UFC antitrust lawsuit gets trial date after judge denies initial settlement agreement
An initial settlement agreement between the UFC and the plaintiffs in a decade-long class action lawsuit was rejected by the presiding judge and will now go to trial.
First broken late Tuesday night out of Las Vegas, judge Richard Boulware denied approving the $335 million settlement from March 20th and set a trial date of October 28th for the Cung Le vs. Zuffa suit with the separate Kajan Johnson vs. Zuffa lawsuit to proceed separately.
A status conference between all parties in Le vs. Zuffa is set for August 19th. It is possible the initial trial date gets pushed back depending on the arguments given as to why.
The reason for the rejection is that Boulware feels the settlement dollars should be higher and is looking for “major contractual changes” in the Johnson case, according to MMA legal expert Erik Magraken.
In a statement to POST Wrestling, plaintiff attorney Eric Cramer stated, “Plaintiffs respect the Court’s ruling rejecting the proposed global resolution of the Le and Johnson cases, and accordingly will be moving forward full speed on all fronts as directed by the Court…We are also open to reengaging with the UFC to see whether the parties could reach a settlement building off of the momentum achieved in the prior settlement.”
Later via an SEC filing, TKO released their own statement, saying they are evaluating all options including more settlement talks with the plaintiffs.
After the aforementioned settlement was reached, there were questions about why the financial number was much lower than initially expected given the $1.6 billion that was originally sought for by plaintiffs like Le, Nate Quarry, Brandon Vera, Kyle Kingsbury, Jon Fitch and others.
As has been reported by experts, both sides are looking to avoid a trial.
For the plaintiffs, a loss would mean both the fighters and their legal team would get nothing in terms of revenue for their decade of work. For the UFC (now owned by TKO), the potential of a trial could open up the increased risk of a much larger financial payout if they lose which could affect their stock price at a bi-product.
A win in a trial would require a unanimous jury verdict and likely a lengthy appeals process which would further delay any money being paid out.
Originally filed by Le in 2014, the antitrust suit included as many as 1200 fighters that competed in the UFC at least once between December 16, 2010, through June 30, 2017 and didn’t opt out of the suit. They collectively sued the UFC for lost wages and back pay, claiming the UFC signed them into long-term agreements and then bought up all of their competition, stifling the market.
The Johnson case is similar in nature, but covers a different time frame: after fighters had signed waivers against being part of a class action lawsuit. The Johnson case is also looking for injunctive relief in addition to damages which would change how future contracts could be written. The Le case is seeking just damages.