In re Tyson

Citation412 B.R. 623
Decision Date19 August 2009
Docket NumberAdversary No. 05-02210.,Bankruptcy No. 03-41900 (ALG).
PartiesIn re Michael G. TYSON, et al., Debtors. R. Todd Neilson, Plan Administrator of the MGT Chapter 11 Liquidating Trust, on behalf of the MGT Chapter 11 Liquidating Trust and on behalf of Michael G. Tyson, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Straight-Out Promotions, LLC, a Kentucky Limited Liability Company; Chris Webb, an individual; Brearly (International) Limited, a Gibraltar Corporation; Frank Warren, an individual; Sports Network, PLC, a United Kingdom Corporation; Marinetrack Holdings, PLC, a United Kingdom Corporation; Sports & Leisure, Boxing, Ltd., a United Kingdom Corporation; and Edward Simons, an individual, Defendants.
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York

Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young, Jones & Weintraub P.C. by: Robert J. Feinstein, Esq., Alan J. Kornfeld, Esq., Beth E. Levine, Esq., New York, NY, for the MGT Chapter 11 Liquidating Trust and the Debtor.

J. Bruce Miller Law Group by: J. Bruce Miller, Esq., Michael J. Kitchen, Esq., Louisville, KY, for Straight-Out Promotions and Chris Webb.

K & L Gates LLP by: Lani A. Adler, Robert N. Michaelson, New York, NY, for Sports Network PLC, Sports & Leisure Boxing, Ltd., Marinetrack Holdings, PLC, Frank Warren and Edward Simons.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

ALLAN L. GROPPER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This is an action for damages in connection with a professional heavyweight boxing match (the "Fight") held on July 30, 2004, in Louisville, Kentucky between Mike Tyson ("Tyson"), the former world heavyweight champion, and Danny Williams ("Williams").

A. The Parties
(i) Todd Neilson (the "Plaintiff")

The year before the Fight, Tyson and his wholly-owned corporation filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in this Court. The Fight was the first of a series of bouts that Tyson had agreed to hold as set forth in his Chapter 11 reorganization plan (the "Plan") filed on June 24, 2004.1 Under the Plan, the Plaintiff was appointed as Plan Administrator and given authority to collect proceeds from the Fight as well as to prosecute causes of action on behalf of Tyson's estate.

(ii) Straight Out Promotion, LLC ("Straight Out") and its principal Chris Webb ("Webb") (together, the "Kentucky Defendants")

Straight Out is a Kentucky limited liability company owned and managed by Webb. Prior to the time of the Fight, Webb was a relatively inexperienced boxing promoter. He had, however, obtained rights to promote a fight in Louisville between Tyson and Kevin McBride, Tyson's original opponent in the Fight.

(iii) Sports Network, PLC ("Sports Network") and its principals Frank Warren ("Warren") and Sports & Leisure, Boxing, LTD ("Sports and Leisure")

Sports Network was at the time of the Fight a United Kingdom partnership between Warren and Sports and Leisure.2 Warren is a well-known English boxing promoter with over 35 years of experience, who has promoted multimillion-dollar boxing matches around the world. As Sports Network's majority stakeholder and managing director, Warren held a tight grip over every aspect of the partnership's operations, and people in the boxing industry perceive him and Sports Network as one and the same. (See Trial Tr. 39:8-17, March 23, 2009; Trial Tr. 17:7-12, March 25, 2009; Trial Tr. 17:19-21, March 26, 2009.)

Sports and Leisure is a United Kingdom limited liability company that had a minority stake in Sports Network; it handled Sports Network's internet and television business.

(iv) Edward Simons ("Simons")

Simons is also a veteran of the boxing business with decades of experience. At the time of the Fight, Simons was Sports Network's chief executive officer and Warren's right-hand man.3 Simons also held a minority interest in Sports and Leisure and was one of its directors. Simons, Warren, Sports Network and Sports and Leisure are hereafter called the "UK Defendants."4

(v) Brearly International Limited ("Brearly")

Brearly is a shell corporation that had been formed under the laws of Gibraltar by Peter Abbey ("Abbey"), an English investor who was a friend and business acquaintance of Simons. Abbey is Brearly's sole shareholder. At the time of the Fight, Brearly had minimal capitalization (if any), no assets, no offices and no employees, and it had never engaged in any business.

B. The Allegations
(i) Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff commenced this action to collect a portion of the Fight purse still owed to Tyson. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts (i) that the Kentucky Defendants and Brearly breached their contractual obligations to Tyson by failing to pay the final $1.9 million of his purse; (ii) that Brearly and Sports Network were unjustly enriched by retaining funds from the Fight; and (iii) that the Kentucky and UK Defendants fraudulently induced Tyson to go forward with the Fight. Regarding the UK Defendants, Plaintiff argues that Brearly's corporate veil should be pierced and that the UK Defendants should be held liable to Tyson directly. Plaintiff argues in effect that Brearly was a shell without business, employees or capitalization, and that the UK Defendants abused the corporate form by using it as a mere façade, concealing the true facts.

(ii) The Kentucky Defendants' Response, Counterclaim and Cross-claims

The Kentucky Defendants do not dispute that Tyson is still owed $1.9 million for the Fight, but contend that he received $542,000 in breach of their agreement and that his claims should be offset in this amount. They deny Plaintiff's fraud and alter ego claims and assert cross-claims against Brearly and the UK Defendants that seek to pierce the corporate veil and impose Brearly's liability on the UK Defendants for the same reasons advanced by the Plaintiff.

(iii) Brearly's Default

On October 11, 2005, Brearly filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint, allegedly pro se. It failed to appear thereafter, and the Clerk of the Court entered a default against Brearly on January 23, 2008. Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on February 28, 2008, but withdrew the motion a month later after all the other defendants objected to it.

(iv) The UK Defendants' Response

The UK Defendants deny all the allegations against them. Their main arguments are that (i) they fully disclosed that Brearly was a separate entity and are not otherwise guilty of any fraud; (ii) the Fight generated no economic benefit to Sports Network and there were no damages for which they are responsible, and (iii) the legal bases for piercing Brearly's corporate veil are absent.

C. The Trial

The Court held a five-day trial on the issues. Plaintiff and the Kentucky Defendants called three witnesses: Stephen Espinoza ("Espinoza"), Tyson's attorney in connection with the Fight; Sampson Lewkowicz ("Lewkowicz"), who became the matchmaker for the Fight that actually took place;5 and Webb. The UK Defendants called four witnesses: David McConachie ("McConachie"), a former employee of Sports Network, who coordinated the sale of the international broadcasting rights to the Fight; Ken Hirschman ("Hirschman"), an executive from Showtime Networks Inc. ("Showtime") involved in the contractual negotiations; Warren; and Simons. The parties also introduced into evidence deposition testimony from Abbey; Stephen Heath ("Heath"), Sports Network's former in-house counsel; and Gavin Simons, Sports Network's chief financial officer and Edward Simons' brother.

Upon the findings of fact and conclusion of law set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff's and Straight Out's breach of contract and veil piercing claims against Brearly and the U.K. Defendants. It also grants Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against Straight Out. All other claims for relief are denied or dismissed.

FACTS

Pursuant to a document called the Event Agreement, Tyson granted Straight Out worldwide rights to promote, broadcast and distribute the Fight, in exchange for $7.2 million, payable in stages. Although Tyson and Straight Out had been negotiating since early 2003, it was not until May 2004 that they agreed to the basic terms for the Fight, including a list of possible opponents. Negotiations with Showtime were also underway for the United States broadcast right to the Fight, and Straight Out had received an offer of $2 million for the international rights to the Fight.

As noted above, Kevin McBride was initially proposed as Tyson's opponent. On June 10, 2004, Straight Out received an alternative proposal.

A. The Appearance of the UK Defendants

While attending promotional activities for a Sports Network event in Manchester, England, Lewkowicz, a fight matchmaker with ties to Webb, ran into Heath, who at the time was in-house counsel for Warren's company. Sports Network, and asked whether Warren would be interested in distributing the Fight internationally. Heath immediately got Warren on the phone, but Warren told Heath and Lewkowicz that the Fight was not financially viable and that he did not want anything to do with Tyson.6 Once the phone conversation ended, however, Warren instructed Simons, who had been at his side during the telephonic exchange, to meet with Lewkowicz to see whether he could "slip" Danny Williams as Tyson's opponent. Williams was an English fighter promoted by Warren, and for Warren and Sports Network, a Tyson fight represented a golden opportunity to advance Williams' career and their interests, especially if Williams defeated Tyson. (See Tr. 87:12-24, March 25.)

As Warren had directed, Simons, Heath and Lewkowicz met a few hours later, and from the meeting Simons called Webb to relate a business proposal. According to Webb,

[w]hen Mr. Simons initially got on the telephone, he introduced himself to me as Frank Warren's business partner, and ... shared with me about Sports Network .... [He] shared with me that [Sports Network] had their own division within their company ... [that] could do the international distribution .... h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In Re Hydrogen, Bankruptcy No. 08-14139 (AJG).
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 20, 2010
    ...law for an unjust enrichment claim) (citing Krock v. Lipsay, 97 F.3d 640, 645 (2d Cir.1996)); Tyson v. Straight-Out Promotions, LLC (In re Tyson), 412 B.R. 623, 635 n. 14 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2009) (same). As previously analyzed and concluded in connection with the application of an interest anal......
  • In Re Michael G. Tyson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 26, 2010
    ...appeal, the submissions of the parties, and the Bankruptcy Court's August 19, 2009 opinion. See Neilson v. Straight-Out Promotions, LLC (In re Tyson), 412 B.R. 623 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Aug.19, 2009) In re Tyson ” or the “ August 2009 Opinion”). Only those facts relevant to the issues on appeal......
  • In re Michael G. Tyson
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 13, 2011
    ...in the decision of the District Court cited above and in this Court's decision in Neilson v. Straight-Out Promotions, LLC (In re Tyson), 412 B.R. 623 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). The parties have agreed to rest on the existing record, and this Court decides the above-described issues based on th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT