O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Belkin v. Levenson, 19 Mass. L. Rep. 621, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 366
(Aug. 9, 2005) (van Gestel, J.).

This case involved a disagreement between the managers of the Atlanta Hawks NBA franchise over a proposed trade for former Boston Celtic Joe Johnson. Belkin, who was the Hawks’ designated NBA Governor with final authority over the trade, favored the proposed trade. The remaining managers of the Hawks opposed the trade and sought to oust Belkin as the Hawks’ NBA Governor for agreeing to a trade with which all of his partners disagreed. Belkin moved for a preliminary injunction preventing his partners from removing him as NBA Governor. The Court allowed Belkin’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In so doing, Judge van Gestel held that the provision in the operating agreement that a breach of any provision would cause irreparable harm obviated the need to conduct the traditional irreparable harm analysis.

This is an interesting case because irreparable harm is often the most difficult

element to satisfy when seeking an injunction. Judge van Gestel, perhaps due in substantial part to the sophistication of the parties, accepted the contractual stipulation that a breach of any provision of the operating agreement would cause irreparable harm. A motion for an injunction in a breach of contract dispute may relate to a contract signed much earlier.

Three days later, Judge van Gestel vacated the injunction upon submission of an affidavit from NBA Commissioner David Stern stating that he would approve any request to remove Belkin as the Hawks NBA Governor (Commissioner Stern’s approval was required to remove Belkin). Notwithstanding that the traditional vehicle for challenging an injunction is an interlocutory appeal under G.L. c. 231, § 118, the Court held that this extraordinary change in circumstance warranted reconsideration of the prior order.

North American Expositions Company, LP v. Corcoran, 19 Mass. L. Rep. 545, 2005
Mass. Super. LEXIS 341 (July 19, 2005) (van Gestel, J.).

The Plaintiff, which produces shows such as the New England Boat Show and the New England Camping and Recreational Vehicle Show, sought an injunction preventing the owners and operators of the Bayside Expo Center from interfering with its effort to organize these “Gate Shows” at the new Convention Center. Bayside contended that the statute facilitating the construction and financing of the Convention Center gave them the right to

prevent Gate Shows from being produced or sponsored at the Convention Center. The Court, interpreting a statute “with phrasing and syntax . . . leav[ing] much to be desired,” refused to enter an injunction. The Court held that under the statute Bayside had the right to take steps to prevent the shows from being produced at the Convention Center. Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff was not likely to succeed on its claims for interference with advantageous business relations.