Sports

23xi-FRM Filings a signal signal signal on the decisive “market definition”

Photo of author

By [email protected]


The latest documents in the anti -recovery litigation, which is published in largely between the 23xi race, the PROT MOTORSPORTS (FRM), and NASCAR, indicated that the difference was planning to submit a request for brief judgment that would focus on the market definition. The parties are considered the main point of the dispute in the case.

23xi and FRM claim that the appropriate market for anti -monopoly purposes “Premium stock cars racing,” Thus, Naskar described as one seller of that particular market and confirms that it was affected by NASCAR’s control of the covenants and participation. In contrast, NASCAR argues that the market is much broader, including racing opportunities and other motorsport opportunities, and claims that just the truth of investing in one sector (such as Cup series The covenants cannot be) sufficient to determine the anti -monopoly market or to show the presence of damage without taking into account the available alternatives first.

Bob Boukras mentioned:

“23xi/FRM files indicate that they will make a suggestion of brief judgment on the market definition. The teams define the market as“ excellent stock cars race ”… NASCAR says that the market is wider, and that you cannot invest in something, then claim that this is the market and has been harmed. (1/2)”

The 23xi/FRM file indicates that it will make a suggestion of brief judgment on the market definition. The teams define the market as “excellent stock cars race” … NASCAR says that the market is wider, and that you cannot invest in something, then claim that this is the market and has been harmed. (1/2)

He also added:

“In the past NASCAC cases where the tracks filed a lawsuit against NASCAR, the rulings indicated that the market included at least another series of race. How the judge could affect the definition of the market (or if he left it to the jury) on what each side feels about the settlement/going to the trial. (2/2)”

In past NASCAC lawsuits, where the tracks filed a lawsuit against NASCAR, Al -Ahdi indicated that the market included at least another chain of race. How can the judge judge the definition of the market (or if it is left to the jury) can affect what each side feels about the settlement/going to trial. (2/2)

The dispute over what includes the market has long -term effects on the lawsuit. If the judge supports the club’s understanding of the market as the most limited, it is possible that the car race organization will face a deep problem with the anti -pregnancy laws, and thus unable to issue a guarantee or agree to the settlement. On the other hand, if the broader definition of the market is accepted, NASCAR will be a company with a strong position that it will be able to provide a safe and successful defense of its commercial practices.

According to what was stated, Michael Jordan warned NASAR

Amid internal tensions, Michael Jordan criticized the owners of other teams, including Joe GibsIn order to align with NASCAR and sign the new charter agreement. In the text messages submitted in the Federal Court, he warned that the teams that failed to support 23xi and FRM “It will regret” Their decision, which enhances its commitment to pressure for changes even at a large cost.

“The difference will regret not supporting us,” it is said that Michael Jordan wrote. (Through the athlete)

The lawsuit, filed by 23xi Racing and Front Row Motorsports, claims that the tenant system in NASCAR and business practices have suppressed the competition and reduced the difference in the difference in the cup chain. The teams specifically object to restrictions to obtain or sell charters, which they claim are monopolistic and harm the ability of new or smaller teams to compete equally.

A federal judge previously believed that the rule of the NASCAR Charter Agreement, which restricts the teams to take legal action, was illegal. This judgment allows 23xi and FRM to continue working as a rented particle during the court case.