Billy Corgan sues TNA

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
@Jacob Fox how does company X paying off company Ys debts prove that company Y is solvent?
Isn't a company being solvent or not based on its own ability to make money and handle a stable budget. Being repeatedly bailed out by outside players does not scream solvent if you ask me.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
David Bixenspan over on Seescoops have done a great job covering this. Here is his latest piece:

This afternoon, Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle of Nashville Chancery Court officially unsealed most of the filings in Billy Corgan’s lawsuit against TNA parent company Impact Ventures LLC. The only documents still hidden from public view are the initial complaint and the memorandum that Corgan filed to get a temporary restraining order against TNA. Those will be re-filed publicly on Wednesday (October 26th) with certain sections redacted, but everything else was made public today.

Of what came out today, two filings are especially noteworthy:

The restraining order is about what you’d expect: It stops TNA from “taking any action without the consent of” Corgan (like signing new contracts), as well as selling the company, its videotape library, other assets, etc. On Wednesday, there will be a hearing to determine if Corgan will get a injunction to replace the temporary restraining order.

The motion to compel discovery (or rather, the responses to previous requests attached as exhibits) is where we get the most information about the lawsuit so far. Based on the questions that Corgan asked of both Dixie Carter and Impact Ventures, as well as how they were answered, this is what appears to be going on:

  • Corgan and TNA (for the purposes of this article, TNA = all of the defendants unless otherwise noted), entered into an “equity pledge agreement.” The date of the agreement was possibly August 11th, as TNA claims to have not been insolvent since then . That was also 11 days before TNA’s debt to Anthem Sports and Entertainment was filed with the state of Tennessee.
  • If TNA defaulted/became insolvent, Corgan would be able to take over the voting rights to Dixie Carter’s shares. From there, Corgan could then “remove the managers of Impact Ventures and replace them with designees of [his] choosing,” as he would, for all intents and purposes, be the majority owner. This likely explains why Corgan loaned money personally to Dixie Carter, and, really, this was the only way that move made sense.
  • On September 29th, the Thursday before Bound For Glory, Corgan notified TNA that he was exercising his rights under the agreement because there had been “multiple events of default under the equity pledge agreement.” This was two days after Audience of One Productions sued TNA, which makes you wonder of the former tipped Corgan off. It was also the same day as Corgan’s cryptic interview on The Dan Le Batard Show, which is embedded at the top of this article. One day later, TNA’s debt to MCC Accquisitions (sister company to Anthem/Fight Network) was filed with the state of Tennessee.
  • TNA denied being insolvent, saying that “The term ‘insolvent’ is not defined in the Pledge Agreement. Under Tennessee law, an entity is insolvent only if the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than all of the debtor’s assets, at a fair valuation. Impact Ventures’ assets are of greater value than its debt, […] There has also not been an Event of Default as that term is used in the Pledge Agreement.”
  • TNA objected to a request for all documents showing the company’s inability to pay any debts in full, “because it theoretically seeks all correspondence, financial documents, vendor invoices/statements, and other documents concerning any instance in which Impact Ventures may have been late and/or obtained an extension with regard to paying a debt in full, and any such documents are not maintained in a manner that would enable Impact Ventures to readily obtain such information[.]”
It would seem that, once TNA denied being insolvent and refused to let Corgan take over, he started preparing for the lawsuit. This ostensibly included filing Carter’s debt with the state of Tennessee on October 11th, the day before he sued. Since Carter/TNA said in sworn statements that TNA is not insolvent in spite of mounting evidence otherwise, and it would be wrong to assume that anyone is committing perjury, there’s only one logical explanation as to how that could be truthful. That would be that TNA valuing the company’s most subtantial asset, the video library, at more than Corgan thinks it’s worth.

Based on what WWE normally pays, the library is worth about $1 million, but TNA is more than $4 million in debt based on public records, which don’t include their debts to Corgan, the state of Tennessee, or any staff/performers. When you factor in that Dave Meltzer has reported that Anthem owns at least part of the video library know, it makes you wonder if they made a deal where TNA can point to a valuation of the collection at much more than $1 million. Otherwise, it doesn’t really track how TNA could not be considered insolvent right now.

Also: For what it’s worth, TNA’s income from its TV deals with Challenge TV in the U.K. and Sony Six in India would be classified as receivables and not assets.

Some other notes from the filings:

  • For the record, TNA Entertainment LLC (TNA’s old parent company) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Impact Ventures LLC (TNA’s current parent company).
  • For most, if not all of the documents Corgan asked Carter and TNA to produce, it was alleged that he already had access to them. This includes TNA’s communications with WWE in 2016. Before he filed the lawsuit, Corgan was cryptic about how he didn’t know about any such deal even though he should, so TNA’s position is interesting, to say the least.
There’s clearly a lot more to this that we still don’t know. Depending on what exactly is redacted from what is released on Wednesday, we may learn a lot more.
 

Jacob Fox

Quiet You
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
59,082
Reaction score
12,453
Points
118
@Jacob Fox how does company X paying off company Ys debts prove that company Y is solvent?
Isn't a company being solvent or not based on its own ability to make money and handle a stable budget. Being repeatedly bailed out by outside players does not scream solvent if you ask me.

Company X says the money they are using to pay off Company Y's debts is not a loan but an investment. It is as simple as that.

Solvency is not simply being able to make money through revenue to become self sustaining. If that was the case, when Panda bought TNA, the company would have been isolvent for years. They were in debt $20 million at one point. Since Panda established them as an LLC, Panda's revenue could not be figured into TNA's solvency. However, since Panda was paying TNA's bills, the company remained solvent.

Corgan can only ask for a declaration of insolvency based on the company's debts to him. Once those are paid, he has absolutely no case against TNA, even if they remain in debt to other people.
 

Rosie

Dark Side
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
44,221
Reaction score
19,734
Points
128
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Favorite Wrestler
9yQJpez
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
dJvrW4y
Favorite Wrestler
kevinsteen
Favorite Wrestler
Se3BZPQ
Favorite Wrestler
q9gbHdQ
Favorite Sports Team
2DciFqq
Favorite Sports Team
OQcgyMS
Favorite Sports Team
coloradoavalanche
Favorite Sports Team
vCLYUUD
This situation is breaking me...

Curse you Matt Hardy!
 

Jacob Fox

Quiet You
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
59,082
Reaction score
12,453
Points
118
David Bixenspan over on Seescoops have done a great job covering this. Here is his latest piece:

And that is interesting, assuming that everything Corgan is claiming is true in regards to the agreement. From the information I have seen, that has not been verified with actual documentation signed by Dixie Carter. That would be vital to Corgan's entire lawsuit. From what is SEEMS so far, that information seems to be lacking. But I'll be interested in seeing what happens.

I am starting to irritate myself haha. It seems like I am defending Dixie and I'm not. In fact, I pretty much hope that Corgan wins this as long as he wins it fairly. But there are certain aspects of the lawsuit, mostly in regards to the agreement, which give me pause. I dunno, Dixie is a dumbass, but is she really dumb enough to have gone into such an agreement that benefits Corgan so much more than her? Maybe, but that would make her pretty damn stupid.
 

Snowman1

Chillin' with the snowmies.
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
33,052
Reaction score
11,726
Points
0
Location
Cuteville




:hmm: I assume this is TNA related, but... hold on to your pants.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
Aaaand another lawsuit
Yet another lawsuit filed against TNA was by Bankdirect Capital Finance, LLC which filed a lawsuit asking for $207,612.29 plus late charges, interest and attorney feels against TNA Entertainment LLC on 9/29 in Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois. On November 30, 2015, BankDirect entertained in an agreement where it would pay TNA $400,146.00 so TNA could pay certain insurance premiums and TNA agreed to make ten monthly payments of $41,032.45 with the first payment on November 13, 2015. As of the time of the suit, TNA had paid nearly half but still was $207,612.29 behind.





:hmm: I assume this is TNA related, but... hold on to your pants.

From what I understand it is more related to content availability than TNA. So it is probably related to the rumored changes to the WWE network/FLO Sports contacting promotions about streaming their content. Not ruling out it being TNA related but I've heard otherwise
 

¡Tranquilo!

World's Finest Failure.
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
7,381
Reaction score
2,409
Points
0
Location
Where yo' grandma stay.




:hmm: I assume this is TNA related, but... hold on to your pants.


Apparently Meltzer said in His follow up Tweet that this had nothing to do with TNA. Everyone on wreddit is speculating WWE announcing some kind of deal with indie promotions to have their content on the network.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
Corgan's complaint in court has been unsealed. Bixenspan over on Sescoops with the good coverage as per usual.

The narrative of exactly what’s going on with TNA became a lot more clear on Tuesday, thanks to Billy Corgan’s complaint in his lawsuit against the company being unsealed (Thanks to Ryan Satin of Pro Wrestling Sheet for sending the documents along). Among other things, it reveals that when Billy Corgan signed documents in August giving him control of the company if it became insolvent, there was a very good reason he got Dixie Carter to give up so much:

If he hadn’t injected more cash into the company, Aroluxe Media had the right to foreclose on the company because TNA hadn’t paid off its loans to them, either. From the complaint (emphasis ours; note that “plaintiff” = Corgan and “Mrs. Salinas” = Dixie Carter-Salinas):

On or about August 11, 2016, Impact Ventures again needed funds to continue to operate and to avoid immediate foreclosure or all of its assets by Aroluxe. Specifically, the company required funds to pay Aroluxe so that Aroluxe would proceed with its production of TNA Impact Wrestling episodes upcoming in August. In addition, as ofAugust 6,2016, Aroluxe’s agreement to forbear on exisi ing defaults under the Vendor Financing and Security Agreement expired by its terms, thereby allowing Aroluxe to foreclose on the company at any time.

That takes us to what we already deduced last week, that Dixie Carter pledged her majority interest in TNA (Corgan believes that Dixie has 92.5% of the company, with Aroluxe holding 5% and the companies related to The Fight Network holding 2.5%) as collateral to Corgan, and he could collect if/when TNA became insolvent:

Impact Ventures and Mrs. Salinas also entered into an equity pledge agreement with plaintiff whereby Mrs. Salinas pledged 100% of her equity interest in Impact Ventures to plaintiff as security for Impact Ventures’ performance of its obligations under the Second Amended Corgan Loan Agreement and August 2016 Corgan Note (“Salinas Pledge Agreement”).

Other noteworthy information in the complaint and attached exhibits:

  • Corgan outright says that Anthem Sports and Entertainment (Fight Network parent company) and MCC Acquisitions are one in the same, which was suspected because they share an address but not confirmed until now.
  • TNA needing to go to MCC/Anthem during the last week of September is what Corgan is asserting is the insolvency/event of TNA defaulting under their agreement. TNA didn’t reply to any communications where he asserted his right to take over the company.
  • No reference is made to the other lawsuit filed against TNA for non payment that week, which means it’s either a coincidence or that creditors following wrestling news decided to get their debts on the record.
  • “Mr. Salinas” (unclear if a typo for Dixie or a reference to her husband, Serg) told the roster at the post-Bound For Glory meeting that TNA was negotiating with WWE to sell the promotion’s video library even though both she and Dean Broadhead, TNA’s Chief Financial Officer, had denied to Corgan that the rumors were true.
  • “This recent conduct is consistent with the way that Mrs. Salinas and the other managers have dealt with plaintiff since the inception of his involvement with Impact Ventures.” When you consider that Corgan’s investment/loan/whatever you want to call it was not the beginning of his interactions with TNA, that’s a very interesting statement. If he was that distrustful of Carter and Broadhead, why was he so willing to front TNA money?
There will be a hearing tomorrow (Wednesday) to determine if Corgan’s temporary restraining order against TNA (keeping Carter from selling more stakes in the company, or selling the video library, or making any other business moves) will be converted to an injunction. That the judge granted the restraining order is a good sign for Corgan because it shows a strong belief that he will prevail at trial.

Again, thanks to Ryan Satin of Pro Wrestling Sheet for contributing to this report.

Article
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob Fox

Jacob Fox

Quiet You
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
59,082
Reaction score
12,453
Points
118
I'm still rooting for Corgan although I am not sure how much of a case he has. He being in charge of TNA would be soooo much better than Dixie. Hell, Bill Cosby would run TNA better/
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
@Jacob Fox since it is you and me going hard for this subject.
According to PWinsider TNA has apparently been hiding the true extent of the debt. I'll get a full write up on it once Bixenspan runs through it
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
This page from one of Billy's filings is pretty brutal
CvtkTTPUkAAzsMe.jpg
 

Jacob Fox

Quiet You
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
59,082
Reaction score
12,453
Points
118
@Jacob Fox since it is you and me going hard for this subject.
According to PWinsider TNA has apparently been hiding the true extent of the debt. I'll get a full write up on it once Bixenspan runs through it

I'll be interested in seeing it.

This page from one of Billy's filings is pretty brutal
CvtkTTPUkAAzsMe.jpg

That is very interesting. I've read the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Act and it does indicate that the majority owner can appoint a voting proxy. However, she can just as easily retract that proxy without their consent. That seems to favor Dixie. But I am not 100% sure.

Again, I think the crux of this lies in this operating agreement Corgan is alleging. If it exists on paper, I'd really like to see it. If it was verbal, I think Corgan still might have a case because Dixie seems dim enough to have admitted it exists. The comment "Defendants next argue that the provision in the Salinas Pledge Agreement" seems to indicate they acknowledge that not only the agreement exists but that they also acknowledge the agreement of the voting proxy.

Subparagraph 48-249-401(g) seems to be very vague on how proxies are dismissed. I think TNA happens to be a manager managed LLC which allows a proxy to exist, so Corgan would be correct that the Act does allow it. That being the case, she would have had to name Corgan the proxy in the agreement in order for him to be the proxy voter. That's why the operating agreement is so important. If she DID name him as proxy, then I think Dixie is screwed. If she did not, then Corgan cannot become proxy by suing. So I'd really love to see that agreement.
 

Stopspot

Now I’m a big, fat dynamo!
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
42,192
Reaction score
8,467
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sweden
I'll be interested in seeing it.



That is very interesting. I've read the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Act and it does indicate that the majority owner can appoint a voting proxy. However, she can just as easily retract that proxy without their consent. That seems to favor Dixie. But I am not 100% sure.

Again, I think the crux of this lies in this operating agreement Corgan is alleging. If it exists on paper, I'd really like to see it. If it was verbal, I think Corgan still might have a case because Dixie seems dim enough to have admitted it exists. The comment "Defendants next argue that the provision in the Salinas Pledge Agreement" seems to indicate they acknowledge that not only the agreement exists but that they also acknowledge the agreement of the voting proxy.

Subparagraph 48-249-401(g) seems to be very vague on how proxies are dismissed. I think TNA happens to be a manager managed LLC which allows a proxy to exist, so Corgan would be correct that the Act does allow it. That being the case, she would have had to name Corgan the proxy in the agreement in order for him to be the proxy voter. That's why the operating agreement is so important. If she DID name him as proxy, then I think Dixie is screwed. If she did not, then Corgan cannot become proxy by suing. So I'd really love to see that agreement.
The trial is going on right now and is being live tweeted. TNA's defense seems to be an odd mix of "Corgan did not loan us enough money to function" and "Corgan loaned us money, so we have value"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jacob Fox

Jacob Fox

Quiet You
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
59,082
Reaction score
12,453
Points
118
The trial is going on right now and is being live tweeted. TNA's defense seems to be an odd mix of "Corgan did not loan us enough money to function" and "Corgan loaned us money, so we have value"

I've seen some tweets and yeah, that's definitely not a winning argument. It is what I would expect from Dixie though... not what I would expect from a competent attorney.