Reference no: EM133904686
Question
In McConnell, the court holds that: (i) an operating agreement can limit fiduciary duties owed between members, and (ii) Section 3.3 of the CHL operating agreement expressly permits McConnel to compete with CHL in the bidding for an NHL franchise. Please respond to the following prompts:
1. Do you agree with the court's decision?
2. Argue the opposite of your answer in 1 above. For example, if you agree with the court's decision, argue why the court got it wrong.
3. The timeline of events here is very fast, especially with competition from unknown cities and the external pressure of the NHL. Do you believe the parties considered Section 3.3 during the fateful meeting of June 9?
4. Hunt refused the offered lease terms, let McConnell pursue the bid on his own, and then sued a week later when the franchise was awarded to McConnell. Give some thought to Hunt's actions speculate as to what you think happened. For example, was Hunt simply trying to drive a hard bargain? Do you think Hunt warned McConnell that going forward would be grounds for suit? Or is this simply a case of sour grapes?
5. The decision to award an NHL franchise to Columbus was very popular with the Columbus population. The judges that adjudicated this case are elected. Do you think either of these influenced the court's opinion, or is this just a straight contract interpretation case?