The Spence-James Spar Reminds Us Contracts Are Key

By Gregory M. Smith, Esq.


Although boxing is a global sport in which participants can generate fortunes in a single night, those in the business recognize that boxing a small community where deals are often based on long-standing relationships. More than occasionally, this leads to handshake deals or poorly drafted contracts prepared by unsophisticated parties.


A pair of recent lawsuits filed between former world champion Errol Spence Jr. and his trainer, Derrick James, underscore the ways a verbal agreement can lead to problems. The lawsuits, both filed in Dallas County, Texas, on April 17, 2024, each allege that for 29 bouts over 11 years, James trained Spence and, pursuant to an oral agreement, Spence paid James 10% of his purse money.


James’ suit (No. DC-24-05605) alleges that following Spence’s July 29, 2023 bout against Terrence Crawford, Spence paid James only $350,000–less than 2% of the $25,000,000 Spence earned for the bout. James alleges that the shortfall caused him to question whether or not he had actually been paid 10% of Spences full earnings for any of his prior pay-per-view bouts. James’ suit also alleges that he is due at least 5 million dollars, from not only the Crawford fight, but also, Spence’s prior fights with Mikey Garcia, Shawn Porter, Danny Garcia, and Yordenis Ugas.


The account in Spence’s lawsuit (No. DC-24-05598) is not materially different, but it alleges that the agreed upon 10% was never to be calculated from Spence’s total pay for any fight, but only from his fight purse. Spence’s suit does not seek damages from James, only a court order confirming his interpretation of the parties’ oral agreement.


At this point, with no evidence or testimony, it is impossible to know who might win the pending lawsuits. However, it is clear that this situation could have been avoided with a well-written agreement that specified not just that Spence would pay James 10%, but more specifically what that 10% would be calculated from – guaranteed purse or total compensation. A well-written agreement might also have provided the parties with audit rights so that disputes as to how much money Spence actually receive for each bout could be resolved without heading to court. Although James and Spence would have each paid modest legal fees to have such an agreement drafted, they will certainly each spend several times more money on their lawsuits.


Gregory M. Smith is a business litigator who often presents professional boxers. He is general counsel for Canelo Alvarez, and has represented champions, including Sugar Shane Mosley, George Kambosos Jr., Franchon Crews-Dezurn, Andy Cruz, and Luis Nery, and contenders including Filip Hrgovic, Edgar Berlanga, Richardson Hitchins, Xander Zayas.

California Court of Appeal Reminds LLCs and Title Companies to Do Their Due Diligence

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s decision in a real estate fraud case involving a two-partner limited liability company. The court’s decision underscores the importance of conducting thorough title research in real estate transactions and the potential liability of the escrow agents and title companies involved in these transactions. The case demonstrates that thorough research, diligent documentation, and proactive legal counsel are essential to preventing disputes and protecting clients’ rights in the event of litigation.


The Facts


Sam v. Kwan et al., 4/19/24 CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) concerns a dispute between Anthony Sam and Renee Kwan, who formed a limited liability company (“2013 LLC”) to buy a parking lot. Sam and Kwan were named as the company’s managers. Kwan’s company owned 49% of the LLC. Sam controlled three other companies that owned the remaining 51% of the company. 2013 LLC bought a parking lot in 2014, and Sam signed two recorded documents in the parking lot’s chain of title identifying himself as the company’s manager.


The business relationship between Sam and Kwan deteriorated. In 2015, Kwan negotiated the sale of the parking lot to the Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners for the City of Los Angeles (“Board”) for $3.8 million. The Board used a law firm as outside counsel and First American Title Company (“First American”) as the title insurer and escrow agent for the real estate transaction.


Sam alleged this sale was done without his knowledge, and that Kwan had “fabricated” and “forged” documents to remove him from the LLC. Sam sued Kwan, her companies, First American, and the Board after discovering the sale of the parking lot. He claimed Kwan fraudulently removed him from the company and pocketed the sale proceeds. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants on various pretrial motions, effectively denying Sam a legal remedy.


The Court of Appeal affirmed some of the trial court’s rulings but reversed others, finding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Board. The court held the Board’s title research was deficient because of the inconsistences between the recorded documents and the version of the operating agreement provided by Kwan.


The Board’s attorney’s failure to carefully review the title report and recorded documents was a major factor in the Court of Appeal’s decision. The ruling also demonstrates the potential liability of escrow agents and title companies in real estate deals. While First American was not the focus of the ruling, the case serves as a reminder of the critical role these entities play and the legal obligations they have.


Key Takeaways


This case serves as a cautionary tale for real estate investors, business partners, and the professionals who advise them. Thorough title research, careful attention to corporate governance, and robust legal protections can help prevent disputes and minimize the risk of litigation. Attorneys must be diligent in reviewing title reports and other recorded documents, and they must be alert to any inconsistencies or red flags that could lead to problems.


The ruling also calls attention to the potential for fraud within LLCs and how difficult it is to prove fraudulent intent. When relationships within an LLC break down, disputes often lead to litigation. To avoid disputes, attorneys advising business partners must direct their effort to best practices for internal governance and documentation. Additionally, this case shows the difficulty of proving fraudulent intent. Though Sam’s allegations may have been believable, they did not meet the high legal standard for pleading a claim for fraud.


For individuals involved in complex real estate transactions and limited liability companies, Sam v. Kwan ruling provides valuable insights. Thorough research, careful documentation, and proactive legal counsel can help prevent disputes and position clients for success if litigation arises. As the stakes continue to rise in the world of business law, attorneys must be vigilant in their practice and committed to the highest standards of professional excellence.

CLIENT ALERT: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Has Postponed All Civil and Criminal Trials through April 16th

PRESIDING JUDGE KEVIN C. BRAZILE ISSUES IMPLEMENTATION ORDER TO CONTINUE ALL NONEMERGENCY MATTERS FOR 30 DAYS DUE TO CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC.
 
All Civil and Criminal Trials are Suspended through April 16th. Order will Keep the Court Open for Emergency and Essential Matters. No Jurors are to Report Until April 16th.
 
Click to read the full press release: Court Closure