03-23-2022, 07:51 AM
(03-23-2022, 12:10 AM)Jommybone Wrote: Ok, I’ve read it all now. Here’s what I’d add re the 52M:
1. The draft settlement agreement attached as an exhibit to the petition is real. It came from the Mavs’ lawyers at Winston and the answer they filed refers to it without denying that it is real.
2. Most of the draft seems typical, other than the obscenely large payout of course. But one thing really stuck out. I’ve never before seen a settlement agreement that contains an out if the payee is found guilty of an illegal act related to the settlement (para 19, page 5 of the draft). Why would they feel the need to write that unusual provision into this agreement?
3. The Mavs’ answer gives us a clue. “Nelson repeatedly refused to engage in any resolution that asked him to represent that he had not engaged in any criminal conduct related to his allegations . . . “ (section I.D, page 8 of the answer). That seems to say Nelson wouldn’t agree to any settlement that would require him to pay the settlement money back if he was found to have committed a related crime, and the context suggests the Mavs wouldn’t do a deal without that requirement.
I’m reluctant to draw any conclusions from this. We haven’t seen the evidence that the parties say they have, and they can’t even agree on when various things happened. But I just can’t make myself believe the Mavs would pay that kind of money to cover this story up, or that Donnie would have rejected it if genuinely offered. And that leaves me wondering if maybe the Mavs, when they drafted the $52M deal, expected to get out of paying by tagging Donnie with an extortion charge. And it leaves me wondering if Donnie turned it down because he thought he might indeed get tagged.
Great stuff @"Jommybone", thanks for sleuthing this!