Control of an NBA company and a WNBA company is also on the ballot, at least the votes of three judges tasked with deciding the future of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Minnesota Lynx, though power of two trees of the federal government is the most crucial matter in America this year.
A confidential arbitration proceeding involving Wilson Sonsini partner Joseph R. Slights III will be presided over by retired Hennepin County ( Minn. ) District Court Judge Thomas Fraser, retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Kathleen Blatz, and retired Wilson Sonsini partner Kathleen R. Slights III. Glen Taylor, the present owners of the Timberwolves, and Alex Rodriguez and Marc Lore, the group’s masters, both assert ownership.

The debate stems from a typically occurring purchase agreement in 2021, which included a$ 1.5 billion order of the Timberwolves and Lynx from Taylor. Instead of a purchase-and-sale that, pending NBA acceptance, would have transferred a controlling interest to Rodriguez and Lore, the offer contemplated various levels of repayment and a gradual transfer of ownership. This structure is known as a stacked sales. The first two phases were successfully completed by the two parties, but the second stage flopped. They disagree on whether Rodriguez and Lore made the necessary payments on time, and if not, whether the agreement could be voided.
Their contract contemplated other dispute mechanisms, including mediation, to handle any legal conflict. Business owners often prefer mediation, which is personal and frequently overseen by experts, to litigation. The latter can convince individuals to testify as witnesses to vulnerable issues and require the people to share emails, texts, and other communications that they would prefer to keep secret. Additionally, a jury made up of individuals who are unfamiliar with the subject matter or include pertinent knowledge can have the final say in dispute.
The NBA has an obvious interest in the Timberwolves debate but is not a party to it. Owners of NBA franchises have ultimate authority over whether capital is transferred, but they can agree to sell it to would-be buyers. The NBA law specifies in detail how the approval process works, including the condition that at least three-quarters of the groups approve. As Sportico reported, Taylor subpoenaed the NBA a couple of months ago in hopes of obtaining evidence that supports his legal view. The equity dispute between the Timberwolves and the NBA may raise questions about layered brand sales, which is important given that the Boston Celtics are up for sale.
The arbitration panel features one person picked by Taylor ( Blatz ), one by Rodriguez/Lore ( Slights ) and a neutral person ( Fraser ). All three have distinguished legitimate careers as lawyers and professionals. All have activities laws relations, too. In the late 2010s, Blutz was the time head of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, Insults was the vice president of Delaware’s Court of Chancery, and Fraser was an counsel in Reggie White v. NFL, an antitrust case that had a significant impact on the right of NFL players to free agency.

The three arbitrators will try to recreate history as closely as they can before hearings from parties ‘ representatives. The most important task for the arbitrators is determining the parties ‘ intentions regarding their agreement. While the conflict involves billionaires and the fate of the NBA franchise, it is a common type of conflict: disagreement over how to interpret contract language.
Arbitration resembles a courtroom proceeding in that rival parties present opposing arguments to a decision-maker, but there are many differences. For one, the setting will be a lot different. Arbitration usually takes place in an office or conference room and not the more intense, even intimidating, courtroom venue. Arbitration proceedings are typically less formal and more flexible, including regarding the admissibility of evidence. Arbitration has the opposite effect, with more of a facilitated discussion of opposing viewpoints than the tightly controlled and stringent debate that frequently occurs in courtrooms.
There will also be no judge or jurors for Taylor and Rodriguez/Lore’s attorneys to persuade. The three arbitrators, two of whom have been chosen by opposing sides and have a bias toward that side, will be their audience. In a variety of ways, the arbitrators are different from regular jurors. They are well-versed in the law and how it ought to apply to the facts, and they are experienced attorneys with that knowledge. In contrast, a typical juror is not well-versed in legal reasoning; in fact, this trait frequently causes a person who has been chosen for possible jury duty to be fired because they might sway jurors. Taylor, Rodriguez, and Lore’s attorneys will need to develop their arguments and persuasive writing accordingly.
If the losing party attempts to challenge the decision in court, the arbitrators ‘ expertise will also become crucial. A judge would be sure to give them deference.
A party may ask the court to revoke the arbitration award ( decision ), but arbitration is intended to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The petitioning party typically faces difficult circumstances, and the effort can turn out to be costly. However, it would not be surprising to see the loser mount an effort given the financial resources of Taylor, Rodriguez, and Lore, and given the stakes of ownership of an NBA team and a WNBA team.
A court would need to come up with a compelling argument for the loser to overturn the arbitration decision. One possible defense might be that the arbitrators abused their contractual authority. The arbitration agreement likely includes information on the rules of procedure and the types of disputes that the arbitrators may decide. A court might be inclined to revoke the decision if it appears the arbitrators went beyond those boundaries.
Another possible defense is that the arbitrators ‘ decision is irrational given the evidence and testimony, or that they rely on sources and insights that are inapplicable or vulnerable to bias. If an arbitrator’s decision to exclude relevant evidence and other materials appears to be egregiously incorrect in light of fundamental legal principles, the decision could also serve as the foundation for a petition to be voided.
To be clear, none of those rationales would likely succeed. Although courts are not supposed to “rubber stamp” the interpretations of arbitrators, judges have acknowledged the review process is “highly deferential”. Judges have described the grant of motions to vacate as “rare” or “exceedingly rare.” However, a contest to the arbitration award would lengthen the legal dispute over the Timberwolves ‘ ownership by several months and possibly even more. Fans of the Timberwolves and Lynx, as well as the NBA itself, will be watching.
Eben Novy-Williams contributed to this column.