In a complaint filed last Friday in a Florida federal court alleges that former Washington Commanders minority owner Robert Rothman accuses Bank of America ( BOA ) and associated banking companies of engaging in constructive fraud by “surreptitiously ” helping former majority owner Daniel Snyder secure minority shares “at a rate far below market value.” Rothman’s initial complaint filed in December adds to Rothman’s initial complaint, which is now filed in creative fraud. Rothman contends Snyder obtained a$ 55 million payment from BOA in 2018 without proper authorization from the team’s panel, as Sportico detailed at the time. Rothman contends that the Commanders were unable to secure funding in 2020 because the team stopped making monthly distributions to owners as a result of the collapsed economic system. After being informed by BOA that the franchise was worth less than$ 3 billion, Rothman also insists that he sold his shares to Snyder in 2021 for below market value. Two years later, and with BOA as his assistant, Snyder sold the Commanders to a Josh Harris-led party for$ 6. 05 billion. Snyder and the Leaders are not accused in the lawsuit, but both play a significant role in the complaints that are underlying. Dwight Schar and Fred Smith, two different minority owners, and 888 million dollars to Rothman and$ 87 million to Snyder for their combined franchise stake of about 40 million dollars. 5 %. Rothman contends that the bank accused “failed to disclose conflicts of knowledge and withheld information ” from him that may have changed his mind about selling. Additionally, Rothman asserts that the bank defendants provided him with information intended to persuade him to buy. According to Rothman, that price allowed the defendants to continue to “maintain their place with Snyder and the franchise so as to continue to generate substantial profits, fees, attention, and market cache.” Since Snyder purchased the remaining 40, it supposedly strengthened their place regarding Snyder’s personal loan to them. 5 % of the team at an ( allegedly ) discounted rate, would earn a higher profit when selling the team. However, as detailed in a motion to dismissal filed past month, the bank defendants vehemently refute Rothman’s claims and assert that his situation is absurd. They note that Rothman sold his interest for an incredible$ 212. 7 million income, almost a loss even if not the maximum value. As they see it, Rothman’s today suffering from “seller’s remorse”—a harm the legislation does no remedy—since had he held onto his securities, he probably would have netted a higher income. The defendants also assert that Rothman has legally released all possible claims against Snyder, including those against his “agents” and “representatives, ” according to the defendants. The launch was a part of a series of events where Snyder was sued by the majority users in a Maryland judge, followed by the parties using the NFL as a negotiator, and ultimately winning a lawsuit where the complaint was dropped and Snyder, while advised by BOA, bought out the majority owners. According to the defendants, the Rothman transfer broadly governed “any and all claims … actually known or not ” against Snyder and Snyder’s agents and representatives that Snyder “ever had, now have, or hereafter can, may, or may have, for, upon, or by reason of any problem, produce or issue whatsoever from the beginning of time” through the 2021 sale. Additionally, Rothman is accused of making a false causation claim. BOA, the defendants insist, placed “reasonable reliance ” on the “repeated assurances” given by senior Commanders ’ officers that the team’s board had approved the loan in 2018. The defendants contend that it is conjecture to assume that the team would have borrowed the money or used it to pay distributions to Rothman if it had n’t already owed the money, as Rothman claims. Further, the defendants assert that Rothman is unable to relate banking institutions to his alleged financial harm. The defendants contend that Rothman knew the BOA official who shared his opinions was working as an advisor to Snyder, an adverse party because Rothman was the seller and Snyder was the buyer, even though the defendants claim that they “maintained a fiduciary relationship ” with him prior to his sale. The minority owners were also, the defendants assert, “sophisticated investors” who knew, or should have known, what they were doing. They willingly decided to partake in a ‘high-dollar transaction. ” The case is before U. S. Judge of the Magistrates Natalie Adams. Given their roles in franchise transactions that call for the approval of the teams and leagues, Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell are two potential witnesses.