Legal Issues With Pitt

[TallTitan34]

This question is for all the lawyers out there. I've seen it mentioned in a few threads but nothing significant. 

I was just wondering what the legal ramifications are for Pitt, if any at all.  Their president was the head of the Big East Executive Commitee and was against the conference signing a multi-billion dollar deal with ESPN a few months ago.

[TallTitan34]

Pitt sued Boston College in 2003 when they left the Big East for what Nordenberg at the time called "a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition".

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6988839/greed-hypocrisy-spell-end-big-east-know-college-basketball

[Hards Alumni]

Pitt sued Boston College in 2003 when they left the Big East for what Nordenberg at the time called "a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition".

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6988839/greed-hypocrisy-spell-end-big-east-know-college-basketball

Looks like they took good notes.

On a side note, you could argue that Pitt's president was not looking out for the best interests of the BEAST... proving he did so mailciously might be a bit more difficult.

[slingkong]

But would it be necessary to prove that he did so maliciously, or might it just be necessary to prove gross negligence? 

I'm just a simple patent attorney, but I think one could make a colorable argument that:
- he owed a duty of care;
- he failed in his duty through inaction that was so reckless that it showed lack of concern for the injuries that may result;
- injuries were incurred (or have a reasonable likelihood of being incurred); and
- the injuries were reasonably foreseeable given his inaction.

That doesn't mean any of it would hold up.  I wonder more whether Pitt's application can be stalled by withholding a commitment not to sue.

[Benny B]

The obstacle I see in legal action is that Nordenberg owes/owed a duty to care to both Pitt and the Big East (via being chair of the Exec Committee), and my guess is that there's some sort of provision in the BE bylaws stating that the duty of care to one's institution is primary; otherwise, who is going to want to be in a position where he needs to submarine his employer in order to properly act in the interests of the conference?

I suppose that if you can show that Nordenberg actions breached his duty to the BE but that electing to take no action would not have been a breach of his duty to Pitt, then you may have a basis for an individual action against Nordenberg but likely not against Pitt.

So basically, you're left with the BE suing the president of Pitt, not Pitt.  Assuming this were the case, I wouldn't bet Nordenberg's pockets are deep enough to justify such an action.

Further... what are the damages?  Right now, it's all speculation; there exists the possibility that the Big East may come out better in the end or at the very least the damage done is mitigated by the benefits reaped (e.g. exit fees, sharing the same revenue pool with two less schools, etc.).  For there to be any sort of lawsuit, the Big East needs to show damages, and such a task may be virtually impossible to quantify depending on the outcome of this whole thing.

[MUBurrow]

The obstacle I see in legal action is that Nordenberg owes/owed a duty to care to both Pitt and the Big East (via being chair of the Exec Committee), and my guess is that there's some sort of provision in the BE bylaws stating that the duty of care to one's institution is primary; otherwise, who is going to want to be in a position where he needs to submarine his employer in order to properly act in the interests of the conference?

This. I'm not very familiar with the duties owed as a member of an executive committee in a conference, but I feel there's no way that the leadership of the conferences are formed to take precedence over members responsibilities to their universities.  I would imagine that the actions taken by these committees are designed to be more akin to a democracy where everyone votes their own interest than where everyone owes a live or die duty to do whats best for the majority of other schools in the conference.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Just a law student, but the problem I see is uncertainty surrounding all of college sports right now. Its going to be very difficult to prove that, at the time Pitt was steering the executive committee, they were not accepting deals or acting differently in any way because they planned on bailing. Pitt could easily counter by saying, we did our best given the climate, circumstances changed when Syracuse and the ACC called us up, Texas A&M moved, and we got word about the schools out west were going to reshuffle, therefore we then changed course.

Now do I personally think Pitt acted maliciously: yes. But I'm a MU fan and this all puts MU at risk, so I'm biased. Yet, I think Pitt and some of the football schools didn't want to lock anything down when they weren't sure what offer was coming down the pipeline.

[TallTitan34]

Does anyone know what came out of Pitt's lawsuit against BC when they left in 2003.

[forgetful]

They did not do their best though.  They could have done it above board like A&M did, announce your intentions to pursue other options. 

They did not do this and did it through secret dealings that let to the loss of a TV deal and the breakup of the conference.

[muzzwilliams]

Yes there would be a potential case regarding the mess we are in right now. As far as fuduciary duty goes, that would leave us very limited room to build a case. However, we should focus on determining how much power Nordenberg had rejecting a tv deal for Big east because he was in the process of conducting a exit out of the conference. This obviously won't keep pit and cuse in the big east but it may potentially force them to buyout the suit and we would split the $$ to the schools affected. But the ESPN contract which he single handedly turned down for us should be the focus of our case.

[Pakuni]

Does anyone know what came out of Pitt's lawsuit against BC when they left in 2003.

It was settled. The five plaintiff schools received $1 million apiece and the promise of future football games with ACC schools.

[Litehouse]

The case might not go anywhere, but it would be fun to see what comes up in discovery with any communications with ESPN.

[Benny B]

The case might not go anywhere, but it would be fun to see what comes up in discovery with any communications with ESPN.

I'd bet a good percentage of cases are filed for no other reason than what may be discovered.  Again, it's going to be difficult to indict Pitt, but perhaps if ESPN were "tampering" with the conference... perhaps they'd be inclined to curry favor with what remains of the Big East.