attorneys representing a group of fighters embroiled in class-action lawsuit against the UFC have accused the newly formed MMA Athletes Association of trying to siphon profits from a possible settlement.
“As we both know – but which you have failed to disclose publicly – you, your investors, and your legal team had previously sought to be included in our efforts to prosecute the UFC class action – as long as you and your investors could share in any recovery,” read a letter sent to MMAAA figurehead and former Bellator chief Bjorn Rebney and copied to legal counsel Jim Quinn and CAA agent Mike Fonseca.
The attorneys claim a settlement sought by the MMAAA – one of three stated goals since the association’s public announcement this past week – “undermines” the class-action suit and ultimately gives the industry-leader an opportunity to evade monetary damages.
“Establishing a rival group that attempts to recover for identical alleged past harms would only benefit Zuffa, presenting it with the option of paying the lowest bidder to resolve fighters’ claims,” read the letter. “Your actions could also damage our efforts … to seek a binding court order putting an end to certain of Zuffa’s alleged anticompetitive misconduct.
“As you must be aware, the fighters are better off united than divided, and thus your attempts to sow division operate to no one’s advantage but Zuffa’s.”
The MMAAA, which includes Rebney and a fighter board comprised of Georges St-Pierre, Cain Velasquez, Tim Kennedy, T.J. Dillashaw and Donald Cerrone, seeks fairer treatment of UFC fighters via a collective bargaining agreement, larger share of the promotion’s profits, and an undisclosed “settlement” toward past and current fighters for mistreatment.
In a statement released shortly after a report on the letter by BloodyElbow.com, the MMAAA accused the class-action attorneys of seeking only “short-term monetary recovery” and denied the cease and desist.
“The MMAAA will do no such thing,” read the statement, sent to MMAjunkie. “Those lawyers – who represent only a few fighters – are focused on getting some money out of one case, of which they seek a significant portion for themselves.
“Those lawyers do not speak for anyone else, and certainly not the MMAAA and all the fighters the organization represents now and will quickly grow to represent in the sport.”
Both sides acknowledge an Oct. 15, 2015 meeting in New York that was initiated by longtime MMA manager Ken Pavia and included the class-action attorneys – Eric Cramer, Joseph Saveri, and Benjamin Brown – and Rebney, representatives from CAA, and Pavia. They disagree on what happened at the meeting and afterward.
The class-action litigators claim Rebney and Co. suggested starting a separate anti-trust suit if they “did not meet certain demands.” Those were laid out 10 days later, with the MMAAA’s reps proposing to participate in any class action settlement and then be paid a certain percentage of any money recovered from the suit.
“As you know, we rejected your demands because we believed that they were neither consistent with applicable canons of professional ethics, nor with our duties as co-lead class counsel to protect the interests of all UFC fighters in the proposed classes that the court appointed us (and not you or your lawyers) to represent,” the letter read.
The MMAAA claims it laid out its goals for the association and the class-action litigators “made clear that they did not share the MMAAA’s vision.”
“They are focused on a short-term monetary recovery, of which they will seek 33 percent, and then they are gone from this sport,” the MMAAA statement read.
The letter states class-action lawyers won’t interfere with the MMAAA’s goals of organizing fighters, but questions the motives behind the association.
“We are … concerned that you may well be promoting your own interests above those of UFC fighters,” the letter states. “We cannot and will not condone efforts by you, the MMAAA, or any other party to usurp the role of co-lead counsel to represent UFC fighters in the UFC class action, prosecute their antitrust claims against the UFC for its alleged illegal conduct or negotiate settlements on class members’ behalf. You have not been appointed to pursue such claims, are not qualified to prosecute such cases, and in our view, your efforts to harm the UFC class action will only serve to undermine the achievements made in the action to date, and thereby ultimately injure the fighters whose interests you are seeking to represent.
“Your efforts to divide the fighters and orchestrate a ‘reverse auction’ for Zuffa to pay the lowest bidder, is not in the interests of any UFC fighters, past or present.”
The MMAAA’s PR agency, O’Malley Hansen Communications, said in response to a request to interview Rebney, “He’d like to, but since these multiple law firms, who are in this for a (one-third) cut of the fighters’ money, have actually threatened to sue the association and Bjorn, the associations’ lawyers have advised him not to.”
Cramer, who represents Berger and Montague in the anti-trust litigation, declined to comment to MMAjunkie.
The class-action suit remains in discovery as attorneys haggle over which documents will be included as evidence. A pivotal point in the case comes next year when a judge decides whether to certify its class-action status.
view original article >>