Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
WWE released their quarterly report for stockholders this afternoon. The company released the following update on where things stand on the legal front for different lawsuits in the report, which PWInsider.com has separated by lawsuit:
June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a “Big Russ McCullough,” Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a “Luther Reigns,” individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purported to be class actions.
On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contained many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleged that the injuries contributed to these former talents’ deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection clauses in the decedents’ contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts.
On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.
On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims were time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss.
On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court’s memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s dismissal of the Windham lawsuit. On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company’s motion in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company’s motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants.
Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees denying them, among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law, and various state Worker’s Compensation laws. This lawsuit also alleged that the booking contracts and other agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company were unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company’s use of their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleged claims for violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss and for sanctions with respect to this complaint on October 19, 2016. On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss and for sanctions with respect to the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the Windham case. The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth facts within each plaintiff’s or declaratory judgment-defendant’s personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company and Mr. McMahon believed that the second amended complaint failed to comply with the Court’s September 29, 2017 order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second answer. On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice and award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs’ counsel because the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court’s September 29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs’ counsel, and granted the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs attempted to appeal these decisions. On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an order referring the Company’s motions to dismiss to the panel that was going to determine the merits of the appeals. The plaintiffs-appellants’ opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019. The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees’ brief on October 7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October 28, 2019.
The Second Circuit held oral argument on June 5, 2020. On September 9, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a summary order, dismissing the appeals of the sanctions orders and the merits appeals of the dismissal of all claims in the Haynes, McCullough, Frazier, and Singleton cases for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirming the judgment of the district court on all other claims. On September 23, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc, which was denied on October 15, 2020. On February 24, 2021, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 26, 2021, the Company filed an opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari. On April 26, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs-appellants’ petition for writ of certiorari. On September 2, 2021, the magistrate judge recommended that fees be awarded to the Company in respect of the Company’s pending motions for sanctions in the amount of $312, and on September 30, 2021, the Court adopted that recommendation. The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs’ lawyer and that all are without merit.
***
On March 6, 2020, the Company along with its Chairman and CEO, Vince McMahon, and former-WWE officers and directors, Michelle Wilson and George Barrios (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR. The complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding WWE’s strategic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that various public statements made by the Company and the Individual Defendants were false and misleading because they failed to disclose certain adverse facts regarding WWE’s strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia that supposedly was known by them and, as a result, the plaintiff class allegedly purchased WWE stock at artificially inflated prices. On March 12, 2020 a nearly-identical lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Paul Szaniawski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No. 1:20-cv-02223-JSR. This lawsuit was filed as related to the City of Warren case and was assigned to the same judge handling the City of Warren case. By Order dated May 12, 2020, the City of Warren and Szaniawski lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes. After multiple parties filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff for the putative class in the consolidated action, on May 22, 2020, the Court issued a memorandum order selecting the Firefighters’ Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri to be lead plaintiff and their attorneys, Labaton Sucharow LLP, to be lead counsel for the putative class. On May 26, 2020, the Company served Rule 11 motion for sanctions on the attorneys for the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, the attorneys for Paul Szaniawski, and Labaton Sucharow LLP. The Rule 11 motion identified false allegations in the originally filed complaints and was supported by six declarations from Company executives and third-parties with direct first-hand knowledge of the matters at issue. Following service of the Rule 11 motion, the attorneys for the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and the attorneys for Paul Szaniawski voluntarily dismissed their complaints before the expiration of the Rule 11 safe-harbor period. On June 8, 2020, the Firefighters’ Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On June 26, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. The Court held oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss on July 30, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.
On November 18, 2020, the Company entered into a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) to settle this action, subject to notice to the class and preliminary and final approval by the Court. The settlement includes a full release of all Defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and does not contain any admission of liability or admission as to the validity or truth of any or all allegations or claims by any of the Defendants. The Term Sheet provided for a settlement payment of $39,000 (inclusive of all Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs), which was paid by the Company’s insurance carriers. The Company believed that resolving the matter is the right business decision and that it is prudent to end the protracted and uncertain class action process. On December 23, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement with the Court. On March 8, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and on July 1, 2021, the Court granted final approval of the class action settlement and entered final judgment.
***
Additionally, six purported shareholder derivative suits have been filed against the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and former-senior executives of the Company patterned after the securities class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Merholz et al. v. Vincent K. McMahon et al, No. 3:20-cv-00557-VAB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and assigned to the Honorable Victor A. Bolden. On May 29, 2020, the Defendants served Merholz’s counsel with a Rule 11 motion that identified the false allegations in the complaint. On May 19, 2020, Merholz filed an amended complaint prior to the expiration of the Rule 11 safe-harbor period, which is substantially similar to the consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the securities class action. Because Merholz’s amended complaint continued to assert allegations that were proven to be false by the Defendants’ Rule 11 motion regarding the original complaint, the Defendants served Merholz’s counsel with a Rule 11 motion regarding the amended complaint on July 2, 2020. On July 28, 2020, Merholz filed a second amended complaint. Kooi et al. v. Vincent K. McMahon et al., No. 3:20-cv-00743-VAB, was originally filed in Connecticut Superior Court and was removed by the Defendants to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on June 1, 2020. The Kooi lawsuit was deemed to be related to the Merholz lawsuit and transferred to Judge Bolden. On June 8, 2020, Kooi filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to state court. The Defendants filed its opposition to the motion to remand on June 29, 2020. Following Kooi’s affirmation of the allegations of the complaint in federal court by filing the motion to remand, on June 12, 2020, the Defendants served Kooi’s counsel with a Rule 11 motion similar to that served on counsel in the Merholz lawsuit. On July 3, 2020, Kooi filed an amended complaint that withdrew the false allegations identified in the Defendants’ Rule 11 motion. Nordstrom et al. v. Vincent K. McMahon et al., No. 3:20-cv-00904-VAB, was originally filed in Connecticut Superior Court, and also removed by the Defendants to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on July 1, 2020. The Nordstrom lawsuit was deemed to be related to the Merholz and Kooi lawsuits and was also transferred to Judge Bolden. Following Nordstrom’s affirmation of the allegations of the complaint in federal court, on July 24, 2020, the Defendants served Nordstrom’s counsel with a Rule 11 motion similar to that served on counsel in the Merholz and Kooi lawsuits. On July 31, 2020, Nordstrom filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to state court, which the Defendants opposed. On August 14, 2020, Nordstrom filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On July 2, 2020, the Defendants moved to consolidate the Merholz, Kooi, and Nordstrom lawsuits for all purposes. Following a status conference held on July 24, 2020, on August 1, 2020, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to consolidate without prejudice to renew following resolution of any motions to dismiss and motions to remand. The Defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss the complaints in the Merholz, Kooi, and Nordstrom lawsuits on August 28, 2020. Merholz, Kooi, and Nordstrom filed oppositions to the motion to dismiss on September 18, 2020 and the Defendants filed its reply on October 2, 2020. On October 23, 2020, another shareholder, Dennis Palkon, moved to intervene in the proceedings before Judge Bolden, to have his counsel appointed as lead counsel, to designate the proposed complaint that he filed with his motion to intervene as the operative complaint, and to deny as moot Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss in light of the newly-filed complaint. On November 7, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Merholz, Kooi, and Nordstrom actions without prejudice, while reserving a determination on whether the dismissal would be with prejudice pending resolution of the motion to intervene. On November 20, 2020, the Defendants filed their Opposition to Palkon’s motion to intervene and Palkon filed his reply on December 4, 2020. On October 28, 2020, another shareholder, Bernard Leavy, filed a notice of joinder in Palkon’s motion to intervene, which the Defendants opposed. On May 13, 2021, Merholz, along with another shareholder, Nicholas Jiminez, filed a new complaint in Connecticut Superior Court containing substantially similar allegations to those in the Merholz federal action. Defendants removed the Merholz/Jiminez state court action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on June 9, 2021, and it was transferred to Judge Bolden as a related case. Merholz/Jiminez moved to remand the case to state court on June 22, 2021. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to remand on July 13, 2021. On June 16, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint in its entirety. Merholz/Jiminez filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2021. On June 7, 2021, another shareholder, City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System, filed a complaint in Connecticut Superior Court, asserting substantially similar allegations as in the other derivative actions. Defendants removed that action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on July 7, 2021 and, the same day, filed a motion to dismiss that complaint in its entirety. The City of Pontiac lawsuit also was transferred to Judge Bolden as a related case. On June 10, 2021, another shareholder, Jesse Rezendez, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, asserting substantially similar allegations as in the other derivative actions. On August 17, 2021, the parties in all of the shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in Connecticut and Delaware filed a joint notice that they had reached a settlement in principle. On August 18, 2021, the Court ordered all of the pending cases to be administratively closed in light of the parties’ settlement in principle. On September 17, 2021, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On September 20, 2021, the plaintiffs in all of the pending cases moved for preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement. On October 20, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement and authorized dissemination of the notice of settlement. The Court scheduled a settlement hearing for December 22, 2021. The Company believes that all claims in the derivative actions, just as the claims in the related securities class action, are without merit.
In addition to the foregoing, from time to time we become a party to other lawsuits and claims. By its nature, the outcome of litigation is not known, but the Company does not currently expect this ordinary course litigation to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
