【willbet TV】Nigel Eccles asks court to place restraining order on FanDuel

The FanDuel founder and former CEO filed a brief with New York State’s Supreme Court, asking it to impose a Temporary Restraining Order against his former company which would block its attempts to impose arbitration against him.

This arbitration, dated 31 March, was filed by the US sports betting giant against Eccles for “repeatedly and flagrantly” breaching his November 2017 separation agreement with the business, and seeks approximately $8m worth of payments he received under the deal.

This, FanDuel said, was done by aiding plaintiffs in Eccles’ previous lawsuit against the company, in violation of the contract.

The filing is just the latest twist in the lawsuit which aims to recover hundreds of millions of dollars for FanDuel’s founders, early investors and employees, who were allegedly treated unfairly during its 2018 sale to Paddy Power Betfair, later rebranded to Flutter.  

This was done, the complaint argues, by artificially undervaluing the company to squeeze out ordinary shareholders, to the benefit of the private equity firms which stood to gain billions.

Eccles says FanDuel arbitration ‘improper’

In the most recent filing, Eccles said FanDuel’s arbitration was just another tactic to prevent the case being heard properly.

“Eccles seeks this relief because the demanding defendants’ bid for arbitration is an improper effort to throw a wrench into this action.

“Plaintiffs have been fighting for some seven years — including more than five in New York courts — to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars wrongly taken from them in a 2018 merger.”

In the brief, Eccles’ attorneys fought against the claim the entrepreneur breached the terms of his separation agreement, highlighting the alleged wrongdoing occurred after the deal had been signed.

They added that, if he was in breach, then he has been so for the past seven years and questioned why FanDuel opted not to move sooner and indeed maintain the agreement’s payments during this period.

The filing said: “Eccles implores the Court to see what is really going on here: just the latest effort to avoid confronting the merits of plaintiffs’ claims at all costs.

“That the demanding defendants and their army of lawyers somehow failed to spot the right they now wish to press beggars belief. Years-long delay in these circumstances is flatly inconsistent with a right to compel Eccles to arbitration now.”