|
Litigation and Advice Regarding Potential Litigation
- Mayer Brown at the Olympics
Mayer Brown is believed to be the first international law firm to send a team of lawyers to the Olympic Games to be on call to handle disputes before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport's ad hoc tribunal at the Games. Our lawyers appeared in two cases before CAS at the 2004 Summer Games in Athens, representing a sports-governing body in one case and athletes in the other. In other matters during the Athens Games, we represented a U.S. Olympic athlete in a challenge to her selection to a U.S. team in a case before the American Arbitration Association, and advised a National Olympic Committee regarding a potential challenge to its team-selection procedures.
- Victories Before the Tennis Anti-Doping Tribunal
We successfully defended three top professional tennis players who were accused of doping violations after testing positive for nandrolone, a prohibited muscle-building steroid. The cases were adjudicated before the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the ATP, the governing body of the men's professional tennis circuit. In defending the athletes, we were able to demonstrate that the positive test results were due to contamination in an electrolyte replacement health product that the official ATP Trainers had themselves distributed to our clients and to other players on the men's tour. As a result of that showing, the tribunal accepted our argument that the ATP was estopped from prosecuting the athletes for taking a substance that the ATP had itself provided to them. Our successful defense of the athletes in those cases led to an ATP investigation which showed that other athletes had also been victimized by taking the contaminated electrolyte product provided by the ATP. The names of our clients remain confidential, but other athletes (such as Bohdan Ulihrach and Greg Rusedski, whom we did not represent) were subsequently able to benefit from Mayer Brown's groundbreaking work.
- Victory Before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport
In November 2002, we successfully defended USA Track & Field (USATF), the national governing body for track and field in the U.S., in a high-profile litigation before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. The suit was brought by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track and field's world-governing body, to compel USATF to disclose the identities of U.S. athletes who had tested positive for banned substances (such as steroids) in USATF's domestic drug-testing program but who were exonerated at the national level and never reported to the IAAF due to USATF's long-standing confidentiality policy. Under that policy, USATF promised its athletes that it would protect the confidentiality of drug-testing results unless and until a doping violation was found after a hearing, but would release the results publicly once a doping violation was found. The IAAF had long been aware of USATF's confidentiality policy but now sought to compel disclosure of the names of exonerated athletes and to reopen cases that USATF and the affected athletes believed had been resolved years ago. After a trial involving numerous witnesses and hundreds of documents, the CAS panel, chaired by Yves Fortier, President of the London Court of Arbitration and former Canadian Ambassador to the U.N., agreed with USATF that the IAAF had acquiesced in USATF's confidentiality policy for years and was stopped from seeking disclosure regarding closed cases now. The decision upheld the privacy rights of U.S. athletes who had been cleared of doping charges.
- Other Doping Cases
We have successfully defended prominent professional athletes falsely charged with doping offenses. On behalf of USATF, we also successfully prosecuted U.S. shot put champion C.J. Hunter based on drug tests showing the use of a prohibited steroid. When the test results came to light during the 2000 Summer Olympics, Hunter hired famed attorney Johnnie Cochran to fight the charges, but the scientific evidence led Hunter to accept a ban from track and field and to retire from competition.
- Golf Related-Matters
We have successfully defended the United States Golf Association (USGA) in a number of antitrust and other suits brought by makers of golf clubs, balls and shoes who sought to challenge USGA's determinations that their products did not conform to the Rules of Golf. We have counseled the USGA on the interpretation of the Rules of Golf, including the rules governing equipment, for more than twenty-five years, and we continue to do so. We also counsel the USGA on a wide range of other issues, including golf handicaps and the Rules of Amateur Status. Among the cases that we have won for USGA was Handicomp v. USGA, in which a vendor of handicap computation services contended that the USGA's provision of handicap computation services violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and sought more than $400 million in damages. The trial court agreed with our arguments and entered summary judgment in favor of the USGA, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
- Golf Cart Litigation
We defended the USGA's ban on the use of golf carts in the U.S. Open in a suit brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act by golf pro Ford Olinger. The district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our argument that the accommodation sought by Mr. Olinger, while reasonable in a general sense, would alter the fundamental nature of the U.S. Open. The Seventh Circuit's decision in favor of the USGA created a conflict between the Circuits, which led the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Casey Martin v. PGA Tour (a case that we did not handle), where the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion.
- Transgender Athletes
We have counseled the USGA with respect to its Gender Policy, which is a part of the Conditions of Competition for USGA Championships.
- College Athlete Eligibility Litigation
We defended the NCAA in a suit brought by a college quarterback who sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to allow him to play after the NCAA had ruled him ineligible for a portion of the season under the NCAA's transfer rules. We defeated the TRO. The NCAA and the athlete then settled based on the NCAA's interpretation of its rule.
- College Athlete Recruitment Litigation
We represented the Chancellor of the University of Illinois in defending from a First Amendment challenge the University's restrictions on faculty and student contacts with athletic recruits.
- Constitutional Litigation Involving Amateur Hockey
After a year and a half of vigorous litigation, we reached a settlement with the Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois (AHAI) on behalf of a girls' hockey team, in a lawsuit alleging discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause based on AHAI's unequal treatment of girls' hockey. Under the settlement, AHAI agreed to make significant changes in its policies and structure, including (among other things) appointing two women to fill open positions on its Board of Directors and setting aside a significant sum of money for the sole purpose of developing girls' hockey.
- Broadcasting Litigation
We served as co-counsel to the NBA in an antitrust suit filed by the Chicago Bulls basketball team and a television "super station" challenging the NBA's policy limiting the number of Bulls' games that could be televised nationally. After the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the NBA on our second appeal from injunctions granted by the trial court, the case was settled with a reduction, rather than an increase, of the number of Bulls' games that could be televised outside of Chicago.
- Trade Publisher Litigation
We successfully represented the publisher of a trade association newsletter against claims of defamation, trade libel and prior restraint. We successfully moved to dismiss the complaint in the trial court and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
We represented another publisher of trade journals in an action claiming a former editor had engaged in unfair competition by soliciting employees and misappropriating customer lists. After a one-week trial in Federal Court in the Northern District of Illinois, our client received a large award.
- Defamation Claims
We have represented an agricultural/chemical company against defamation claims. We won key summary judgment rulings that the statements made by our client constituted comment on issues of public concern and thus required proof of actual malice by plaintiff.
We defended a major airline against defamation claims made by a competitor related to alleged misstatements that caused plaintiff to lose purported business opportunities. We successfully moved to dismiss the complaint.
We advised a national association representing agricultural interests on defamation and other litigation and regulatory remedies against a business harassment campaign by the association's political competitors.
- First Amendment Issues
We have represented a number of Illinois government entities in First Amendment litigation and counseling on public forum, public access and Freedom of Information Act issues.
- TV Star's Suit Against Her Agent
We represented a famous movie and television actress in a suit against her former agent, alleging claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on the agent's placement of the actress' funds in unsuitable investments in which the agent had a financial interest. The case settled on favorable terms.
- Common Law Copyright Protection
On behalf of Capitol Records, Inc., we recently won a landmark decision in the New York Court of Appeals establishing state common-law copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, which are not protected by the federal copyright statute. In a decision with broad significance to the recording industry, the court ruled that pre-1972 recordings (including popular recordings by such artists as the Beatles) will be protected by New York common-law copyright until state law is preempted by federal law in 2067.
|
|
