PDA

View Full Version : Atwater suing NFL for $20 million


Atlas
06-26-2006, 08:28 PM
Atwater among players suing NFL for $20 million

By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Bloomberg News
June 26, 2006
SoCals link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/article/0,2777,DRMN_23918_4803265,00.html

Seven present and former professional football players sued the National Football League and the NFL Players Association, saying the organizations recommended unfit financial advisers and caused them to lose $20 million.
The NFL and the union approved the services of Kirk Wright and Nelson Keith Bond, heads of the bankrupt hedge fund International Management Associates LLC, without doing background checks, the players said in a June 23 federal court suit in Atlanta.

Wright was arrested in May on mail fraud charges.

"Wright should not have been approved for registration in the program," athletes including former Pro Bowl players Steve Atwater and Blaine Bishop claimed. "Prior to and during Wright’s and Bond’s registration, both individuals had numerous state and federal tax liens and judgments against them."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said IMA raised as much as $185 million from about 500 investors before filing for bankruptcy in 2005. The suit asked reimbursement for losses and better monitoring of investment managers, players’ lawyer

Marlon Kimpson said.

"We want to make these players whole, but the lawsuit is aimed at getting the NFL and the players’ association to reform the program," Kimpson said in an interview.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in an e-mailed statement the claims are unfounded.

"We will review the matter with our attorneys and look forward to responding as directed by the court," Aiello said.

Richard Berthelsen, a Players Association attorney, Wright’s attorney Jacob Frenkel and Bond’s attorney Steven La Briola didn’t return calls for comment.

The SEC sued Wright, International Management Associates and other IMA entities in February, claiming fraud and seeking an injunction to prevent further sales. The SEC said IMA, through Wright, misrepresented the assets in its funds.

"In fact, without disclosure to the investors, virtually all of the assets of the funds have been dissipated," the SEC said in its complaint.

Wright told clients that two funds had more than $150 million under management in the custody of the brokerage firm Ameritrade Inc., the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in the press release announcing Wright’s indictment in March. The IMA funds had less than $150,000 in these accounts, the FBI said.

The Players Association set up a program designed to protect athletes from investment fraud after a previous unrelated scheme in 2002 cheated 12 NFL players and others of about $14 million, the players’ complaint said.

The association program said in SEC filings it would screen all financial investors for character, reputation and integrity, said Kimpson, of the law firm Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.

"They didn’t do their homework," he said.

Bishop and other players also contacted the NFL to do background checks on IMA and Wright, according to the complaint. The NFL reported "that there were no red flags that would raise any concerns," the complaint said.

Atwater and Bishop were already in litigation with Bond. The players sued Bond in February over bounced checks. In a March countersuit, Bond said the players shared any liability for damages.

Atwater and Bishop worked for the hedge fund as interns recruiting investors because the NFL found nothing wrong in the background checks, the players said today in their lawsuit.

Atwater is a former safety with the Denver Broncos and New York Jets. Bishop, also a retired safety, was with the Tennessee Titans and the Philadelphia Eagles.

The other plaintiffs are former players Marco Coleman, Ray Crockett, Clyde Simmons and Al Smith and current New York Giant Carlos Emmons.

The case is Atwater v. National Football League Players Association, 1:06-cv-1510, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).

Dr. Broncenstein
06-26-2006, 08:53 PM
That's right.. its never your fault in the US. Point fingers and file lawsuits.

anthonypacino
06-26-2006, 09:57 PM
Well I guess thats a final answer on wether or not Atwater will ever get into the Hall of Fame...

ludo21
06-26-2006, 10:01 PM
Well I guess thats a final answer on wether or not Atwater will ever get into the Hall of Fame...


ROFL!

Yep. Sad too, he is the one that drove me to the team.

Gcver2ver3
06-26-2006, 10:02 PM
I hope Atwater wins....he owes me money

footstepsfrom#27
06-27-2006, 07:36 AM
Sweet! I'm on easy street!
That's right.. its never your fault in the US. Point fingers and file lawsuits.
Eh...not exactly. If the statement below is true, the NFL's behind the legal 8-ball:

Prior to and during Wright’s and Bond’s registration, both individuals had numerous state and federal tax liens and judgments against them."

The SEC has very strenuous regulations regarding financial status and credibility for securities licensed agents. It's not that tough to find out who is and who is not playing by the rules, and the players had the justifiable right to rely on the NFL recommendations at least in terms of ethical behavior.

55CrushEm
06-27-2006, 07:44 AM
Sweet! I'm on easy street!

LOL Me too !! Can't tell you how many tens of thousands I've lost (unrealized)......over the years.

No1BroncoFan
06-27-2006, 09:18 AM
Sweet! I'm on easy street!

Eh...not exactly. If the statement below is true, the NFL's behind the legal 8-ball:

Prior to and during Wright’s and Bond’s registration, both individuals had numerous state and federal tax liens and judgments against them."

The SEC has very strenuous regulations regarding financial status and credibility for securities licensed agents. It's not that tough to find out who is and who is not playing by the rules, and the players had the justifiable right to rely on the NFL recommendations at least in terms of ethical behavior.
So, there's some reason Atwater couldn't check these guys out himself? Good Lord, when you make that kind of money, do a little reaseach yourself. The world is full of crooks and scam artists.

Ben

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 09:28 AM
So, there's some reason Atwater couldn't check these guys out himself? Good Lord, when you make that kind of money, do a little reaseach yourself. The world is full of crooks and scam artists.

Ben
Looks like they double checked with the League and were given the green light.

Bishop and other players also contacted the NFL to do background checks on IMA and Wright, according to the complaint. The NFL reported "that there were no red flags that would raise any concerns," the complaint said.

Agents that were endorsed and recommended by the League. They have a case.

bombay
06-27-2006, 09:39 AM
Sweet! I'm on easy street!

Eh...not exactly. If the statement below is true, the NFL's behind the legal 8-ball:

Prior to and during Wright’s and Bond’s registration, both individuals had numerous state and federal tax liens and judgments against them."

The SEC has very strenuous regulations regarding financial status and credibility for securities licensed agents. It's not that tough to find out who is and who is not playing by the rules, and the players had the justifiable right to rely on the NFL recommendations at least in terms of ethical behavior.


Bingo. Sounds like the NFL did no checking at all. Why offer recomendations if you don't stand behind them?

Garcia Bronco
06-27-2006, 09:43 AM
Sounds like the NFL didn't give this due diligence.

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 09:45 AM
Maybe Greg Aiello was busy washing Ray Lewis' limo when it was time to do background checks.

**** the NFL. The hope the courts assign treble punitive damages.

No1BroncoFan
06-27-2006, 09:46 AM
Agents that were endorsed and recommended by the League. They have a case.
Whether they have a case or not is irrelevant to my post. In a world where you can spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue the guy who sold it to you, it's not hard to develope a case. Why didn't they excercise a little personal responsibility and check these guys out. Sorry, but just because Joe says I can trust Frank with my money doesn't mean I'm going to give it to him without checking him out first. When there are millions on the line, you check people out period.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to absolve the league of blame. The NFL does have a responsibility to it's players and they dropped the ball, but the blame is not theirs alone.

Ben

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 10:13 AM
Whether they have a case or not is irrelevant to my post. In a world where you can spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue the guy who sold it to you, it's not hard to develope a case. Why didn't they excercise a little personal responsibility and check these guys out. Sorry, but just because Joe says I can trust Frank with my money doesn't mean I'm going to give it to him without checking him out first. When there are millions on the line, you check people out period.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to absolve the league of blame. The NFL does have a responsibility to it's players and they dropped the ball, but the blame is not theirs alone.

Ben
And once things are hashed out in court, they will probably assign some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the investors.

Why do people constantly reference the McDonald's coffee case as an absurd legal judgement when McDonald's was so clearly in the wrong?

dbfan4life
06-27-2006, 10:19 AM
And once things are hashed out in court, they will probably assign some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the investors.

Why do people constantly reference the McDonald's coffee case as an absurd legal judgement when McDonald's was so clearly in the wrong?

Yeah, really. Who likes hot cofee????

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 10:31 AM
Yeah, really. Who likes hot cofee????
Yeah, really, who likes to actually research what the **** they're talking about?

manchambo
06-27-2006, 10:33 AM
And once things are hashed out in court, they will probably assign some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the investors.

Why do people constantly reference the McDonald's coffee case as an absurd legal judgement when McDonald's was so clearly in the wrong?

You're right about the McDonald's thing. The plaintiffs in that case proved that McDonalds served astoundingly hot coffee, that it had caused horrific burns to numerous people, and that McDonalds had undertaken a coordinated plan to cover those incidents up, including by paying off a number of claims for severe burns.

The conservative tort reformers who put out that misinformation--who are financed by industry, and who put out their yearly lists of purportedly absurd verdicts that invariably grossly misrepresent the facts of the cases, and in any event are massively misleading insofar as they attempt to imply that those outlier verdicts, which by definition are the most extreme examples the reformers are able to identify, are somehow typical of our legal system--never tell you that part of the story. And somehow they are able to convince people that no one should be able to recover damages for anything, ever, because recovery when someone negligently recommends a criminal as a financial advisor would not comport with "personal responsibility."

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 10:40 AM
You're right about the McDonald's thing. The plaintiffs in that case proved that McDonalds served astoundingly hot coffee, that it had caused horrific burns to numerous people, and that McDonalds had undertaken a coordinated plan to cover those incidents up, including by paying off a number of claims for severe burns.

The conservative tort reformers who put out that misinformation--who are financed by industry, and who put out their yearly lists of purportedly absurd verdicts that invariably grossly misrepresent the facts of the cases, and in any event are massively misleading insofar as they attempt to imply that those outlier verdicts, which by definition are the most extreme examples the reformers are able to identify, are somehow typical of our legal system--never tell you that part of the story. And somehow they are able to convince people that no one should be able to recover damages for anything, ever, because recovery when someone negligently recommends a criminal as a financial advisor would not comport with "personal responsibility."

They were serving 200 degree coffee in styrofoam cups. The elderly woman who was scalded suffered severe burns to her vagina. The coffe was so hot it literally melted her panty hose to her skin.

Tredici
06-27-2006, 11:47 AM
They were serving 200 degree coffee in styrofoam cups. The elderly woman who was scalded suffered severe burns to her vagina. The coffe was so hot it literally melted her panty hose to her skin.

Her genitals had to be re-constructed surgically.

That lawsuit has maybe spared many others the same type of burns. But it remains as the poster child of "baseless" lawsuits.

So much for the perception of the general public.

No1BroncoFan
06-27-2006, 11:50 AM
And once things are hashed out in court, they will probably assign some degree of contributory negligence on the part of the investors.

Why do people constantly reference the McDonald's coffee case as an absurd legal judgement when McDonald's was so clearly in the wrong?
Actually, I was citing a local case in Oregon but whatever... The guy actually intentionally spilled the coffee on himself, then proceeded to sue the coffee shop.

Ben

Tredici
06-27-2006, 11:52 AM
Actually, I was citing a local case in Oregon but whatever... The guy actually spilled the coffee on himself, then proceeded to sue the coffee shop.

Ben


If the coffee served was over 180 degrees then the coffee shop was wrong and in a liable position.

No1BroncoFan
06-27-2006, 12:02 PM
If the coffee served was over 180 degrees then the coffee shop was wrong and in a liable position.
The guy intentionally poured coffee on himself with the intention of prosecuting. I don't care if it's 180 or 1,800 degrees, he committed fraud and should have been charged. Instead, he cried in front of a sympathetic jury and got paid.

Ben

manchambo
06-27-2006, 12:34 PM
The guy intentionally poured coffee on himself with the intention of prosecuting. I don't care if it's 180 or 1,800 degrees, he committed fraud and should have been charged. Instead, he cried in front of a sympathetic jury and got paid.

Ben


I never heard about that one, but if that's true, McDonald's clearly was not at fault. He probably only did it because of all the false reporting in the media about the original McDonald's suit, though. so McDonald's should have filed a cross claim against the media.

-Slap-
06-27-2006, 01:45 PM
I never heard about that one, but if that's true, McDonald's clearly was not at fault. He probably only did it because of all the false reporting in the media about the original McDonald's suit, though. so McDonald's should have filed a cross claim against the media.
I haven't heard of this case, either, but apparently it took place in a coffee shop, not a McDonald's.

Northman
06-27-2006, 01:48 PM
Wasnt the original McDonald's coffee thing with a old lady who said it was way too hot. And then when it was investigated the temp was set to high on the coffee machine?