Latest on HDNet v. Zuffa: Resolution by End of Summer Appears Likely

On April 9, a Federal Judge remanded HDNet Fights' declaratory judgment action against Zuffa to Texas state court. The case was officially reopened on April 15 and the proceedings to determine Couture's contractual status are progressing quickly. With HDNet's lawyers reportedly pushing the pace, a resolution of the case by the end of the summer appears more and more likely.

Court records obtained by MMAPayout.com show that Zuffa filed a motion to dismiss on April 21, while HDNet filed a motion for summary judgment on April 23. The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard on May 19, while the motion for summary judgment will be heard on June 2. However, details on the case will become increasingly difficult to obtain thanks to Zuffa's motion to seal the proceedings.

More Details on 7/17 Affliction Event

More details are emerging on Affliction's first promotional effort which is set for July 17 in Dallas are beginning to emerge. So far the only "announced" fights for the event are Tim Sylvia v. Fedor Emelianenko and Matt Lindland v. TBA. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported that Sylvia's payout for the event is rumored to be $800,000. Other names rumored to be attached to the promotion/card are Andrei Arlovski, Josh Barnett, and Ben Rothwell. Sources tell MMAPayout.com that the total bankroll for the event may approach $5-6 million.

Downsizing: UFC Planning Major Roster Cuts

One of the UFC's favorite talking points in demonstrating its dominance of the MMA industry is the number of fighters it has under exclusive contract. 250 is the standard talking point, although Forbes magazine reported it at 275. According to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, the actual number is closer to 200, but not for long.

Dave Meltzer reported in the most recent edition of the newsletter that the company plans to cut its roster down significantly, perhaps to as low as 150 or less. The stated rationale is that the company is struggling to keep all of its fighters active, despite having recently increased cards from nine to eleven bouts.

The first casualty of the new policy appears to be Jake O'Brien who was cut after suffering his first career loss to Andrei Arlovski. Kalib Starnes is the latest announced cut, although he claims to have requested a release, but will not be the last. The recently announced move to cut the WEC Light Heavyweight and Middleweight divisions also fits nicely with the new policy.

According to Meltzer, the company's goal is three fights per year for contracted fighters. That number looks about right for the top fighters, but will likely be less well received by mid to lower level fighters who are accustomed to fighting 4-5 times per year at a minimum and depend on their fight purses to a much greater degree than more established names.

Money is another obvious factor in the move. The company is not doing as well financially as it was in 2006 with rumors of a round of layoffs at the corporate office and pressure to reduce costs. As the minimum contracted payouts slowly, but steadily, increase the incentive to sign and stockpile talent diminishes, particularly at the bottom of the card where it becomes cheaper to bring in new talent.

To some degree Tim Sylvia fits into this conversation as well, as an example that the days of simply paying what it takes to keep a guy are over. The company appears to be serious about containing its fighter costs and is willing to let some of its top fighters go.

Shamrock v. Zuffa

Ken Shamrock filed suit against Zuffa yesterday in Nevada State Court. MMAPayout.com has not seen the complaint, however, based on the information available, it appears that the action is predicated on the company's now infamous retirement clause.

It seems that Shamrock signed a two-fight contract with Zuffa that included a third rematch with Tito Ortiz. Shamrock then announced his retirement. At that point Zuffa made an election, as is its right under the terms of its standard contract. The action alleges that Zuffa breached its contract with Shamrock when it changed that election upon Shamrock's announcement that he intended to return to fighting.

The standard retirement clause reads:

If at any time during the Term, Fighter decides to retire from mixed martial arts or other professional fighting competition, then ZUFFA may, at its election, (i) suspend the Term for the period of such retirement; (ii) declare that ZUFFA has satisfied its obligation to promote all future Bouts to be promoted by ZUFFA hereunder, without any compensation due to Fighter therefore; or (ii) elect to provide Fighter with notice of an Acceleration.

Based on the fact that Shamrock subsequently signed a contract and fought in EliteXC, it appears that Zuffa likely elected to suspend the term of the contract following Shamrock's retirement, and then elected to declare its obligation satisfied when Shamrock announced his intention to return.

More details to come.

Hands On: White Taking a More Active Role in Talent Relations

No one has ever accused UFC President Dana White of being lazy. Even his biggest detractors recognize and respect what is often described as his unparalleled work ethic. White is famous for his attention to detail, or micromanaging depending on your prospective, in every aspect of Zuffa's business. However, prior to Randy Couture's resignation there was one area where White had reportedly become somewhat withdrawn: talent negotiations.

Prior to Couture's resignation, sources have indicated to MMAPayout.com that White was generally content to leave talent negotiations in the hands of the UFC's highly regarded Vice President of Talent Relations, Joe Silva. Sources now tell MMAPayout.com that White has become much more hands on in talent negotiations this year, personally meeting with a number of his top fighters' managers. It now apparently not uncommon to bump into various managers and agents on visits to the UFC's headquarters in Las Vegas.

This new proactive approach is believed to be the result of Couture's resignation. White has both publicly and privately expressed his belief that the Couture situation was something of a wakeup call that the communication between the UFC, and himself in particular, and its fighters, and by extension their managers and agents, wasn't what it needed to be.

Anatomy of the Affliction Ban

The UFC's ban of Affliction is one of the most interesting and perhaps under-appreciated stories of recent months in MMA. The brand is one of the most coveted and lucrative sponsors in the industry with a who's who of MMA on its sponsorship roster including Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Quinton Jackson, George St. Pierre, and Sean Sherk to name a few. Through royalties from signature shirt sales its sponsored fighters stand to make several hundred thousand dollars per year.

The root of the ban has been the subject of much speculation inside the industry. Last week Dana White offered his explanation of the ban. "I never had a problem with Affliction clothing until they took a picture of Couture and Fedor with no Affliction shirts on, but it looks like a fight poster," White told The Canadian Press. While the ban was inevitable once Affliction's promotional aspirations were revealed, MMAPayout.com has learned that the ban originally stemmed from Affliction's relationship, or at least perceived relationship, with Couture.

The UFC responded to Couture's resignation last fall by enacting a ban on all things Couture. This meant no mention of Couture on UFC broadcasts, no camera shots of Couture cornering fighters, and no Xtreme Couture apparel in the octagon as of UFC 78. The ban affected not only Couture himself, but also a number of fighters sponsored by his brand. The company went so far as to force Wanderlei Silva to move his training from Xtreme Couture for the filming of his All Access Special.

Eight days before UFC 79 the ban was suddenly and unexpectedly extended to include Affliction. The ban was apparently the result of the UFC's belief that Couture was a part owner of Affliction, a common misconception. While Couture and Affliction are co-owners of the Xtreme Couture mark, Couture has no ownership interest in Affliction.

The immediate victim of the decision was St. Pierre who, after wearing Xtreme Couture in August, was scheduled to wear signature Affliction apparel at the event. However, it was Karo Parsiyan, not St. Pierre, who forcefully raised the issue with Joe Silva, Vice President of Talent Relations at the UFC.

Parisyan placed what has been described to MMAPayout.com as a heated phone call to Silva after hearing about the ban. Silva was unaware of the ban, but understood the actual nature of Couture's relationship with the company. He was ultimately able to get the ban reversed after explaining the situation to White. St. Pierre entered the octagon on December 29th in full Affliction regalia.

However, the reprieve was short lived. On January 18, Affliction staged the now infamous photo shoot featuring Couture and Emelianenko in the shirtless stare down referenced by White. Affliction hasn't been seen on a UFC broadcast since.

The company's control of the fighter's "commercial identification" is addressed by three clauses in the standard Zuffa contract:

Fighter covenants and agrees that no wording, symbols, pictures, designs, names or other advertising or informational material (i) for any beer, alcohol, beverage company, tobacco, casino or gaming company, media company (including, but not limited to, HBO, ABC, SET, FOX, ESPN and any Internet related company); (ii) of any sponsor in conflict or competition with ZUFFA or any of ZUFFA’s sponsors; (iii) of any sponsor causing injury to the reputation of ZUFFA or ZUFFA’s sponsors and/or their respective officers and owners; or (iv) which has not been pre-approved in writing by ZUFFA and iN DEMAND, L.L.C. shall appear on the trunks, robe, shoes, regalia or any other part of the costume or the body (including by use of temporary or henna tattoos) of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates during or at any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or Post-Bout Events.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, ZUFFA shall have the right to include any advertising or other informational material of ZUFFA, ZUFFA’s sponsors or other entities designated by ZUFFA on the trunks, robe, shoes, regalia or any other part of the costume of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates during or at any Bouts, Pre-Bout Events or Post-Bout Events.

For television purposes, Fighter must be clearly distinguishable. Therefore, Fighter shall provide one (1) pair of dark-colored trunks and one (1) pair of light-colored trunks for each Bout. If it is necessary to distinguish Fighter from his opponent, ZUFFA shall have sole discretion to require Fighter to wear either the dark-colored or light-colored trunks.

At first blush this control might seem unjustified, but upon further consideration it makes perfect sense to a degree. It is obvious that for most companies sponsoring a fighter is merely a means to ride the UFC's marketing coattails. As a result, it is more than reasonable for the company to seek to exercise some control over which brands it allows into the octagon and the company has generally been very judicious in its use of the power.

However, their are those in the industry who believe that fighters should be given some financial consideration in the event a sponsorship is blocked, particularly if it was approved when the deal was signed. This is an issue, along with other ancillary rights, worth keeping an eye on as the sport continues to grow, sponsorships become more lucrative, and promotional opportunities more plentiful.

Fedor-Sylvia Report Raises Interesting Questions

This afternoon Fedor Emelianenko confirmed to Sherdog.com that he will face Tim Sylvia on July 19. The bout will reportedly headline an event promoted by Affliction at American Airlines Arena in Dallas and air on HDNet Fights. MMAPayout.com reported earlier this month that the clothing company had scraped plans for a June debut in Las Vegas and was tentatively planning a July date in Houston.

The report raises a number of interesting questions, but none more interesting than Fedor's contractual arrangement for the event. MMAPayout.com has received multiple unconfirmed reports of an offer worth slightly more than $2 million per fight from Affliction to Emelianenko. Sylvia is under contract to Adrenaline, the successor to M-1 Global which dissolved last month after parting ways with Fedor.

Regardless of the final details, this event appears to have all the makings (two promoters and a third party television outlet/producer) of the first major co-promotional event in MMA history. The bout has storied history, reportedly in the making for several years with Dana White originally offering to send Sylvia to Pride to fight Emelianenko. The bout would also put to rest reports that Emelianenko was "afraid" to fight Sylvia.

The most interested observer of the bout in July might very well be Randy Couture. Assuming a favorable outcome in pending litigation, admittedly a big assumption, Couture hopes to fight Fedor in October of this year. An Emelianenko loss could potentially put that fight in jeopardy, or at the very least take much of the luster of the bout.

Noons Turns Down EXC on CBS

The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a feature last weekend on the rise of MMA in the context of EliteXC's recent CBS deal. The most interesting note in the piece to regular followers of the industry was the following tidbit on EliteXC's insistence on exclusive contracts:

According to Dion, Noons (6-1) tentatively was scheduled to appear on this card, but before EliteXC would offer him a contract, it wanted him to commit to three additional matches under its stewardship. Dion would not commit.

“They're trying to slam-dunk guys into long-term contracts in order to be on CBS,” Dion said.

You may remember Dion from the recent coverage of his dispute with Brandon Vera.

Fedor Update

The never ending story that is the Fedor Emelianenko sweepstakes continues after the collapse of M-1 Global with no end in sight. EliteXC reportedly made a four fight, seven figure offer, however, the sides appear to be far a part on terms with Gary Shaw's statement that Fedor wants $2 million per fight. The UFC is also reportedly interested, but the two sides remained far apart last year despite prolong negotiations.

CBS-NBC Politics

The already testy relationship between EliteXC and Strikeforce has grown even more complicated thanks to the politics of each promotion's respective network television deal. According to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, fighters will be unable to appear on both networks. In theory, Frank Shamrock would be the fighter most affected by the restriction.

EliteXC and Strikeforce will co-promote Shamrock's next fight, however, at that point his Strikeforce contract will expire, while his EliteXC deal reportedly runs through the end of 2009. That would seem to indicate that Shamrock will become exclusive to EliteXC later this year. Shamrock is also under consideration as part of CBS's announce team.

Couture Litigation Grows More Complex

The legal war between Randy Couture, Zuffa and HDNet Fights continues to heat up with the parties engaged in an increasingly complex set of litigation that includes two separate lawsuits, in Nevada and Texas respectively, and now an arbitration proceeding in Nevada.

On March 7, Zuffa filed for arbitration on Couture's promotional contract, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, in Nevada district court. The action marks the first time that Zuffa has formally made the promotional contract the issue of legal proceedings.

According to Zuffa, the proceeding will "necessarily require resolution of disputes between Zuffa and Couture over key terms of the promotional agreement," including those at issue in the HDNet Fights declaratory judgment action in Texas state court.

The action also continues in Texas. On March 13, Zuffa filed a notice of removal to federal district court in HDNet's declaratory judgment action brought against the company in Texas district court last month. [FULL STORY at SHERDOG.COM]

Vera's Management Dispute Provides Rare Glimpse Into UFC Negotiations

Brandon Vera's dispute with his former manager, Mark Dion, was recently settled in an arbitration hearing before the California State Athletic Commission. The commission ruled in Dion's favor and the entire affair is documented on Dion's website, CityBoxing.com. The myriad of documents made available by Dion provide a rare public glimpse into the UFC's negotiation tactics.

The entire affair was detailed by the Canadian Press. The highlights:

• Vera's second three-fight UFC deal (renegotiated prior to the expiration of his original contract) started at $16,000/$16,000 (win bonus), $20,000/$20,000, and $24,000/$24,000. The deal also included a $100,000 signing bonus.
  
• Two fights into that deal, following Vera's knockout of Frank Mir at UFC 65 in November 2006, the UFC approached Dion to negotiate a long term deal. The UFC flew Dion to Las Vegas to meet with Dana White. White gave Dion two offers on a post-it note:
• A three fight deal at $90,000/$90,000, $100,000/$100,000, and $115,000/$115,000 with an automatic upgrade to $150,000/$150,000, $170,000/$170,000, $185,000/$185,000 provided Vera became Heavyweight Champion, or
• A four year deal worth $7 million. Dion testified that White made a verbal offer of a $100,000 bonus if Vera won the title.
  
• Dion told the CSAC that the post-it note was standard operating practice:
  
• "UFC doesn't send no letters, period. They've tried to avoid all that stuff... This is all I got from Dana White. This is all I could show to Mr. Vera. There was no e-mails. Dana White likes to keep - keep himself covered on all aspects."
  
• Dion made an admittedly outrageous counter offer three days later in an effort to move negotiations. The two options presented were:
• A one-year three-fight contract at $150,000/$150,000, $175,000/$175,000, and $200,000/$200,000 with a $1.5 million signing bonus, or
• A guaranteed three-year ten-fight contract worth a total of $9 million ($3 million per year) plus a $1.5 million signing bonus. Vera would also receive a $1 million bonus if undefeated at the end of each year.
  
• In response, Joe Silva, VP of Talent Relations, offered a three fight deal at $50,000/$50,000, $60,000/$60,000, and $70,000/$70,000, escalating to $90,000/$90,000, $100,000/$100,000, and $110,000/$110,000 if Vera became champion along with a $100,000 signing bonus.
  
• Dion rejected the offer in an email to White at 4:46 PM on December 26. At 7:16 PM the UFC replies, saying it is exercising its right to extend the contract by three months per Vera's refusal to fight in June due to injury.
  
• Dion informs the company that Vera was never injured and was ready to fight as soon as possible. He hires a lawyer in January to contest the company's three month contract extension.
  
• In March Vera tells the UFC not to deal with Dion anymore.
  
• Vera's attempted to void his management contract with Dion goes to arbitration in September, claiming he was never informed of the $100,000 signing bonus offer.
  
• In October, after an 11-month layoff, Vera returns to the UFC in a loss to Tim Sylvia with a reported purse of $100,000.
  
• The CSAC ruled in Dion's favor earlier this month, finding no illegal conduct,but severed the management contract (which ran through 2010) due to deterioration of their relationship.
  
• Dion received one-third of the Sylvia fight purse as well as $100,000 in consideration of future fight purses.
  
• Garcia said: "It seems to the arbitrator that the ambiguity of the Post-it note, which appears to be the root of the current dispute, could have been avoided if the UFC had put their offer in the form of a proposed contract and sent it to (the) manager."

Vera subsequently re-signed with the UFC and will face Fabricio Werdum at UFC 85.

Effect of ProElite-CBS Deal on Fighter Sponsorships

Preliminary analysis of the ProElite-CBS deal has focused on the more abstract benefits to the sport at large or the company in specific. However, it is not just MMA in general and ProElite in particular that stand to benefit from the exposure of CBS, but also the fighters themselves who will be faced with an array of new opportunities.

One of the top agents in the industry told MMAPayout.com that he expects fighters’ sponsorship revenue to increase significantly. He estimated that the value of premium placement opportunities, namely butt and front top center of fight shorts, will go from $3,000-$10,000 on non-main card fights to $7,500-15,000 for CBS events. Top fighters with an established record, reputation, and positive persona could see their sponsorship asking price reach over $50,000.

This will unquestionably give ProElite an advantage it didn’t possess before and make it a more attractive option for free agent fighters.

With the UFC reportedly moving away from pay-per-view and signing bonuses in favor of discretionary bonuses according to Dave Meltzer, there is room for ProElite to enhance its recruitment efforts in order to attract and retain more top flight talent.

Zuffa, Couture Have Different Takes on Preliminary Injunction

I have a new piece up at Sherdog.com this afternoon with further insight and analysis into last week's action in Zuffa v. Couture. Included is a breakdown of each party's press release, new insight into last week's hearing, a preview of this Thursday's preliminary discovering hearing, and details of a dispute between the IFL and Xtreme Couture. The lead:

Judge Jennifer Togliatti handed down the first ruling last Thursday in the contentious Zuffa v. Randy Couture proceeding, issuing a preliminary injunction barring Couture's participation in the IFL's event the following day. However, the impact of the ruling is open to interpretation and neither party has been shy about offering its own version.

FULL STORY: Zuffa, Couture Have Different Takes on Preliminary Injunction

Zuffa Wins Preliminary Injunction

I have a piece covering yesterday's preliminary injunction hearing in Zuffa v. Couture up at Sherdog.com. Zuffa's motion was granted, but it essentially ended up being moot:

The victory, however, was a shallow one, as the court noted that many of the issues regarding Couture's involvement in the event had become moot. As Sherdog.com reported Thursday night, prior to the ruling the IFL agreed remove "Xtreme Couture" from the event, including any references on its Web site, as a professional courtesy to Couture. In an amended affidavit filed yesterday with the court, Couture further stated that he had no intention of attending the event.

FULL STORY: Zuffa Wins Preliminary Injunction

Zuffa v. Couture Preliminary Injunction Ruling Expected Today

I have a new piece up at Sherdog.com previewing today's hearing in Zuffa v. Couture with a look at both sides briefs and the back story of the IFL incident, as well as details on the role Couture's promotional contract is playing in the proceeding, plus a look at Couture's motion to dismiss several claims in the case. The lead:

Months of verbal sparring between Zuffa and Randy Couture (Pictures) should have some resolution late Thursday afternoon. In front of Judge Jennifer Togliatti, in Nevada District Court, Zuffa is seeking a preliminary injunction preventing Couture from "engaging in any promotion or production of any events or programming related to unarmed combat during the one-year Restricted Period in his Employment Agreement." This includes, but is not limited to, the use of Couture's likeness by the IFL and his participation in this Friday's IFL event in Las Vegas.

FULL STORY: Zuffa v. Couture Preliminary Injunction Ruling Expected Today

Preliminary Injunction Ruling Delayed in Couture Case

Greg Savage has an excellent account of yesterday's hearing in Zuffa v. Couture up at Sherdog.com, complete with quotes from the court room. The issue basically boils down to what the phrase from the contract "involved with any promoter" means.

Couture's attorney:

The conduct is not promoting. The conduct is not conducting a business related to unarmed combat other than Xtreme Couture, which was excluded from the employment agreement.

Zuffa's attorney:

The words ‘involved with any other promoter' are broad for a reason. Because we don't want him involved with any other promoter. We pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars not to be involved with any other promoter. That was the consideration for the contract and the simple fact of the matter is that someone has whispered in his ear that maybe he can make more money doing something somewhere else, doing something he shouldn't be doing under this contract. And he has decided, for whatever reasons, be they avarice or whatever, that he is going to do them, and in the course of doing so, sully the good name of the individuals that made him a multi-millionaire 10 times over.

The hearing was continued until Thursday afternoon in order to obtain an affidavit from the IFL regarding the effect the injunction would have on their show on Friday. Couture's attorney suggested that an adverse ruling might force the promotion to cancel the show, a notion which Zuffa's attorney called "nonsense."

Update: Zuffa v. Couture

The parties were in court yesterday for a hearing on Zuffa's motion for a preliminary injunction enforcing the non-compete provision of Couture's employment contract. Specifically, Zuffa is trying to stop the use of the Xtreme Couture brand by the IFL in promoting its 2/29 event. The proceedings were continued until Thursday because the judge needed more information in order to make a ruling.

More details to come later today. Sherdog's Greg Savage was in the court room and I have written up each side's motions on the matter.

HDNet Fights Has Contract with Couture; Question is When It Begins

I have a piece up at Sherdog.com with new details on HDNet Fight's lawsuit against Zuffa. The lead:

Last week Mark Cuban's HDNet Fights made headlines when it sued Zuffa, parent company of the UFC, in district court in Dallas. As first reported by Sherdog.com, the suit seeks declaratory relief concerning Randy Couture's contractual status under a promotional contract with Zuffa.

New details of the action have been revealed in the complaint obtained by Sherdog.com. According to the filing, HDNet Fights has entered into a contract with Couture that is scheduled to commence upon the expiration of his Zuffa promotional agreement. At that time, the company plans to promote a fight between Couture and Fedor Emelianenko in Dallas, assuming terms can be reached with the highly regarded Russian heavyweight.

FULL STORY: HDNet Fights Has Contract with Couture; Question is When It Begins

SEE ALSO: Upon Closer Examination: Impact of HDNet v. Zuffa on Couture-UFC Dispute

Upon Closer Examination: Impact of HDNet v. Zuffa on Couture-UFC Dispute

HDNet Fights shocked the MMA industry this week when it entered the legal fray of the ongoing dispute between Randy Couture and the UFC. The complaint has not surfaced yet, but from conversations with those familiar with it and the larger legal proceedings, MMAPayout.com has identified several issues that bear watching.

The most interesting immediate legal issue raised by the suit is the exclusive jurisdiction/venue clause contained by all Zuffa promotional contracts. The clause, a standard feature of contract law, names the 8th Judicial District of Nevada as the exclusive site of any litigation arising out of the contract. Because HDNet Fights is not a party to the contract, it is presumably not bound by the clause, therefore allowing the action to proceed in Texas. However, regardless of the venue, the contract will interpreted under Nevada law.

There are several potential advantages of proceeding in Texas. First, the state is believed to have more lenient legal standards concerning declaratory judgments. The ripeness doctrine in particular is reportedly more plaintiff friendly in Texas than Nevada. Ripeness is a legal term that refers to whether or not an issue is ready to be decided in court.

Another obvious advantage is the shifting of the home field advantage. Lawyers often worry about "home cooking" when one of the parties has strong ties to the local community in which a case is pending, and there is no doubt that Nevada is Zuffa's comfort zone. However, sources have told MMAPayout.com that the judge handling the case in Las Vegas has a reputation for fairness and Couture is expected to receive a fair shake. Nonetheless, in Las Vegas HDNet Fights and/or Couture must find local counsel to battle Zuffa's experienced local attorneys, whereas in Texas, it is Zuffa that will be forced to retain new counsel licensed to practice in Texas.

The biggest advantage of the move may be the systemic shock it represents to Zuffa. Zuffa is used to dictating the terms, timing, and location of its battles. By unexpectedly filing suit in Texas, HDNet Fights surprised Zuffa and put the company on its heels. Essentially, until this point the company has been on the offensive in the Couture dispute. Now it must play defense.

Another significant benefit for Couture that can't be overlooked is legal fees. With HDNet Fights shouldering the declaratory judgment action, Couture stands to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. This also negates the advantage Zuffa has over Couture when it comes to financial resources. Without HDNet's "support," Couture faced the real possibility of being financially strained by the proceedings, providing Zuffa with the kind of leverage necessary to force a favorable settlement and even potentially force Couture back into the octagon. At the end of the day, Mark Cuban, like the Fertittas, can spend whatever he deems necessary in pursuit of a favorable outcome.

It remains to be seen whether the Texas court will accept the case and what Zuffa's response will be. Zuffa could ask for removal to Federal Court under diversity of citizenship, however, that move may be complicated if the company is also registered in Texas. It also seems likely that Zuffa will move to add HDNet Fights and possibly Mark Cuban himself to its lawsuit against Couture in Nevada, using the Texas suit as evidence of a conspiracy to commit tortious acts. Ironically, that move might play into Couture's hands by allowing HDNet Fights to shoulder the financial burden there as well.

If the Texas court does exercise its jurisdiction and ultimately enters a decision in the case, several more complex legal issues may arise. Per the doctrine of res judicata, an earlier resolution of Couture's contractual status by a Texas court would presumably be binding in Nevada. However, Nevada might be reluctant to abide by Texas's interpretation of Nevada contract law under the circumstances.

If Texas and Nevada were to each offer competing interpretations of the contract, the dispute could enter Federal Court for a final resolution. In such a scenario, it seems hard to imagine the Federal Courts enforcing a Texas court's interpretation of a complex contractual issue under Nevada law over a Nevada court's own interpretation.

Despite many uncertainties, one fact is very clear: the entry of HDNet Fights into the dispute significantly changes the equation for all parties involved moving forward.

Special Thanks to Jeff Thaler of FightOpinion.com and JM.