10-27-2016, 12:14 AM | #1041 |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
|
10-27-2016, 12:18 AM | #1042 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
aw jeeez
|
10-27-2016, 02:40 AM | #1043 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Busy afternoon. Just now catching up on this news.
Several very interesting issues. So, without seeing the docs themselves, it's pretty much impossible to say one way or another what the likely outcome will be. Without seeing the agreements, I'd say both sides should probably be concerned. Plus, you just really never know for certain what a judge or jury will decide. Quote:
So, here's the case as I understand it now. Corgan and TNA agreed that Corgan would make 3 loans to TNA, and in exchange, Corgan would be named TNA President and would oversee TNA's daily ops. Corgan could also elect to get up to 36% of company ownership instead of his loan repayment. For the 3rd loan, Corgan and Dixie agreed that if TNA became insolvent and couldn't repay his loans, Corgan would get all of Dixie's 92.5% ownership interest in TNA. Seems like today, in addition to the temporary injunction, they were arguing pre-trial motion(s) to dismiss the case before it gets to the jury, with TNA alleging the case should be dismissed because Corgan's agreement with Dixie is illegal and even if it is legal, he's not entitled to her shares because TNA is not insolvent. Corgan is claiming this agreement with Dixie was a pledge, which is important, and you will see why shortly. Corgan is claiming TNA is insolvent and as a result of his alleged pledge agreement with Dixie, he's now entitled to all 92.5% of her ownership shares. Corgan is also claiming that TNA is insolvent, and that if TNA wasn't insolvent they wouldn't be trying to sell, would pay talent, wouldn't need loans, etc. TNA is claiming the agreement with Dixie is legally something known as a "general assignment". For simplicity's sake, TNA's arguing it's essentially a contract, and NOT a pledge like Corgan is claiming. Under TN statutory law, if it's a "general assignment", that type of "contract" forcing Dixie (as the "debtor") to give up ALL of her property (i.e., shares) for the benefit of Corgan ("creditor) would be illegal and voidable. IF like Corgan claims, his agreement with Dixie is deemed a pledge though, that's not illegal under TN law and he would still be potentially entitled to all of her ownership interest. TNA is also claiming they're not insolvent and the need for the recent loans from Corgan and others was just a temporary cash flow problem, the company can't be insolvent and has value because people want to buy it, and that they're willing to pay off what they owe Corgan's for his loans. They also say that TNA must not be bad off enough to be deemed insolvent if Corgan wants to own it so bad. If the chancellor finds that TNA is NOT insolvent, she could dismiss the case. If the chancellor finds that Corgan and Dixie's agreement is a "general assignment", she would have to void the contract which would also end the case. Also, the actual temporary injunction issue being decided on Monday is pretty important. IF the temporary injunction is denied, Dixie could sell all or any part of TNA at anytime in the future, even if the case continues. Again, without seeing the docs, it's basically impossible to say what will likely happen here. Even if we had them, you just never really know. No, but every contract has an implied duty of good faith. That is, by signing the contract, both parties agree that they will perform their contractual obligations in good faith. |
|
10-27-2016, 07:57 AM | #1044 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
Why hasn't a ladder match for total control of TNA been booked yet?
|
10-27-2016, 09:57 AM | #1045 | |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
Out of curiosity, Z, how does this play into things?
Quote:
|
|
10-27-2016, 10:49 AM | #1046 |
Inno Knows.
Posts: 43,710
|
|
10-27-2016, 10:53 AM | #1047 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
I miss the TNA apologists (TLP) I wonder what they would say about TNA now.
|
10-27-2016, 11:42 AM | #1048 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
Corgan should also be concerned though. If his deal with Dixie simply names her the guarantor of his loans to TNA, the court would most likely find that this makes Corgan and Dixie's agreement a creditor/lender agreement. If the court finds that Corgan and Dixie's relationship was equivalent to creditor/lender, then TNA's insolvency is irrelevant. Corgan would not be entitled to take her shares even if TNA was insolvent, as long as TNA/Dixie were willing and able to repay his loans. Under TN law, failure to pay contractual debts, the only remedy allowed is repayment of the debt plus interest, even if the agreement allows for more than repayment + interest. |
|
10-27-2016, 11:47 AM | #1049 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
I think TNA would have quite a job proving that they can pay him what they owe considering all of the other stuff going on.
|
10-27-2016, 12:59 PM | #1050 | |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
From what I understand, Corgan would rather he has it than them, so he's trying to prove insolvency to take Dixie's company control prior to that happening and preventing them from buying it. If she can get someone to buy it and pay him off, he'd theoretically lose all claim from what I understand. He's trying to prevent that by using a trigger in their agreement. The question is really whether or not the fact that they can't pay him back on their own makes them insolvent and means he can pull that trigger. That's the big reason they're trying so hard to prove they are or aren't. There's also a chance the agreement itself may not be legal, depending on which type it actually is. Those are the few questions: 1) Are they actually insolvent? 2) Does someone willing to buy them out and pay back Corgan mean Corgan is refusing to be paid back, or can be legally claim control before that and instead refuse to sell to them? 3) Is the agreement even legal (because it's X and not Y)? At least that's my understanding. |
|
10-27-2016, 01:05 PM | #1051 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
|
Thought it was Anthem that was going to pay off Billy. I don't know but to me the simple fact that TNA can't pay him back without going through someone else should classify them as insolvent. Its all kind of crazy and I'd hate to be anyone working on this case.
|
10-27-2016, 01:10 PM | #1052 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
How much does MVP still own?
|
10-27-2016, 03:17 PM | #1053 |
BAY BAY
Posts: 36,524
|
Ruh-roh. This could be the thing that destroys Corban's case. |
10-27-2016, 03:29 PM | #1054 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
TNA will counter sue and be funded until march.
|
10-27-2016, 03:49 PM | #1055 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
It was my impression that no mention was made of this issue yesterday at the pre-trial hearing. It was my impression that TNA argued that the contract did not meet the definition of a pledge and because it was not a pledge, it would be illegal under a different TN statute. I could be mistaken though and that doesn't mean it or both arguments weren't alleged in the written responsive pleadings. Even if TNA waived this as a defense, Dixie could also file a counterclaim to still argue argue this licensing claim. Even if TNA has waived this defense in this trial and Dixie doesn't counterclaim during this trial, and Corgan wins everything, this statute would still permit Dixie to file suit for a new trial after this trial arguing this licensing claim to recover her ownership. |
|
10-27-2016, 03:52 PM | #1056 | |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Can't wait for the judge to be revealed to be Johnny Fairplay from Survivor in drag. |
|
10-27-2016, 03:53 PM | #1057 |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
That post was specifically for you, Noid. You're welcome.
|
10-27-2016, 03:57 PM | #1058 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
There's also the issue of whether Corgan was a TN licensed pledge lender when the loans were made. If not, he could most likely lose everything, even his principal investment money. That being said, IF his lawyer didn't know or inform him of the licensing requirements when making this deal, he could sue his attorney for malpractice and would most likely win that malpractice suit. |
|
10-27-2016, 04:13 PM | #1059 |
Triple A
Posts: 133,040
|
So is Corgan trying to take Dixie's shares without really paying for them? Just on the contract "technicality" that they didn't repay him his loans on time, so he is automatically entitled to 92% or whatever without having to pay more money to "buy her out"?
|
10-27-2016, 04:15 PM | #1060 |
Posts: 3,033
|
Essentially yes. He structured the deal that way as a consequence to TNA going broke but he (or his attorneys) may not have covered all his bases to make the deal legal.
|
10-27-2016, 04:22 PM | #1061 |
Trickster Demon
Posts: 59,750
|
The Dirtiest Player in the Game is Billy Corgan, love it!
|
10-27-2016, 04:30 PM | #1062 | |
Former TPWW Royalty
Posts: 66,588
|
Quote:
When Spike TV wanted to buy TNA to keep it on the channel, they wanted Dixie gone from power but she got Panda Energy to step in and demand she had to stay as the main owner. When TNA was trying to find new investors, they all wanted her gone or have majority ownership but she stubbornly refused. With Corgan, she supposedly promised up to 30% in ownership but in reality was never going to give it to him at least in the way he expected. Big reason why he put the poison pill clause with the last funding negotiations. |
|
10-27-2016, 05:03 PM | #1063 |
Posts: 3,033
|
There are basically 4 issues here that will be decided, at least preliminarily by the chancellor, in order to go to trial for final decision by the jury:
1. Was the agreement between Dixie and Corgan a "pledge" agreement? 2. Was Corgan a licensed "pledge lender" in TN when these agreements were made? 3. If #1 and #2 are true, is TNA legally insolvent? 4. If #1, 2 and 3 are true, is there sufficient evidence to show that TNA is at risk of being sold or put on the market for sale during the trial? If so, the injunction will be issued to prevent Dixie from selling TNA during the trial. |
10-27-2016, 05:11 PM | #1064 |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
Pretty excited about this potentially proving that Dixie Carter is legally retarded. That's what this is about, right?
|
10-27-2016, 05:17 PM | #1065 |
LUV CABBAGE/H8 JEWS
Posts: 42,497
|
|
10-28-2016, 09:04 AM | #1066 |
Inno Knows.
Posts: 43,710
|
|
10-28-2016, 09:15 PM | #1067 | ||
Former TPWW Royalty
Posts: 66,588
|
According to PWI, there is a very strong chance Billy Corgan will leave TNA if his lawsuit against Dixie fails. Main reason is due to Anthem already stating publicly they are willing to pay the $1.8 million he's asking back from TNA and already have deals in place to become the new majority owner.
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCirc...de_post_since/ |
||
10-28-2016, 09:56 PM | #1068 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
Wow. Never thought "You can't script October" would ever take on this kind of meaning.
|
10-29-2016, 02:08 PM | #1069 |
Posts: 60,919
|
Who is willing to put money into TNA at this point?!?
|
10-29-2016, 02:27 PM | #1070 |
BAY BAY
Posts: 36,524
|
|
10-29-2016, 02:32 PM | #1071 |
His name is Jeff Harvey
Posts: 5,256
|
I bet Corgan regrets not fucking her when he had the chance, he wouldn't be in this position
|
10-31-2016, 12:31 AM | #1072 |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
You all ready for tomorrow?
ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN (no Mojo allowed). |
10-31-2016, 01:02 AM | #1073 |
Loque Ja
Posts: 87,868
|
Mojo IS the Hype Train, BABY!!!!
|
10-31-2016, 01:08 AM | #1074 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
Seems like they might win Dark. Won't be that much fun.
|
10-31-2016, 01:30 AM | #1075 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
It hasn't been as funny as this real life thing broh. |
10-31-2016, 01:36 AM | #1076 |
King of Suplexes/Oxy
Posts: 18,466
|
|
10-31-2016, 01:43 AM | #1077 |
King of Love and Piss
Posts: 62,988
|
If its found that Dixie and Corgan had an illegal agreement, does TNA legally still owe him what he loaned?
|
10-31-2016, 01:44 AM | #1078 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
I will repeat too. |
10-31-2016, 01:45 AM | #1079 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
|
10-31-2016, 01:12 PM | #1080 | |
Posts: 3,033
|
Quote:
If it is deemed a "general assignment" agreement, then he is entitled to his investment money back plus interest or he has the option of taking up to 36% interest in TNA instead of his money back. |
|