[USML Announce] Rights to Reclaim FAAB -- Issue #1
john.fruit at usbank.com
john.fruit at usbank.com
Tue Feb 10 11:17:11 EST 2004
I would support Version 2- the date the trade is announced should take
precedence.
P.S. Buddha- I think us financial guys are safe from having to craft legal
sounding addendums.
"Jim Barrett"
<chicagojab at yahoo To: "USML Announcements" <announce at usml.net>
.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Rights to Reclaim FAAB -- Issue #1
announce-bounces@
usml.net
02/10/2004 09:57
AM
Please respond to
"USML
Announcements"
I would support option 2 but if option 1 is accepted by the group then I
think we also need to add a provision allowing the losing owner to void the
trade. I'd draft a provision now but am running late. If someone else
wants to take a shot, fine. Otherwise I'll try to draft something over the
next few days.
"Robbins, Richard" <rrobbins at Sidley.com> wrote:
Here are two versions of the insert to Section 14.6 to address the first
issue raised by Jeff yesterday afternoon.
The first version limits the ability to claim FAAB to the League team that
actually has the player on its roster when the NL trade takes place. This
would preclude a team that had done a trade for the player earlier in the
reporting period from getting the FAAB money. The second version would
give effect to the USML trade so long as the trade is announced to the
league generally.
Version 1:
The right to have funds added to a team's FAAB is limited to the League
team on whose roster the player appears when the player is traded to the
National League.
Version 2:
The right to have funds added to a team's FAAB is limited to the League
team on whose roster the player appears when the player is traded to the
National League, provided, that for the limited purpose of this Section
14.6, a trade between League teams shall be given effect as of the time
that the trade is generally announced to the League.
Do these alternatives seem to frame the issue properly? If not, please
suggest revisions.
Assuming that the alternatives at least frame the issue properly, I will
support the second version.
I hope that somebody will keep track of league sentiment on this issue and
let us know what the tally is.
I hope that Jeff or someone else will draft text to accompany the other
issue Jeff raised -- don't assume that I will get around to it.
-- Rich
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations
on 02/10/2004, 09:41:46 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
More information about the Announce
mailing list