UFC ‘obviously disagree’ with judge denying antitrust lawsuit settlement, fighter attorney issues statement

Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images

UFC and the fighters involved in a pair of antitrust lawsuits reached a settlement agreement that seemingly shut the door on any potential trial, but that all changed on Tuesday.

Judge Richard Boulware issued a judgment denying the settlement agreement while simultaneously setting a trial date in October, despite both parties anticipating the end of the court case. The two separate lawsuits — one filed by fighters including Cung Le and Nate Quarry in 2014 that covered UFC athletes from 2010 to 2017, and a second lawsuit filed by fighters such as Kajan Johnson that covered athletes from 2017 to the present — joined together for the settlement, but that may no longer be the case.

Following news that Boulware denied the settlement agreement, UFC issued a statement addressing the decision after originally agreeing to pay $335 million to settle both lawsuits.

“We obviously disagree with this ruling and believe it disregards the expertise of counsel from both sides, as well as that of an accomplished and expert mediator — all of whom have decades of experience in antitrust case law,” UFC officials said in the statement. “It prevents the athletes from receiving what they have argued is in their best interest and unwinds an extensively negotiated settlement that, in the plaintiffs’ counsel’s own words, ‘would far surpass the typical antitrust class action settlement’ and ‘is an excellent result for the Settlement Classes by all traditional measures.’

“Additionally, by taking the unusual step of denying the settlement at this preliminary approval stage, the Judge is also denying the athletes their right to be heard during this pivotal moment in the case. As we have said throughout this process, we believe strongly in the merits of our cases and are evaluating all our options — including, without limitation, an appeal — and have initiated discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel who have expressed a willingness to engage in separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases.

TKO Group Holdings — the parent company to UFC — also filed a financial disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the decision.

Read the statement below:

“On July 30, 2024, following the court’s hearings on the parties’ submission to approve their agreement to settle all claims asserted in both class action lawsuits (Le and Johnson) for an aggregate amount of $335 million payable by the Company and its subsidiaries in installments over an agreed-upon period of time, the court issued its ruling and denied the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The court has not issued an opinion explaining its reasoning at this time, but the court has scheduled a status conference for August 19, 2024 and a new tentative trial date for Le for October 28, 2024.

“The Company is evaluating all of its options, including, without limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases. A motion to dismiss the complaint in Johnson remains pending and no trial date has been set.”

Boulware had previously expressed concerns that he objected to the settlement because the agreed upon payout seemed low and the fighters represented in the second lawsuit — covering athletes from 2017 to the present — could object to arbitration and class-action waiver clauses in existing contracts.

Now the stage is set for a potential trial unless UFC and the fighters involved in the lawsuits can potentially come to some sort of new agreement to settle the case.

Eric Cramer, the lead attorney representing the fighters, told Boulware prior to the ruling that he hoped the settlement agreement would be approved because the risk involved going to trial could end in UFC’s favor, which means the athletes wouldn’t get paid anything.

A jury trial in an antitrust lawsuit such as this one has to end in an unanimous verdict, and even if the fighters won, UFC would inevitably file an appeal that could tie up the case for years before the athletes would see any potential money.

After the judge ultimately disagreed and denied the settlement agreement, Cramer issued a statement to MMA Fighting regarding the ruling.

”Plaintiffs respect the Court’s ruling rejecting the proposed global resolution of the Le and Johnson cases, and accordingly will be moving forward full speed on all fronts as directed by the Court,” Cramer said. “We now plan on ramping up preparations in Le for the imminent trial, and also will begin pressing forward with discovery in Johnson. At the same time, with the interests of our clients and the classes at the forefront, we are also open to reengaging with the UFC to see whether the parties could reach a settlement building off of the momentum achieved in the prior settlement, but working to satisfy the Court’s expressed concerns with that resolution.

“In particular, to eliminate several of the issues expressed by the Court regarding the prior proposed combined settlement of Le and Johnson, Plaintiffs believe the best path forward, if a new settlement becomes a possibility, is to attempt to resolve the two cases separately, focusing first on the Le case given its imminent trial date, and using the progress made to date as a jumping off point for further discussions. Thus, while Plaintiffs’ focus will be on preparing for trial, we are keeping an open mind with respect to a potential new resolution. At root, Plaintiffs want nothing more and nothing less than justice for the professional MMA fighters we have represented for more than ten years in the most efficient and effective way possible.”

Judge Boulware is expected to issue his full ruling regarding his decision to deny the settlement agreement in the coming days. For now, UFC and the fighters are expected to go back to court in August for a status conference, where a new trial date will be officially determined unless a new settlement is reached by then.