Skip to content

Mark Cuban and Jim Crane want to get paid for losing out on the Rangers

Oct 11, 2010, 10:30 AM EDT

Hey, if you don’t ask for it, you’re never going to get it, right?  SportsBusiness Journal reporting:

Mark Cuban and Jim Crane want payment of $2.65 million in legal fees and
other expenses stemming from their failed bankruptcy bid for the Texas
Rangers in August . . . Cuban and Crane argue that had they not been bidding, the team would
have brought $98 million less at auction than the $593 million price for
which the club was ultimately sold.

As always, I invite the bankruptcy experts among you (and I know there are a few) to weigh in here, but that sounds completely nuts.  If the frustrated bidder in a bankruptcy auction gets paid like that, doesn’t it create a huge incentive for people to bid when they’re not truly interested in winning? Because, believe me, there’s fat built in to any figure for “legal fees and expenses.”  Doesn’t it also artificially inflate the value of the subject of the bidding?  Doesn’t it also take money out of the creditor’s pockets when banckruptcy is supposed to benefit them above all others?

Maybe this has happened before, but I kind of doubt it. It certainly makes Cuban and Crane look like a couple of vultures.

  1. RichardInBigD - Oct 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    This just sounds like Cuban being Cuban. He is after all the Manny of billionaires.

  2. Jonny5 - Oct 11, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    “LOOK” like a couple vultures? Well, of course they would “Look” like vultures. Just as much as a potato looks like a potato. They cannot get this award. If they do it will mark the beginning of the end to our legal system. If that hasn’t already happened, anyway??

  3. f*ck la - Oct 11, 2010 at 11:02 AM

    Craig you’re telling me you wouldnt try to get 98 mil back if you could? Calling them vultures just makes you sound like a hater. Im not saying they should get it back, but you cant knock them for trying.

  4. Jonny5 - Oct 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM

    Ok, but who covers the expense of additional legal expenses occurred by the creditors who were just coming off bankruptcy, where they still lost money mind you, Incurred by a frivolous lawsuit such as this? Sounds like Cuban is ready to throw more money away to test just how royaly screwed up our legal system really is. And the sad part is, he can afford to do it. Is that fair to creditors who got screwed out of money from jumpstreet?

  5. Old Gator - Oct 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    Get it back from who? Yeah, sure, I can see Nolan Ryan saying, why sure Mark, thanks a lot, here are all your legal fees – and a tube of KY Jelly to help you do with them what you can do with them as far as I’m concerned.

  6. bankboy - Oct 11, 2010 at 11:29 AM

    Weren’t they the ones that helped force the open auction? Paying off the losing bidders for what is essentially the cost of their own due diligence is absolutely idiotic.
    You don’t see Christie’s giving the highest losing bidder a cut of the commission just for getting the bid up higher, why do these two think they’re so special?

  7. Detroit Michael - Oct 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    I would think that in most large-scale business written bid situations, the bid specifications would expressly state that bidders assume the cost of preparing their proposals and other costs of pursuing the opportunity that is being bid. If that’s the case, then we don’t need any litigation to determine what the default rule should be.

  8. f*ck la - Oct 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM

    I see your point but its his RIGHT. I dont believe for a second he will win, but i dont have a problem with him trying, i would try to if i were him. Fairness has nothing to do with it, whats fair in life.

  9. Craig Calcaterra - Oct 11, 2010 at 12:05 PM

    If you’re a lawyer, and you file a motion that you “don’t believe for a second you’ll win” there’s a very good chance you’ll be sanctioned. If there is no legal basis for this — and the SBJ article quoted someone saying that there isn’t — it’s frivolous.

  10. f*ck la - Oct 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM

    Good thing for Cuban im not his lawyer.

  11. Granted42 - Oct 11, 2010 at 12:50 PM

    As a capitalist, I’m not bothered by how Cuban got his money, or what he does with it, but if he’s claiming creditors got more money because of his involvement, and therefore, he’s entitled to a cut of the action, he’s pretty much as nutty as he’s accused of being. It’s the cost of doing business, and if he’s awarded any money, he shouldn’t be surprised if the Rangers’ ownership sue him for needlessly driving the price of the club up by $98 million, which would cost him more than he gets.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2363)
  2. B. Crawford (2287)
  3. H. Pence (2244)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2237)
  5. B. Harper (2171)