turk128 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 7:04 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said: TNA has a very decent roster. If Dixie is gone, a new name, get some experienced wrestling minds in there, and don't try to be WWE lite; there could be something. Basically, tear down the condemned building and rebuild on the same spot. So Shane should swoop in and buy TNA from under everyone and gentrify it? TNA with a strict dress code of tight jeans, plaid shirt , and beards would (at the very least) be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 3 hours ago, turk128 said: So Shane should swoop in and buy TNA from under everyone and gentrify it? TNA with a strict dress code of tight jeans, plaid shirt , and beards would (at the very least) be interesting. No, preferably someone not connected to WWE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 Meltzer Update from radio show - Judge ruling today. - Injunction would prevent TNA from being able to do anything legally until basically Billy is allowed control - Dave says it is weird because Anthem (Fight Network's parent company) isn't putting money into the company until Billy goes away. - There is a Tennessee law that prevents allowing the type of deal that TNA and Billy made (The whole Billy gets control if they are insolvent thing). So yes - TNA's whole defense is based around them saying "We had him sign an illegal agreement" (The TNA seems to be arguing that Billy made them sign it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spritenaut 32 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I don't really care who gets control of the company, but I'm going to be disappointed if the judge doesn't do the right thing and make them settle this (cue announcer voice) ...INSIDE A STEEL CAGE! A 5-vs-5 elimination match with handpicked teams or TNA's signature match - contract on a pole - would also be acceptable. I'm not unreasonable. Granted, there's probably not a lot of legal precedent for settling this case in the ring. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimo Necro Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Sure there is, the case of McMahon v McMahon, Connecticut, at any point in the late 90's early 00's for control of the company settled within a wrestling ring. Part of me wishes this had happened 10 years earlier then we could have had TNA fans doing the Bentley Bounce in the front row of the gallery, leading to multiple contempt of court charges. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoBaltimore Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 What time is this supposed to start? I need to know when to make some popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, NikoBaltimore said: What time is this supposed to start? I need to know when to make some popcorn. No specific time. There isn't anything on the docket so it literally could be in 5 minutes or it could be at 4:59 PM Also remember - there is no hearing today. Just a release of the ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Whatever happened to Bischoff's kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, nate said: Whatever happened to Bischoff's kid? It doesn't look like he has wrestled since last year as it looks like he got a full time gig (it appears he is a firearms instructor now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zev Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 11 hours ago, turk128 said: So Shane should swoop in and buy TNA from under everyone and gentrify it? TNA with a strict dress code of tight jeans, plaid shirt , and beards would (at the very least) be interesting. So you'd want a Best of 17 between Aron Rex and Eli Drake, and no Knockouts division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 And there it is Zombie TNA continues on status quo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 Just to note - as pointed out by PWI Quote This does not mean the end of Corgan's lawsuit against the company and TNA will still have to repay Corgan's loan of $1.8 million, unless Corgan opts to convert that debt into a 36% ownership stake in the company. But it does mean TNA can do whatever the fuck it wants aka ruining all its value for all other bidders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 "And that is why TNA can not be killed by conventional weapons..." 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJ Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 22 minutes ago, RIPPA said: But it does mean TNA can do whatever the fuck it wants aka ruining all its value for all other bidders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 20 minutes ago, RIPPA said: Just to note - as pointed out by PWI But it does mean TNA can do whatever the fuck it wants aka ruining all its value for all other bidders They owe him 5.4 million. The 1.8 is per taping cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Can he take any further action because they screwed him with an illegal contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 It's amazing that TNA manages to defy Murphy's Law time and time again. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimo Necro Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Raziel403 said: "And that is why TNA can not be killed by conventional weapons..." Laughing so hard at that! You just know Del Preston had to beat an Indian shopkeeper to death on one of those TNA India tours. "I needed 3,000 brown m&ms or Abyss wouldn't go out and wrestle that night" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoBaltimore Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I guess I can see why they ruled in TNA's favor on this one, but it still drives me mad that even when they had the chance of sweet death to take them out of their misery the judge prolongs the rotting carcass anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 I will post the whole thing when I get home but basically 1) Billy didn't prove enough to get ruling in his favor 2) Contract giving Billy control if TNA is insolvent is illegal in TN 3) Hard to prove TNA is insolvent now because they were already in financial turmoil when Billy got there The judge did basically say that it wasn't buying TNA's argument just that Billy didn't prove his Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Quote PWInsider.com has acquired the 19 page ruling issued by The Nashville Chancery Court this afternoon denying TNA President Billy Corgan's request for a temporary injunction against TNA, Dixie Carter, etc. and resolving the temporary restraining order against them. In the ruling, Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle wrote that she denied Corgan's request for several reasons. The Chancellor noted that in order for Corgan to be entitled to a temporary injunction under Tennessee law, he has to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, immediate and irreparable harm, a balancing of the equity in the company in his favor and that issuing the injunction would not be harmful to the public interest. However, the court noted that Corgan did not prove that TNA's defense is without merit, that a default actually happened under the Pledge Agreement between himself and Dixie Carter, that such a default would rightfully mean that Corgan could gain control of Carter's voting rights and that the amount owed and payable to Corgan has increased due to a corporate transaction. So, since the court was not in 100% agreement with Corgan's claims, they would not file the injunction against Carter and the other defendants. The Court also agreed with TNA's attorneys when they argued last week that the Voting Rights Provision of the Pledge Agreement between Corgan and Carter was "not implemented in accordance with TN Law" and the TN LLC Operating Agreement, therefore it was "unenforceable" and Corgan could not remove Dixie and the other Impact Venture management members. On the subject of TNA parent company Impact Ventures being insolvent, Hobbs noted, "there has not been demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merit because of the operative text of the Pledge Agreement 'becomes insolvent' is ambiguous when applied to the facts of record." Since the court rules on hard facts and hard facts alone, they have to go by what the definition of insolvent is in the actual Pledge Agreement. Since that is not spelled out in plain English with hard context as to what would and would not be insolvent, the court will not issue a ruling that the company is since there is no clear definition of what the term means in conjunction with the Agreement. It was noted in the response that the court "does not adopt" TNA's argument that the potential money coming in from potential "purchasers to buy the LLC or some of its assets refutes the facts and insolvency standards" that Corgan presented. The court noted that because of the unique facts of his case, the usual process that Corgan used and that the court itself might use did not apply. Noting that all the parties entered into the Pledge Agreement because TNA had financial issues, it is therefore hard to define that the company had become insolvent, because the company was already in "financial trouble and distress" when Corgan stepped in, noting that even TNA CFO Dean Broadhead stated on the record that without Corgan's help, "all would have been lost." In her ruling. Hobbs stated, "Thus, the context of facts of the LLC's financial distress at the time the insolvency default provision of the Pledge Agreement was entered into by the parties in August 2016 creates an ambiguity about the meaning of the text of the provision that a default occurs under the Pledge Agreement 'if' the LLC 'becomes insolvent.' " So, the court is stating that Corgan cannot prove that TNA is insolvent now because the company was in such bad shape that they entered into the agreement with him and there's no way - at thus juncture - to truly prove they are worse off now than they were in August because of the wording of the agreement. It was noted that it is "not clearly established on the record" that the Defendants "have breached" their agreement with Corgan "by withholding or concealing information." The court noted that Corgan has a version of the facts and TNA has another and there is no clear proof at this juncture which side is correct. The court noted that Corgan may be able to win at trial if he provides the proper evidence, but at this point, he cannot provide hard proof that they breached his agreement. The court also ruled that the preliminary evidence filed on record that does not prove that there has been an acquisition of TNA and it's parent company by another party, so there is no current reason for Corgan to be owed the additional Corporate Transaction fee (which is believed, based on statements made in open court last week, to be an additional $900,000). Corgan is still free to go forward with his lawsuit. That is not dead. TNA is also still required, contractually, to pay Corgan back his loan of $1.8 million on 11/1. They can still do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 There's ya go @Ace it appears that the 1.8 million is due tomorrow. The rest is later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 What if they don't pay that tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoBaltimore Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Matt D said: What if they don't pay that tomorrow? It's been on record that they had the money to pay him, but were hoping he didn't go through with unsealing documents. It was basically a "Take the money and leave" type of thing. But after all that if they don't pay him, then they're in deeper shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts