Rashada is suing Napier and a Florida booster.

[TheOriginalCane]

Tough to prove all the elements of fraud in the inducement + clear damages. But, hopefully, the threat of public records requests and heavy discovery will be enough to either make UF squirm or make them look really bad.

Maybe.

But I would argue:

1. There was an existing contract for $9.5 million.
2. Rashada was presented with a different contract for $13.85 million which was repudiated one day later, but after Rashada already notified parties of the breach of the first contract.
3. Not only was there a loss of the $13.85 million contract, but also the $9.5 million contract, plus there were no NIL contracts at the next 2 schools.

I would emphasize the shortness of time between the UF agreement and repudiation, plus the quickness with which the "sale" of Velocity Automotive was cited as the reason for breach. The breach was in November 2022 and the sale of Velocity closed in January 2023. There is no way in **** that Hathnocock suddenly realized IN ONE DAY that he was going to sell his company.

Furthermore, I would argue that the repeated assurances that Hathcock would pay the amount PERSONALLY (and then the failure to do so) represents a false reason for breaching the original deal.

 

[dycane]

There is a draft contract, sitting in an office in California, as well as multiple witnesses (including one who has been featured on this board), that could support the number. Ruiz is full of ****. He was under scrutiny and used his sons and others to create a buffer. Rusty, like the NCAA, knows all this. The 180s in this thread from porsters who laughed at this last year are amazing. The number is real, although as others pointed out that doesn’t mean it supports Rashada’s damages claim.

 

[Ispyin]

I wouldn’t give these kid primadonnas two cents. Can’t wait for college football to implode. It’s now beyond ridiculous.

Capitalism is for everyone.

 

[Rellyrell]

Check your PM, sent. and yeah see you were smart, it was a verbal offer and the fact they were hesitant to put it in writing made your radar go off. I think Rashada's radar did go off after they DID put his NIL offer in writing, he signed it and Hugh started bragging about it on twitter. Then they cancel but tell him its okay, it is still guaranteed, we just had to change the pay structure. Someone more in the know than me can confirm but I believe this was in early December around the same time Rashada looped back around to us and we said no thanks.

Then at that point he waited to sign his NLI to FLorida, but a call from the HC who allegedly promised him a new payment was coming so he signed it. The latter I believe is what you are referencing and I agree. He got played and did it to himself. It is the former that I think holds more water. He had a signed deal but UF cancelled and made up an excuse it was because the payor needed to be changed since Hugh was selling his business. Sounds fishy but not completely asinine and they kept stringing him along until it was basically too late and he was out of options.

So I’m going to tag @TheOriginalCane in this reply too;

I quickly skimmed through, reading details on certain parts. This is what I mean by tricky language found in these NIL deals, paragraph 5 page 2 of 3 “Termination Right.”

The very 1st sentence states: “Collective may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement, effective immediately upon written notice to Athlete without penalty or further obligation (including, without limitation, any obligation to pay The Fee or any portion of The Fee to Athlete), in the event that…”

It list several events, including the next tricky language (i) the collective becomes aware of it violating or contradicting any laws, including institutional rules regarding NIL. Then part (iii) or termination which is the athlete fails to carry out what’s obligated to them in paragraph 3 page 1 of 3.

Then there’s this “Non-Disparagement Morals” found under Standard Terms & Conditions paragraph 7 on page 2 of 3. Clause (b) is tricky af! Lol. If I’m not mistaken, as Rashada’s future as an early enrollee came up to ?, rumors from his camp began leaking info about the collective.

The only thing I see concrete is the $500k by 12/2/2022. Now, if UF didn’t make good on that, I can see other issues. The fact is, the amount paid was contingent on Rashada’s ability to fulfill a lot of obligations. Could it possibly be argued that since paragraph 3 was no longer viable, it became null & void? Could it be argued that after the Rashada’s were paid the initial, they didn’t fulfill their obligations? Could it be argued that UF Collectives felt the Rashada’s violated paragraph 7 of the Standard Terms & Agreement b/c they weren’t allowed to remedy the matter?

There’s just, too, many loop holes in this NIL favoring UF’s collectives, including where the court venue is to be held if there’s any legal disputes.

 

[Ispyin]

First point I pointed out previously that Ruiz said Lifewallet and Ruiz did not have a deal for that amount, he did not say that amount did not exist from other sources cobbled together. Ruiz is a lawyer as well as CEO of a publically traded company, I agree what he says likely does not matter but I doubt he would release a completely false statement when he could have said "no comment" I think he chose his words carefully in saying neither me nor my company had a 9.5 million deal and the complaint says the NIL for 9.5 was from "Miami" not ruiz specifically so it could all check out. I agree with you that Rusty likely has some ammo for the 9.5 million statement. I think people are lumping together a MIAMI deal for 9.5 mil and a 150k re-payment to Ruiz. I assume Ruiz was funding a large part of the deal and that is all.

Second, I agree depos are liberal but if I am UM counsel and UF lawyer starts to get into the weeds I am simply saying dont respond and we can go see the Court and see what happens. As far as what was contingent and guaranteed that again should all be in the contract. I assume it was not guaranteed and was likely structured similar to UF's deal. Monthly payments, appearances, stay enrolled in a secondary education etc. all speculative and contingent upon him doing stuff over the years. But again why the negotiations leading up to the signed agreement would be relevant misses me. He could have demanded 10 million guaranteed and we countered with 2 million guaranteed and then eventually got to the 9.5 million, the negotiations are irrelevant since they were never agreed. Only the final agreed version would be relevant I assume. He cant say "I would have taken the 2 mil guaranteed" now if he didnt back then.

As this is going out of my league of knowledge from a business affairs perspective, can one of the lawyers comment on how much discovery is Miami obligated to have to deal with when two parties that they are not being sued for or buy or with or implicated in, including one who has Potential benefit to causing a competitor of theirs problems with fishing expeditions ?

Like how much of this is accurate-
The third party is obligated to comply with a subpoena for relevant information, but they are protected against undue burden and disclosure of privileged or overly sensitive information. The court can issue protective orders to balance the need for discovery with the protection of the third party's interests.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So I’m going to tag @TheOriginalCane in this reply too;

I quickly skimmed through, reading details on certain parts. This is what I mean by tricky language found in these NIL deals, paragraph 5 page 2 of 3 “Termination Right.”

The very 1st sentence states: “Collective may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement, effective immediately upon written notice to Athlete without penalty or further obligation (including, without limitation, any obligation to pay The Fee or any portion of The Fee to Athlete), in the event that…”

It list several events, including the next tricky language (i) the collective becomes aware of it violating or contradicting any laws, including institutional rules regarding NIL. Then part (iii) or termination which is the athlete fails to carry out what’s obligated to them in paragraph 3 page 1 of 3.

Then there’s this “Non-Disparagement Morals” found under Standard Terms & Conditions paragraph 7 on page 2 of 3. Clause (b) is tricky af, as if I’m not mistaken, as Rashada’s future as an early enrollee came up to ?, rumors from his camp began leaking info about the collective.

The only thing I see concrete is the $500k by 12/2/2022. Now, if UF didn’t make good on that, I can see other issues. The fact is, the amount paid was contingent on Rashada’s ability to fulfill a lot of obligations. Could it possibly be argued that that since paragraph 3 was no longer viable, it became null & void? Could it be argued that after the Rashada’s were paid the initial, they didn’t fulfill their obligations? There’s too many loop holes in this NIL favoring UF’s collectives, including where the court venue is to be held if there’s any legal disputes.

Let me address a couple of quick things.

First, the main body of the contract is 2 pages. The add-on of 3 pages of "Terms And Conditions" is like when you get a whole bunch of extra stuff at Best Buy after you purchase something. These are not the primary terms and are not allowed to contradict or change anything in the main agreement. Thus, compare the "Termination Right" paragraph in the main contract to the "Termination" paragraph in the Terms And Conditions. There are some interesting differences.

Second, I would say that the Collective almost immediately tried to terminate the Contract. If the communications cited in the lawsuit are accurate and provable, the Collective cited a change in WHO would pay Rashada (no longer Velocity Automotive, which was being sold). And to the extent that there might have been ANY "disparagement" whatsoever, it would have taken place in January 2023, not in November 2022.

I think the UF Collective is busted on this one.

 

[Rellyrell]

Let me address a couple of quick things.

First, the main body of the contract is 2 pages. The add-on of 3 pages of "Terms And Conditions" is like when you get a whole bunch of extra stuff at Best Buy after you purchase something. These are not the primary terms and are not allowed to contradict or change anything in the main agreement. Thus, compare the "Termination Right" paragraph in the main contract to the "Termination" paragraph in the Terms And Conditions. There are some interesting differences.

Second, I would say that the Collective almost immediately tried to terminate the Contract. If the communications cited in the lawsuit are accurate and provable, the Collective cited a change in WHO would pay Rashada (no longer Velocity Automotive, which was being sold). And to the extent that there might have been ANY "disparagement" whatsoever, it would have taken place in January 2023, not in November 2022.

I think the UF Collective is busted on this one.

We shall see; but listen, & I want u to be completely honest w/ me:

If this was a Miami contract w/ Jaden Rashada outlined in the same manner, would u feel this way? I’ve set 3 pair of legal eyes on this including my cousin who’s an entertainment lawyer, & was one of the lawyers used in the NBAPA. They all said the same thing; the language is ambiguous, and while Jaden may have “a case”, b/c of certain clauses, it’s left up to interpretation.

 

[Cookie917]

As this is going out of my league of knowledge from a business affairs perspective, can one of the lawyers comment on how much discovery is Miami obligated to have to deal with when two parties that they are not being sued for or buy or with or implicated in, including one who has Potential benefit to causing a competitor of theirs problems with fishing expeditions ?

Like how much of this is accurate-
The third party is obligated to comply with a subpoena for relevant information, but they are protected against undue burden and disclosure of privileged or overly sensitive information. The court can issue protective orders to balance the need for discovery with the protection of the third party's interests.

It is a case by case basis. They (UM or any third party) can have a subpoena for just documents, documents and a deposition, or both. Those non-parties do have the right to object and it is up to the Judge to determine if the requests are relevant or not. Occasionally the Judge can do an in-camera review of the discovery then make a decision to release all, part, or none of it.

 

[Cookie917]

We shall see; but listen, & I want u to be completely honest w/ me:

If this was a Miami contract w/ Jaden Rashada outlined in the same manner, would u feel this way? I’ve set 3 pair of legal eyes on this including my cousin who’s an entertainment lawyer, & was one of the lawyers used in the NBAPA. They all said the same thing; the language is ambiguous, and while Jaden may have “a case”, b/c of certain clauses, it’s left up to interpretation.

Let me address a couple of quick things.

First, the main body of the contract is 2 pages. The add-on of 3 pages of "Terms And Conditions" is like when you get a whole bunch of extra stuff at Best Buy after you purchase something. These are not the primary terms and are not allowed to contradict or change anything in the main agreement. Thus, compare the "Termination Right" paragraph in the main contract to the "Termination" paragraph in the Terms And Conditions. There are some interesting differences.

Second, I would say that the Collective almost immediately tried to terminate the Contract. If the communications cited in the lawsuit are accurate and provable, the Collective cited a change in WHO would pay Rashada (no longer Velocity Automotive, which was being sold). And to the extent that there might have been ANY "disparagement" whatsoever, it would have taken place in January 2023, not in November 2022.

I think the UF Collective is busted on this one.

@TheOriginalCane I agree with your analysis about T&C and whether or not they can contradict.

Where I differ is where @Rellyrell 's argument lies and one obvious thing missing from the lawsuit... Rashada is not suing the collective. So to say the UF Collective is busted, busted for what? They are not a party. It could be because that collective is now defunct with Rojas so it would be like suing an insolvent LLC, just no point but they are also personally suing a former player personnel director who likely does not have millions to be collectible. Perhaps they think the university will tender coverage but Rusty did not include the collective for a reason.

I assume there is other stuff not in the lawsuit where Rusty believed going after the collective or arguing breach or improper termination was weak and/or would erode from the rest of the suit. Just reading the complaint and what has been posted I agree with you, seems like they did not terminate for cause and should be on the hook even though that termination language is super wishy-washy. (i.e. the collective can terminate if UF makes a policy that the collective in its sole discretion then thinks Rashada's NIL could hurt its reputation) The fact they are not being sued could just be because its a worthless uncollectible judgment, or there was something else where Rusty believed they did properly invoke Section 5. I do think the much stronger arguments are what was pled, fraud, inducement, tortious interference, etc.

 

[AlexCane]

So I’m going to tag @TheOriginalCane in this reply too;

I quickly skimmed through, reading details on certain parts. This is what I mean by tricky language found in these NIL deals, paragraph 5 page 2 of 3 “Termination Right.”

The very 1st sentence states: “Collective may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement, effective immediately upon written notice to Athlete without penalty or further obligation (including, without limitation, any obligation to pay The Fee or any portion of The Fee to Athlete), in the event that…”

It list several events, including the next tricky language (i) the collective becomes aware of it violating or contradicting any laws, including institutional rules regarding NIL. Then part (iii) or termination which is the athlete fails to carry out what’s obligated to them in paragraph 3 page 1 of 3.

Then there’s this “Non-Disparagement Morals” found under Standard Terms & Conditions paragraph 7 on page 2 of 3. Clause (b) is tricky af! Lol. If I’m not mistaken, as Rashada’s future as an early enrollee came up to ?, rumors from his camp began leaking info about the collective.

The only thing I see concrete is the $500k by 12/2/2022. Now, if UF didn’t make good on that, I can see other issues. The fact is, the amount paid was contingent on Rashada’s ability to fulfill a lot of obligations. Could it possibly be argued that since paragraph 3 was no longer viable, it became null & void? Could it be argued that after the Rashada’s were paid the initial, they didn’t fulfill their obligations? Could it be argued that UF Collectives felt the Rashada’s violated paragraph 7 of the Standard Terms & Agreement b/c they weren’t allowed to remedy the matter?

There’s just, too, many loop holes in this NIL favoring UF’s collectives, including where the court venue is to be held if there’s any legal disputes.

Yup. As I said earlier, the potential for inequity is rife. On the one hand, you have wealthy and sophisticated boosters with access to lawyers, and on the other hand, you have high school kids who can't understand a contract and its implications but with the carrot of a huge payday ahead. And even with agents on their behalf, you still have a significant disparity between the two sides. Kudos I guess to Rashada for taking on the machine. And btw, kudos to you for recognizing that ambiguity. I noticed that as well. The termination clause is very, very vague and grants UF's collective a lot of discretion to act as it deems fit. I think that's likely why there is no breach of contract against the collective.

 

[AlexCane]

As this is going out of my league of knowledge from a business affairs perspective, can one of the lawyers comment on how much discovery is Miami obligated to have to deal with when two parties that they are not being sued for or buy or with or implicated in, including one who has Potential benefit to causing a competitor of theirs problems with fishing expeditions ?

Like how much of this is accurate-
The third party is obligated to comply with a subpoena for relevant information, but they are protected against undue burden and disclosure of privileged or overly sensitive information. The court can issue protective orders to balance the need for discovery with the protection of the third party's interests.

Strictly speaking, I don't believe the actual University of Miami entity would be involved, but whoever was associated with the Rashada NIL would likely be subject to discovery. I assume Ruiz is part of that. I have no idea what other groups or UM collectives were involved with Rashada. The good news is that Ruiz does hire capable, competent lawyers.

 

[Cajuncane]

mannnnn some of the allegations in there are going to be hard for gator fans to cope or spin.... remember the "he took less money to play for the gator" narrative?

Couple of highlights from the lawsuit:

Lawsuit says Ruiz/NIL from Miami was around 9.5 million. Gator and their booster Hugh and a director of player personnel upped it to 13.85 million. Rashada only signed his NLI after Napier promised his father a payment of 1 million that day as a partial payment and he never received the cash.

UF staffer was constantly blowing up Jaden via text and they have the texts about him negotiating the NIL on behalf of Gator Guard and Hugh. Hathcock approached Rashada when he vistied and promised him whatever he needed and pops a job. It was also going to be 5.35 million from Hathcock and 500k from his business velocity automotive.

On Nov 10th, Hathcock objected to his company being involved since he was trying to sell the company, they helped work out the details and later that evening was when Rashada flipped from us.

Contract was signed and he was supposed to get a 500k downpayment and 250k per month as a freshman and that would increase soph and junior years.

On Dec 6th, Gator collective sent him a letter terminating his contract (his NIL deal said it could be terminated for cause but no cause was listed)

After Napier and the UF Staffer said they would make good on the promise (so Napier was DIRECTLY involved in the funds/$$) and that the staffer said Hugh would personally guarantee the deal. Three days later Hugh did transfer 150k to Rashada so he could pay back Ruiz and avoid a lawsuit because he already took Ruiz money.

This was the ONLY money he ever received. So Hugh just paid Ruiz essentially. By Dec 19th, Rashada had no new NIL deal and the amounts they were throwing at him were around 1/2 of the original 13.85 million offered.

Rashada did not have a signed NIL, his reps told him not to sign his national letter of intent with florida and that is when Napier called Rashada and offered the 1 million payment, Rashada then signed later that night and the cash never came.

Rashada is also represented by Rusty Hardin. He is a good attorney and has done plenty of high profile cases, this is def not a newbie attorney trying to make a name for himself. If Rashada did sign here no way he have Cam Ward and while we likely would have made good on our promise to pay can only imagine the headache his pops could have caused the program and we could be a defendant in a lawsuit.

Well they did have cause to cancel the contract….it was CAUSE UFAG didn’t have any money…

 

[TheOriginalCane]

@TheOriginalCane I agree with your analysis about T&C and whether or not they can contradict.

Where I differ is where @Rellyrell 's argument lies and one obvious thing missing from the lawsuit... Rashada is not suing the collective. So to say the UF Collective is busted, busted for what? They are not a party. It could be because that collective is now defunct with Rojas so it would be like suing an insolvent LLC, just no point but they are also personally suing a former player personnel director who likely does not have millions to be collectible. Perhaps they think the university will tender coverage but Rusty did not include the collective for a reason.

I assume there is other stuff not in the lawsuit where Rusty believed going after the collective or arguing breach or improper termination was weak and/or would erode from the rest of the suit. Just reading the complaint and what has been posted I agree with you, seems like they did not terminate for cause and should be on the hook even though that termination language is super wishy-washy. (i.e. the collective can terminate if UF makes a policy that the collective in its sole discretion then thinks Rashada's NIL could hurt its reputation) The fact they are not being sued could just be because its a worthless uncollectible judgment, or there was something else where Rusty believed they did properly invoke Section 5. I do think the much stronger arguments are what was pled, fraud, inducement, tortious interference, etc.

Alright, let's back up for a minute.

I agree that the Collective, in and of itself, is not a party to the lawsuit. But the people who negotiated the deal and made the (false) assertions are. So if I am using "Collective" and "Hathnocock" interchangeably, it's just a minor and unintentional oversight.

Yes, the Collective is a party to a contract, but this is not a breach of contract case. Yes, certain individuals gave false assurances to "ignore the man behind the curtain" and convinced Jaden Rashada to sign an LOI in spite of the termination of the NIL deal.

There are numerous valid strategic reasons for why Hardin is filing as he is. He clearly wants to shift the focus to powerful and/or wealthy individuals who played fast-and-loose with their assertions that the NIL was being repudiated because "Velocity Automotive" could no longer be the payor of record for about a third of the deal. Humorously, I have never heard of any offer where the Gator Collective assured Rashada as to "hey, no problem, our wacky booster backed out of one-third of the payment, but we will gladly pay you the other two-thirds".

So, yes, no intention for me to say "Collective" when Hathnocock and Slingblade Billy and at least one other adult tried to bluff Jaden into signing an LOI for zero guaranteed dollars.

 

[LuCane]

Maybe.

But I would argue:

1. There was an existing contract for $9.5 million.
2. Rashada was presented with a different contract for $13.85 million which was repudiated one day later, but after Rashada already notified parties of the breach of the first contract.
3. Not only was there a loss of the $13.85 million contract, but also the $9.5 million contract, plus there were no NIL contracts at the next 2 schools.

I would emphasize the shortness of time between the UF agreement and repudiation, plus the quickness with which the "sale" of Velocity Automotive was cited as the reason for breach. The breach was in November 2022 and the sale of Velocity closed in January 2023. There is no way in **** that Hathnocock suddenly realized IN ONE DAY that he was going to sell his company.

Furthermore, I would argue that the repeated assurances that Hathcock would pay the amount PERSONALLY (and then the failure to do so) represents a false reason for breaching the original deal.

All fair.

I’ve watched some corporate level fraud in the inducement claims fall through the cracks. Lack of evidence of a smoking gun (I don’t know if they have locked up the material misrepresentations from the collective rep), for example - among other tenuous attempts at proving the elements.

And, then, like someone else earlier in the thread alluded to, proving damages to full extent (in this case, the 9.5M, for example).

From what I’ve seen, not the easiest claim to prove. With that said, I’m for whatever makes UF look their worst.

 

[423Hurricane]

As lawyers go, I’m actually thankful we’ve got very competent Cane lawyers to help us laymen understand this gator fiasco.

 

[Cajuncane]

As lawyers go, I’m actually thankful we’ve got very competent Cane lawyers to help us laymen understand this gator fiasco.

Yea even my old *** can figure out what’s going on most of the time.Thanks for all our CIS attorneys for usually putting this stuff into terms even us law novices can understand

 

[Dghustla]

eh. hes gonna be good. also, everyone is bout money. you dont work for free do you?

Right, cuz the last thing we needed was a potential super star QB who was getting paid.

 

[FTPCaneFan4Life]

I thought stuff like this might happen. This is the first of probably many. Anytime you have a disadvantaged group (high school or college-aged kids) dealing with financially savvy and advantaged groups, the potential for inequity is high. NCAA is going to have to come up with some regulations for how negotiations can take place so that these backroom discussions don't turn into lawsuits.

The only thing needed is for athletes to sign contracts and for courts to enforce them. NCAA enforcement is a joke.

 

[Caneau]

It's the Docusigned copy from the Rashadas' side.

Regardless of whether Hathnocock signed it, the lawsuit is NOT a "breach of contract" action.

Yes, that was explained by another poster after I posted this. I missed a lot of things today ….the docusigned part too. Been under the weather and happy I am not signing any important documents today. I am a stickler for details and reading thoroughly but clearly need to sign off today.

 

[Caneau]

The contract shows his signature but not the Gator Collective. Hopefully that is a mistake on which copy was attached to the suit.

Pointed out by another poster it is a docusign copy which would only show his signature.