Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Boxing manager seeks time-out, arbitration in unfair competition suit, (Sep 1, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Professional boxing advisor/manager Alan Haymon, has moved the federal district court in Los Angeles for an order (1) compelling Golden Boy Promotions LLC, Golden Boy Promotions, Inc., (the Promotions Entities) and Bernard Hopkins to arbitrate the issue of whether the claims alleged in this action are arbitrable; and (2) staying the action until the arbitrator rules on the question of arbitrability (Golden Boy Promotions, LLC v. Haymon, Dkt. 2:15-cv-03378-JFW-MRW).

The Promotions Entities are licensed boxing promoters that are owned by former boxers Bernard Hopkins and Oscar De La Hoya. They filed suit against boxing advisor/manager Alan Haymon and affiliated companies, alleging unfair competition, unlawful tying, conspiracy in restraint of trade, and attempted monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Specifically, Haymon and the business entities he controls allegedly used their dominance in the market for managing championship caliber boxers to exclude all legitimate promoters from the market of promoting such boxers, the plaintiffs asserted.

The issue currently before the court is whether the Promotions Entities and Bernard Hopkins are bound by the arbitration clause in a settlement agreement and mutual release between the Golden Boy settling parties—consisting of Golden Boy Boxing, LLC, Golden Boy Boxing Holdings, LLC, Golden Boy Enterprises, LLC, Oscar De La Hoya, and the Oscar De La Hoya Separate Property Trust—and the Haymon settling parties.

Haymon contends that the Promotions Entities are bound by the arbitration clause as a matter of ordinary contract and agency principals because the Golden Boy settling parties expressly agreed to contractually bind their shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates to the settlement agreement, and that the Promotions Entities are both wholly owned subsidiaries of the Golden Boy settling parties. In addition, Haymon claims that the Promotions Entities are express third-party beneficiaries of a release that De La Hoya and other Golden Boy settling parties obtained on their behalf, and that since plaintiffs have already benefitted from the release they are only now attempting to disclaim the substantial benefits they obtained to avoid arbitration. Consequently, Haymon argues that the parties intended that the Promotions Entities be bound by the settlement because they benefitted from the settlement releases and should not be permitted to avoid the arbitration clause.

Attorneys: Bertram Harris Fields (Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman and Machtinger LLP) for Golden Boy Promotions LLC. Howard Weitzman (Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP) for Alan Haymon.

Companies: Golden Boy Promotions, LLC; Golden Boy Promotions, Inc.; Alan Haymon Development, Inc.; Haymon Sports, LLC; Haymon Boxing Management; Haymon Boxing LLC; Haymon Boxing: Media Group Holdings LLC; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.; Waddell & Reed, Inc.; Ivy Asset Strategy Fund; WRA Asset Strategy; Ivy Funds VIP Asset Strategy

News: Antitrust CaliforniaNews