I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
I agree.
And if he thought he could do it he would have because that's how he does everything else
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
I can't imagine why the Fertitas would be tempted to step back in its a lifetime of work that they have already done and better than anyone else ever did.
There was just an article on MMAFighting today about a Las Vegas commissioner working for stations casino, which is owned by the fertittas, and in it, it said they still own a minority share, around 8%, so I doubt they would even want to work somewhere else when they're still partial owners of the UFC
So your saying for 4 billion dollars they didn't get 100% or almost that I think Dana still has a percent I think something like 10 % so that would 80 % for 4 billion seems odd.
Here's the article that mmafighting did that mentioned it, like you I was surprised they still owned a share
The Fertittas still own a “passive minority interest” in the UFC, according to a WME-IMG press release sent out July 11. Forbes estimates each brother still owns about 8 percent of the promotion. Lorenzo Fertitta has helped the UFC broker a deal as recently as few months ago when Chris Weidman flew into Las Vegas to negotiate a fight contract for UFC 205 in November.
There was just an article on MMAFighting today about a Las Vegas commissioner working for stations casino, which is owned by the fertittas, and in it, it said they still own a minority share, around 8%, so I doubt they would even want to work somewhere else when they're still partial owners of the UFC
So your saying for 4 billion dollars they didn't get 100% or almost that I think Dana still has a percent I think something like 10 % so that would 80 % for 4 billion seems odd.
Here's the article that mmafighting did that mentioned it, like you I was surprised they still owned a share
The Fertittas still own a “passive minority interest” in the UFC, according to a WME-IMG press release sent out July 11. Forbes estimates each brother still owns about 8 percent of the promotion. Lorenzo Fertitta has helped the UFC broker a deal as recently as few months ago when Chris Weidman flew into Las Vegas to negotiate a fight contract for UFC 205 in November.
if they still own equity, that could actually provide for the non-compete.....
I would doubt they would have any desire to start or get involved with another mma promotion. What would be the point? Would they make more than they already did? They easily cleared several hundred million each not including however much they made leading up to the sell.
The only thing I could see them doing is being a consultant of some kind. More one offs than long term deals.
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
We fought a non-compete in court, and won, and what I learned from our attny that specializes in them was that an N-C as a condition of the sale of a business is an extremely tight way to wrap up someone and make it stick even on a long term. And rightly so, IMO. But I suppose it's possible that some states vary?
I'm sure they don't need the money and they've already succeeded in MMA beyond anyone's wildest dreams - why in the world would they do it all over again?
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
Repeat it as many times as you want, it still won't be true. there may be some lonely state where it is, but it certainly isn't the norm.
In CA as an example, employee non-competes, are illegal, M&A non-competes are legal. We could go state to state, and again and again, we'll find you're wrong.
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
Repeat it as many times as you want, it still won't be true. there may be some lonely state where it is, but it certainly isn't the norm.
In CA as an example, employee non-competes, are illegal, M&A non-competes are legal. We could go state to state, and again and again, we'll find you're wrong.
lol...lets make a bet on whether CA courts have determined that non-competes in the context of M&A cannot have infinite duration
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
I think Art Bell had a 5 year non-compete when he ditched c2c.
Shiloh - I don't see anyone here saying infinite? Did I miss it?
the argument i have been making since the beginning is that there is a limit on how long a non-compete can apply in the context of a sale of a company because the same policy that prohibits/restricts it in the employment context, also applies in the M&A context.
As far as i know, yes, courts are more generally more lenient in terms of allowing non-competes in the sale context because there are other factors to consider, but the same general animosity towards non-competes still applies.
I was never arguing that a non-compete is illegal per se in a sale context. If you look at my prior posts on this thread I clearly imply that and I have drafted sale documents that contain non-competes.
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
LOL, I doubt many US courts would enforce a life-time non-compete. That's ridic.
Shiloh - I don't see anyone here saying infinite? Did I miss it?
the argument i have been making since the beginning is that there is a limit on how long a non-compete can apply in the context of a sale of a company because the same policy that prohibits/restricts it in the employment context, also applies in the M&A context.
As far as i know, yes, courts are more generally more lenient in terms of allowing non-competes in the sale context because there are other factors to consider, but the same general animosity towards non-competes still applies.
I was never arguing that a non-compete is illegal per se in a sale context. If you look at my prior posts on this thread I clearly imply that and I have drafted sale documents that contain non-competes.
Yeah I got you.
I dont think anybody is saying forever though? At least I'm not.