Dentist, Football and the Law
Feb. 18th, 2011 04:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99As I have managed to survive a visit to the dentists with nothing worse than an appointment for next week for 1 filling (and yes, my teeth are bad enough that I call that a win) I shall now regale you with something I consider interesting.
You've all heard of litigation tourism (two particularly egregious examples can be found here: http://www.fastcompany.com/1723689/benihana-kuwait-lawsuit-mark-makhou-mike-servo
and here: http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris/). [links courtesy of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nwhyte.
It's something English law is quite interested in because England is one of the places you go to if you want to accuse someone of libel because you have to prove less to win.
Something similar has recently come up in regards to the shenanigans involved in the Liverpool Football Club takeover.
For those who didn't follow the whole nonsense, a brief overview goes like this:
Two American businessmen take over a football club. They raise the money to do this by taking out a gigantic loan with RBS. If the football club do well, the money will be paid back.
The football club do not do well. It needs new players and new facilities. The new owners do not have the ability to fund this.
Then the global financial crisis occurs. The bank calls in its loan. The two businessmen try to find a buyer for the club and ask for a price that covers their outlay. Because the club is still in need of new facilities and new players (plus their main playing asset is now severely disaffected), no one is willing to buy the club at that price.
The bank is about to put the club into administration and are able to force the sale of the club at a much lower price to an entirely different American businessman.
To try and prevent this, the other American businessmen try to take out a writ in a Texas court to prevent the sale, saying the bank has no right to do this, so you're left with the somewhat ridiculous situation of a dispute about the ownership of a British club being settled in an American court. A counter-suit enables a UK court to go 'NO!', and they've just upheld that ruling. I have no idea how precedent works in other countries but I could see this being useful in the prevention of some litigation tourism.
Links (in something that resembles chronological order) here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8312288/Tom-Hicks-and-the-Royal-Bank-of-Scotland-to-resume-legal-dispute-over-sale-of-Liverpool-in-High-Court.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12493587
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16102010/58/premier-league-hicks-claims-conspiracy.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/74597.html
You've all heard of litigation tourism (two particularly egregious examples can be found here: http://www.fastcompany.com/1723689/benihana-kuwait-lawsuit-mark-makhou-mike-servo
and here: http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris/). [links courtesy of
nwhyte.It's something English law is quite interested in because England is one of the places you go to if you want to accuse someone of libel because you have to prove less to win.
Something similar has recently come up in regards to the shenanigans involved in the Liverpool Football Club takeover.
For those who didn't follow the whole nonsense, a brief overview goes like this:
Two American businessmen take over a football club. They raise the money to do this by taking out a gigantic loan with RBS. If the football club do well, the money will be paid back.
The football club do not do well. It needs new players and new facilities. The new owners do not have the ability to fund this.
Then the global financial crisis occurs. The bank calls in its loan. The two businessmen try to find a buyer for the club and ask for a price that covers their outlay. Because the club is still in need of new facilities and new players (plus their main playing asset is now severely disaffected), no one is willing to buy the club at that price.
The bank is about to put the club into administration and are able to force the sale of the club at a much lower price to an entirely different American businessman.
To try and prevent this, the other American businessmen try to take out a writ in a Texas court to prevent the sale, saying the bank has no right to do this, so you're left with the somewhat ridiculous situation of a dispute about the ownership of a British club being settled in an American court. A counter-suit enables a UK court to go 'NO!', and they've just upheld that ruling. I have no idea how precedent works in other countries but I could see this being useful in the prevention of some litigation tourism.
Links (in something that resembles chronological order) here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8312288/Tom-Hicks-and-the-Royal-Bank-of-Scotland-to-resume-legal-dispute-over-sale-of-Liverpool-in-High-Court.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12493587
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16102010/58/premier-league-hicks-claims-conspiracy.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/74597.html
