Alex Formenton files 20.5 million dollar lawsuit

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, a regular legal eagle.



Who asked the finance guy?

What makes you more qualified to have a basic opinion on limited details as to whether this case has merit?

My opinion is that I don’t have sufficient knowledge of the case to really know

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

What makes you more qualified to have a basic opinion on limited details as to whether this case has merit?

My opinion is that I don’t have sufficient knowledge of the case to really know

You don’t appear to even know what my opinion is but that doesn’t stop you from weighing in on it, does it? Whether a case has merit is different than the strength of the argument.

We better password-protect this thread just in case anyone who isn’t a lawyer says anything except “I am sorry I cannot hold an opinion as I am not a lawyer.” We can’t be getting crazy here on a message board. People sharing opinions and stuff. Yuck!

[Matt Reeeeead]

For example, what if in the details the Senators were intending to engage with the agent (and there was evidence of this communication to agent) on a long term contract offer of 6 years x $4.5m offer to Formenton before the allegations surfaced, and the agents didn’t act, communicate, or advise Formenton properly to maintain an active contract status?

I’m just making that example up, however, that would be an example where such claims could have merit of which we have absolutely no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McG]

I accept and frankly expect that CP has many active and retired experts across all sectors and industries.

Even the non experts present themselves as experts.

[fotze2]

There is a probably a lot of details we dont know about, but the entire premise of this place is talking about stuff.

I’m gonna register for this place where strangers talk about stuff and tell them to not talk about stuff.

[Locke]

I am not a Fancy Big City Lawyer or nuthin' nor do I play one on TV, but I am the confused here.

Presuming for a moment that he is found Guilty...which...seeing as they paid the victim off seems rather likely...

Is he...suing his Agent for not covering up his raping well enough? Is that whats going on here or am I missing something?

Like...these guys scattered like rats off a sinking ship so...I'm not really expecting a 'nope! All is well!' Type of verdict.

[GullFoss]

One of the fascinating things thats going to come out of this trial is that we might find out why the Sens didn't renew him. What did the Sens know and how did they find out? What other organizations knew? Was it common knowledge inside the NHL the whole time?

[Matt Reeeeead]

I think people should talk about it and share opinions.

I also don’t see anything odd about challenging opinions as lazy as “despite not knowing the relevant details, this case clearly has no merit”

Discuss away. It’s also highly possible that this case absolutely does lack merit, and it’s Formebton grasping at straws to avoid joining the real world and facing consequences for his own heinous actions. That would be a tremendous result in my books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

I am not a Fancy Big City Lawyer or nuthin' nor do I play one on TV, but I am the confused here.

Presuming for a moment that he is found Guilty...which...seeing as they paid the victim off seems rather likely...

Is he...suing his Agent for not covering up his raping well enough? Is that whats going on here or am I missing something?

Like...these guys scattered like rats off a sinking ship so...I'm not really expecting a 'nope! All is well!' Type of verdict.

You are missing a fair bit. The stuff he said the agent did wrong was all pre-allegations and have to do with not properly advising him on his options before him at various points. Basically it’s “if he’d advised me properly I’d have a bigger contract in place by the time my assault had been discovered “.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Locke

I am not a Fancy Big City Lawyer or nuthin' nor do I play one on TV, but I am the confused here.

Presuming for a moment that he is found Guilty...which...seeing as they paid the victim off seems rather likely...

It's far from likely as we has no idea of what facts will be presented before the court.

They did not pay the victims off. Hockey Canada appears to have done so, but we don't know what their motivation were, whether an actual crime was committed, or just to stop bad publicity.

Look, I am not saying anyone is innocent, but they are due their day (or apparently 8 weeks) in court, and our facts are based on court reporting at best.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are missing a fair bit. The stuff he said the agent did wrong was all pre-allegations and have to do with not properly advising him on his options before him at various points. Basically it’s “if he’d advised me properly I’d have a bigger contract in place by the time my assault had been discovered “.

I totally agree. He most likely isn’t filing this because he didn’t get to rape Willy nilly. Probably has some sort of decent argument. And also agents are grotesque in general.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Well good luck to him on that, in Canadian law it is almost unheard of to ask for pecuniary damages 7 or 8 times in excess of your lost income. Unless he thinks he will get some sort of punitive damages or non-pecuniary damages (although I suspect other factors may be contributing to issues like mental distress for Alex) the only damages he can possibly be entitled to would be loss of income, which would be two years of salary (presumably at 787K a year since that is the contract the agent should have signed according to the lawsuit).

The best part about it is his claim for future lost income beyond the two years, like as if but for this agent’s alleged negligence this guy would still be playing in the NHL.

Not if he signed a long term contract. He'd still would be being paid if he signed such a contract. Ottawa could chose to administratively suspend him and not have him play, but they would still be paying him. Dube was paid by Calgary until his contract was over.

Look I'm not saying he has a great case for tons on money. I don't know and suspect he doesn't. But some lawyer is chewing up tons of time and money on the chance he does. That should tell you there is some sort of case.

But no one can say he has no case based strictly on reading a reporters version of the facts. Who knows if the reporter has any idea of what the pertinent facts even are.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t appear to even know what my opinion is but that doesn’t stop you from weighing in on it, does it?

You said he has a weak argument although you really know zero facts about what will be presented in a very long and complicated trail.

I think you presented your legal opinion quite clearly.

We aren't saying you may not be correct, we are saying there is not enough facts known to the general public to make that assessment.

You are letting your emotion take hold. There is a reason lawyers need to be dispassionate in looking at the facts.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

But some lawyer is chewing up tons of time and money on the chance he does. That should tell you there is some sort of case.

That remains to be seen. Could be that this lawyer thinks that Newport Sports Management will settle quickly and quietly instead of having deposed e-mails, texts, testimony etc become public record.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

For example, what if in the details the Senators were intending to engage with the agent (and there was evidence of this communication to agent) on a long term contract offer of 6 years x $4.5m offer to Formenton before the allegations surfaced, and the agents didn’t act, communicate, or advise Formenton properly to maintain an active contract status?

I’m just making that example up, however, that would be an example where such claims could have merit of which we have absolutely no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, merit has a different legal definition than strength of an argument.

But to your made example, if that scenario was true or believed to be true by Formenton or his lawyers, it would be in the lawsuit. Instead, Formenton alleges the opposite, that the agent’s recommendation to not sign the qualifying offer (something any good agent would recommend for a player of his performance) cost him the opportunity to negotiate further.

Thing is, there’s a pretty good reason why Formenton was not offered a contract, one we all know. Were it not for that situation, it is entirely likely the Senators would have signed him to an offer well above his qualifying offer. The lawsuit conveniently leaves out the fact that he was under investigation for gang rape at the time.

So to argue that he lost out on $20M due to negligence from his agent, who even based on what is alleged in the lawsuit appears to have given reasonable advice based on what they knew at the time, without mentioning the impact his involvement in a gang rape had on his potential earnings (police re-opened the investigation on July 22, 2022, one week after his QO expired), is absurd. And you do not need to be a lawyer to know it’s absurd.

My guess is that this lawsuit is designed to get a settlement, as if either the agency or the Senators knew about Formenton’s involvement before January 2024 (something that was obvious but unspoken) and that were to come out in court, it would not be great for their reputation, so Formenton’s lawyers are banking on this never actually going to court and therefore could put whatever ridiculous number they wanted in.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are missing a fair bit. The stuff he said the agent did wrong was all pre-allegations and have to do with not properly advising him on his options before him at various points. Basically it’s “if he’d advised me properly I’d have a bigger contract in place by the time my assault had been discovered “.

The statement of claim according to the TSN article and the New York Times article states that

“The Senators did not “propose or agree to a new offer,” the claim states, and, “Alex was ineligible to play in the NHL for the remainder of the season.”

So presumably the allegation is that because the Sens had no indication ever (as based on their actions and his acknowledgment of such in his statement of claim) that the agent was negligent in not signing the qualifying offer. I will be interested to see how they add the extra 19 million to this claim, what is the evidence that the Sens or any team wanted to sign him last summer when the entire hockey world was talking about the gang rape that happened in London.

I suspect the case has no credibility and I would make a low ball Rule 49 offer to make this ridiculous case go away, or at a minimum get a bunch of my legal costs back when any award is significantly lower than what is awarded at trial. Make an offer of 46,000 bucks and call it a day. He accepts and you are out of it, otherwise fight to the end and hopefully Alex knows how high his legal bills are going.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The statement of claim according to the TSN article and the New York Times article states that

“The Senators did not “propose or agree to a new offer,” the claim states, and, “Alex was ineligible to play in the NHL for the remainder of the season.”

So presumably the allegation is that because the Sens had no indication ever (as based on their actions and his acknowledgment of such in his statement of claim) that the agent was negligent in not signing the qualifying offer. I will be interested to see how they add the extra 19 million to this claim, what is the evidence that the Sens or any team wanted to sign him last summer when the entire hockey world was talking about the gang rape that happened in London.

I suspect the case has no credibility and I would make a low ball Rule 49 offer to make this ridiculous case go away, or at a minimum get a bunch of my legal costs back when any award is significantly lower than what is awarded at trial. Make an offer of 46,000 bucks and call it a day. He accepts and you are out of it, otherwise fight to the end and hopefully Alex knows how high his legal bills are going.

Again, we are basing what the statement of claim says on what the reporters say.

Presumably there are a number of allegations of negligence as opposed to just that one claim.

Any Rule 49 offer will be for more that $46,000. You are risking millions of legal costs even if you win.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Again, we are basing what the statement of claim says on what the reporters say.

Presumably there are a number of allegations of negligence as opposed to just that one claim.

Any Rule 49 offer will be for more that $46,000. You are risking millions of legal costs even if you win.

If you don’t feel qualified to comment on it, don’t, and leave it to other people.

Going around in circles talking about how nobody can form an opinion on it because you don’t want to doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Keep waiting for the long and complex trial (or trail) that will likely never come, and everyone else can feel free to discuss as they please.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Again, we are basing what the statement of claim says on what the reporters say.

Presumably there are a number of allegations of negligence as opposed to just that one claim.

Any Rule 49 offer will be for more that $46,000. You are risking millions of legal costs even if you win.

You actually think there is any scenario where this claim would rack up millions in legal fees? How much do you think it costs to run a 2-3 day trial? You file a Rule 49 offer to settle because you are pretty sure the other side has no case. If they take it you end this frivilous action for some nuisance money. If he does not take it you have a chance of getting some of your legal fees paid for by Formenton when you win and the amount awarded is less than 46K. You risk nothing if you win other than some of your legal fees, although you get the satisfaction of Formenton paying for some of your legal fees as well.

If he takes the reasonable offer Formenton gives his legal counsel their contingency fee of 20K and he gets 26K and everyone goes about their business. 26K is like winning a 50/50 at a Tuesday night hockey game, not bad for Formenton to start his life with.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You actually think there is any scenario where this claim would rack up millions in legal fees? How much do you think it costs to run a 2-3 day trial? You file a Rule 49 offer to settle because you are pretty sure the other side has no case. If they take it you end this frivilous action for some nuisance money. If he does not take it you have a chance of getting some of your legal fees paid for by Formenton when you win and the amount awarded is less than 46K. You risk nothing if you win other than some of your legal fees, although you get the satisfaction of Formenton paying for some of your legal fees as well.

If he takes the reasonable offer Formenton gives his legal counsel their contingency fee of 20K and he gets 26K and everyone goes about their business. 26K is like winning a 50/50 at a Tuesday night hockey game, not bad for Formenton to start his life with.

I am curious, where does the $46,000 number come from?

I also expect this be longer than a 2-3 day trial. Most are. That’s on top of discoveries etc.