Round 3: Sale of the team

[G-Daddy]

 

 

Time to start working on another 58 pages.

I'll start....so a priest, rabbi and monk walk into a tavern.....

[GG]

They almost certainly would not, since that could expose the trustees to liability in a suit brought by the beneficiaries of the trust for breaches of their respective fiduciary duties.

 

That being said, it seems more likely than not from all we know that the governing documents of the trust contain some conditions related to keeping the team in Buffalo.

 

And if you had to guess, who do you think the trust beneficiaries are?

[Mike in Horseheads]

And if you had to guess, who do you think the trust beneficiaries are?

LOL.... Family that doesn't want the team, charities that will take anything they can get, Russ for being a good soldier, other friends that will take what they can get. Unless Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones or Jon Blow Me is on that list absolutely nobody is going to take the settlement to court. Edited September 5, 2014 by Mike in Horseheads

[The Wiz]

 

I'll start....so a priest, rabbi and monk walk into a tavern.....

Bartender says why the long face?

 

 

 

 

I think I got that wrong.

[G-Daddy]

Sarah Jessica parker is a rabbi?

[jimmy10]

Jessica Rabbit is a Sarah Parker?

[transient]

Jessica Rabbit is a Sarah Parker?

Matthew Broderick is banging a cartoon character... say whaaaaaaaaaat?

[Go Kiko go]

And if you had to guess, who do you think the trust beneficiaries are?

You've never heard of close family members squabbling over how a dear dead relative's estate is to be distributed? Relatives nearly come to blows over who's going to get the bedroom set; this is a billion-dollar asset, the decisions the trustees make could affect each beneficiary's share by tens of millions of dollars, and the rules the trustees have to follow, if any, are clearly spelled out in the declaration of trust and therefore easy to verify, or litigate. I'm confident that the trustees are doing exactly what Proskauer tells them to do, and they're not going to impose a condition on a high-profile disposition of a valuable and unique asset that they invented out of whole cloth at the risk of being personally liable to the beneficiaries for any loss they cause.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Go Kiko go

[K-9]

You've never heard of close family members squabbling over how a dear dead relative's estate is to be distributed? Relatives nearly come to blows over who's going to get the bedroom set; this is a billion-dollar asset, the decisions the trustees make could affect each beneficiary's share by tens of millions of dollars, and the rules the trustees have to follow, if any, are clearly spelled out in the declaration of trust and therefore easy to verify, or litigate. I'm confident that the trustees are doing exactly what Proskauer tells them to do, and they're not going to impose a condition on a high-profile disposition of a valuable and unique asset that they invented out of whole cloth at the risk of being personally liable to the beneficiaries for any loss they cause.

 

There was an article a few weeks back quoting a lawyer that reviewed the will and his professional opinion based on that review along with how the trust was structured with the four voting members, was that the trust is likely to be set up as non-charitable, which would mean they wouldn't be liable if they sold assets for less than optimum value.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

You've never heard of close family members squabbling over how a dear dead relative's estate is to be distributed? Relatives nearly come to blows over who's going to get the bedroom set; this is a billion-dollar asset, the decisions the trustees make could affect each beneficiary's share by tens of millions of dollars, and the rules the trustees have to follow, if any, are clearly spelled out in the declaration of trust and therefore easy to verify, or litigate. I'm confident that the trustees are doing exactly what Proskauer tells them to do, and they're not going to impose a condition on a high-profile disposition of a valuable and unique asset that they invented out of whole cloth at the risk of being personally liable to the beneficiaries for any loss they cause.

 

If Ralph's decedents had included a large extended family which had been estranged from him, that may, somehow, maybe, potentially been a possibility. But considering that he could have simply left his estate to his wife, free and clear of any taxes and let her decide to do with it whatever she chooses, it's highly reasonable to believe that the trust was put in place to dispose the assets in the manner which he wanted. The selection of the trustees was not a happenstance and the way the estate is being settled appears to be very deliberate.

 

Where are all the gold diggers objecting to the Sotheby's sale of Expressionist paintings? The sale proceeds came in at the low end of the estimates.

[Go Kiko go]

There was an article a few weeks back quoting a lawyer that reviewed the will and his professional opinion based on that review along with how the trust was structured with the four voting members, was that the trust is likely to be set up as non-charitable, which would mean they wouldn't be liable if they sold assets for less than optimum value.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I'd be interested to see the article, but generally speaking whether a trust is charitable or non-charitable has no effect on the nature of the trustees' duties vis a vis the trust corpus. Just to take this argument to its logical extreme, could the trustees sell the Bills for $10?

 

If Ralph's decedents had included a large extended family which had been estranged from him, that may, somehow, maybe, potentially been a possibility. But considering that he could have simply left his estate to his wife, free and clear of any taxes and let her decide to do with it whatever she chooses, it's highly reasonable to believe that the trust was put in place to dispose the assets in the manner which he wanted. The selection of the trustees was not a happenstance and the way the estate is being settled appears to be very deliberate.

 

Where are all the gold diggers objecting to the Sotheby's sale of Expressionist paintings? The sale proceeds came in at the low end of the estimates.

I completely agree that Ralph Wilson would have put the trust in place to dispose of his assets in the manner he intended. What I doubt is that, if he intended to impose conditions on the sale of the Bills, he would have left the declaration of trust silent as to this matter and simply hoped that the trustees would decide to impose these conditions themselves. Again, doing so would be a breach of the trustees' duties and could expose the trustees to significant personal liability, risk extensive litigation, and threaten the orderly disposition of the trust corpus. It's simply beyond the bounds of reason that the trustees would act in this manner; Proskauer would not sanction this course of action and would likely terminate their representation in quite a noisy fashion.

 

With regard to the paintings, there is no indication that the executor of Ralph Wilson's estate in any way breached his or her duties. Whether or not a fiduciary properly disposed of their duties is not measured by the outcome of a disposition of an asset; it's measured by the fiduciary's course of conduct. Here, the paintings were sold at a public auction by one of the most prominent auction houses in the world. Which part of that sale demonstrates anything less than an attempt to maximize the proceeds that could be distributed to the beneficiaries?

[K-9]

I'd be interested to see the article, but generally speaking whether a trust is charitable or non-charitable has no effect on the nature of the trustees' duties vis a vis the trust corpus. Just to take this argument to its logical extreme, could the trustees sell the Bills for $10?

 

If it's a non-charitable trust and 3/4 of the voting trust agrees, then yes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

 

 

 

 

There was an article a few weeks back quoting a lawyer that reviewed the will and his professional opinion based on that review along with how the trust was structured with the four voting members, was that the trust is likely to be set up as non-charitable, which would mean they wouldn't be liable if they sold assets for less than optimum value.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

If a lawyer reviewed the will isn't there an ethical breach on commenting directly or anonymously on the will that is supposed to be confidential? I wouldn't be surprised that lawyers are giving their opinions on how they believe the will is structured from what is already known from the on going implementation of the franchise sale. But having a lawyer publicly or privately commenting on a document that he/she reviewed doesn't seem to me to be ethical.

 

I don't doubt that your comments based on what you read is accurate. But my inclination is that the lawyer giving the opinion in the article didn't directly review the douments. The people involved with the estate sale have done a masterful job of maintaining confidentiality and in smoothly implementing the will.

 

 

 

 

 

[uncle flap]

The will is a public document. Trusts may or may not be public, and usually aren't. Here's the will: http://www.buffalone...F/BN7172731.pdf

 

And here's the article I think the op is referring to: http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140731

Edited September 7, 2014 by uncle flap

[The Dean]

The will is a public document. Trusts may or may not be public, and usually aren't. Here's the will: http://www.buffalone...F/BN7172731.pdf

 

And here's the article I think the op is referring to: http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140731

 

I don't quite get this back and forth. We have no idea what the trust says. There is no reason to think the wording of the trust would be leaked, as there are probably a very few, highly invested, people who know the wording of the trust.

 

But whether the trust requires the sale go to a person committed to keeping the team in WNY, or that was simply a verbal instructions to them, or that is something the trust, on their own decided Ralph would want---the end result is still the same, No? Trying to guess about things you don't know seems unproductive.

Edited September 7, 2014 by The Dean

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

The will is a public document. Trusts may or may not be public, and usually aren't. Here's the will: http://www.buffalone...F/BN7172731.pdf

 

And here's the article I think the op is referring to: http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140731

Because those sources confirm that Ralph's will is governed by Michigan law, this seems like an appropriate time and place to post a link to my brother Darryl's guide to getting a copy of Ralph's trust under Michigan law:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/167450-my-brother-darryls-guide-to-getting-a-copy-of-ralphs-trust/page__hl__%2Bbrother+%2Bdarryl%26%2339%3Bs+%2Bguide

 

Re-posted here in hopes that any reporter, blogger or other interested party might find it helpful when trying to uncover the otherwise private terms of Ralph's trust agreement. Unlikely to be of any use, but since I don't know Ralph's family dynamics, it's possible some disgruntled beneficiary of the trust might be cooperative. Under certain conditions, Michigan law requires the trustees to provide information about the trust to any beneficiary who requests it, even if the trust agreement instructs the trustees to keep it confidential.

Edited September 7, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[JohnC]

The will is a public document. Trusts may or may not be public, and usually aren't. Here's the will: http://www.buffalone...F/BN7172731.pdf

 

And here's the article I think the op is referring to: http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140731

 

Thank you. That clarifies it for me. The difference between the will and trust. Different rules governing different entities.

[FluffHead]

@JasonLaCanfora: Everything still on target for the Pegulas to land the Bills next month: http://t.co/yGaihJepDd

[jimmy10]

@JasonLaCanfora: Everything still on target for the Pegulas to land the Bills next month: http://t.co/yGaihJepDd

 

Uh oh. With the hatchet job LaCanfora did on Doug E. Fresh, can we trust this article? Will the Bills now be relocated to Honolulu?

[thebandit27]

@JasonLaCanfora: Everything still on target for the Pegulas to land the Bills next month: http://t.co/yGaihJepDd

 

I didn't read the link, but from the tweet I'd say he's right on target.

 

Things are lining up right on schedule.