NBA to get Kings minority stake w/ Cook bankruptcy?

[PurpleHaze]

http://www.kcra.com/news/30980829/detail.html

 

[Purple Reign]

I'm sorry, I am not quite smart enough to know what exactly this means. I mean it sounds very juicy, very salacious, but at the end of the day, I am not sure if this impacts ownership enough to give us what we all want....NEW OWNERS!!!

 

[gunks]

...And so it begins (hopefully).

 

[VF21]

The whole Robert Cook bankruptcy situation has been known for quite a while. The real teaser is who sold him the $10 million in shares. (Could George have done it for some quick cash and now realizes he has to deny any knowledge of it?) If part of the Maloof shares are tied up as collateral for the loan from Sacramento, and part of their shares are tied up as collateral for what they owe the NBA, then are they truly majority owners if those loans aren't paid off? And how many minority owners would be wiling to band together?

I am now officially intrigued.

EDIT: Never mind. Capt. Factorial has the facts a couple of posts below this. So much for idle speculation and my own "rush to judgment." My bad.

 

[Livinthedream]

What does it all mean??????

How does someone buy 3% of your most important business and you don't know anything about it? Are they ignorant, negligent, or liars? All of the above? What are the repercussions? Very intriguing indeed.

 

[The Hammer]

If the Maloofs sold him the shares illegally for some quick cash, could this also be another strike against the Maloofs to enact some more leverage to get them out of the league?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

What does it all mean??????

How does someone buy 3% of your most important business and you don't know anything about it? Are they ignorant, negligent, or liars? All of the above? What are the repercussions? Very intriguing indeed.

From reading the court documents, it appears that the Benvenutis were looking to sell some of their minority ownership in 2005. Cook found out about this, but it turns out that the rules required the majority owners (the Maloofs) to be informed about the potential sale. Cook did not want the Maloofs informed because he did not want them to buy the shares (they may hae had the right of first refusal, but I'm not sure on that). So Cook and the Benvenutis went behind the Maloofs' backs and made a complicated loan transaction to try to transfer the shares without the Maloofs knowing about it. This was done, and Cook bought an additional ~2%. Now that Cook is in bankruptcy, it appears he is arguing that the transaction that he initiated was illegal, so he doesn't owe money to the group with whom he created the contrived loan.

At least, that's what I get out of it.

Long story short, the Maloofs didn't know because the other parties deliberately hid it from them. But it doesn't look like there's anything here that will help the Maloofs go away. It's wrangling about minority shares sold between minority partners.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If the Maloofs sold him the shares illegally for some quick cash, could this also be another strike against the Maloofs to enact some more leverage to get them out of the league?

Not what happened. Read my post above.

 

[Livinthedream]

From reading the court documents, it appears that the Benvenutis were looking to sell some of their minority ownership in 2005. Cook found out about this, but it turns out that the rules required the majority owners (the Maloofs) to be informed about the potential sale. Cook did not want the Maloofs informed because he did not want them to buy the shares (they may hae had the right of first refusal, but I'm not sure on that). So Cook and the Benvenutis went behind the Maloofs' backs and made a complicated loan transaction to try to transfer the shares without the Maloofs knowing about it. This was done, and Cook bought an additional ~2%. Now that Cook is in bankruptcy, it appears he is arguing that the transaction that he initiated was illegal, so he doesn't owe money to the group with whom he created the contrived loan.

At least, that's what I get out of it.

Long story short, the Maloofs didn't know because the other parties deliberately hid it from them. But it doesn't look like there's anything here that will help the Maloofs go away. It's wrangling about minority shares sold between minority partners.

At what point should the Maloofs have figured it out and done something about it in one way or another? Are the Maloofs running the Kings or not? It's their business to know who owns their business.

 

[The Hammer]

Not what happened. Read my post above.

Oh ok. Oh well.

 

[VF21]

From reading the court documents, it appears that the Benvenutis were looking to sell some of their minority ownership in 2005. Cook found out about this, but it turns out that the rules required the majority owners (the Maloofs) to be informed about the potential sale. Cook did not want the Maloofs informed because he did not want them to buy the shares (they may hae had the right of first refusal, but I'm not sure on that). So Cook and the Benvenutis went behind the Maloofs' backs and made a complicated loan transaction to try to transfer the shares without the Maloofs knowing about it. This was done, and Cook bought an additional ~2%. Now that Cook is in bankruptcy, it appears he is arguing that the transaction that he initiated was illegal, so he doesn't owe money to the group with whom he created the contrived loan.

At least, that's what I get out of it.

Long story short, the Maloofs didn't know because the other parties deliberately hid it from them. But it doesn't look like there's anything here that will help the Maloofs go away. It's wrangling about minority shares sold between minority partners.

Thanks, Capt.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

At what point should the Maloofs have figured it out and done something about it in one way or another? Are the Maloofs running the Kings or not? It's their business to know who owns their business.

I don't know. But I imagine that if two parties conspire to do something and deliberately hide it from you, then maybe it's a bit forgivable if you don't know about it. I'm not sure how they would be expected to find out about this, either:

Gavin: "Hey, Joe Benvenuti! Did you sell any of your shares in the Kings without telling us like you're supposed to?"
Joe Benvenuti: "No."
Gavin: "OK, just checking. I'll call you tomorrow and ask again. 'Til then!"

I mean, how do you find out about something like that? You can't just Google it.

 

[Warhawk]

I don't know. But I imagine that if two parties conspire to do something and deliberately hide it from you, then maybe it's a bit forgivable if you don't know about it. I'm not sure how they would be expected to find out about this, either:

Gavin: "Hey, Joe Benvenuti! Did you sell any of your shares in the Kings without telling us like you're supposed to?"
Joe Benvenuti: "No."
Gavin: "OK, just checking. I'll call you tomorrow and ask again. 'Til then!"

I mean, how do you find out about something like that? You can't just Google it.

This had me laughing. Well done, my good man!

 

[Livinthedream]

I don't know. But I imagine that if two parties conspire to do something and deliberately hide it from you, then maybe it's a bit forgivable if you don't know about it. I'm not sure how they would be expected to find out about this, either:

Gavin: "Hey, Joe Benvenuti! Did you sell any of your shares in the Kings without telling us like you're supposed to?"
Joe Benvenuti: "No."
Gavin: "OK, just checking. I'll call you tomorrow and ask again. 'Til then!"

I mean, how do you find out about something like that? You can't just Google it.

I hear you. But then theoretically, the entire 47% minority share of the team could be sold behind the Maloofs back and they wouldn't be responsible for knowing about it if nobody told them. I know that's an extreme example, but at what point are the Maloofs responsible for knowing about their business is what I'm saying. If it was 10% of the team, would that be different? How often is this happening to other teams? I don't give the Maloofs a pass on this because losing track of 3% of your team could mean the difference between being majority owners and being the victim of a hostile takeover. It's food for thought.

At the very least, this another black eye for the Maloofs as far as perception about their ability to effectively manage and control a business. If the league is building a case against the Maloofs, this can only help.

 

[Section 101]

A think a point that's missing here is Cook was already a minority owner. He bought them to keep them away from the Maloofs. He's a good guy here !

 

[kennadog]

I hear you. But then theoretically, the entire 47% minority share of the team could be sold behind the Maloofs back and they wouldn't be responsible for knowing about it if nobody told them. I know that's an extreme example, but at what point are the Maloofs responsible for knowing about their business is what I'm saying. If it was 10% of the team, would that be different? How often is this happening to other teams? I don't give the Maloofs a pass on this because losing track of 3% of your team could mean the difference between being majority owners and being the victim of a hostile takeover. It's food for thought.

At the very least, this another black eye for the Maloofs as far as perception about their ability to effectively manage and control a business. If the league is building a case against the Maloofs, this can only help.

As much as I hate the Maloofs, there is no way they could find out, if someone illegally hid the sale from them.

God what a mess this team is and its the fans who are suffering for the actions of all these bozos.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Thanks, Capt.

Yeah...unfortunately nothing that will help Sacramento out in any way.