Weird. If I took millions from a company to name something I would either structure it as a lease (in which case failure to pay would result in renaming) or put clauses in the contract allowing a buyout in case of bankruptcy or scandal. Did nobody really consider this possibility?
Sounds like the judge in charge of the bankruptcy considered exactly this possibility.
> After FTX filed for bankruptcy protection on Nov. 11, a judge issued a "stay" order that prevents any entity from acting against the company, which includes Miami-Dade's desired termination of its sponsorship agreement.
The contract is linked in the article. Taking a quick look at it, it does appear that the county considered the possibility and there are termination provisions in the contract that are applicable here. I think there’s a very high probability that the arena will have a new name in the very near future.
Can't parse the full implications at the moment, but in any remotely sane contract, missing a payment (the next one is due in January according to TFA) would trigger termination of the naming rights, esp if the penalty isn't paid (which FTX can't do).
> After FTX filed for bankruptcy protection on Nov. 11, a judge issued a "stay" order that prevents any entity from acting against the company, which includes Miami-Dade's desired termination of its sponsorship agreement.
From the article, this sounds like the relevant part. I'm thinking this means that the contract itself says they can rename, but they have to ask the judge to make sure or they could run afoul of the bankruptcy order?
I'm guessing the arena is looking to resell naming rights while the meat of the NBA season (that is, the "real NBA" starts after Christmas) has yet to be played and the naming rights can be resold.
They probably don't want to wait for the company to fail payment and lose what would probably be rights worth about 2 million dollars per in-season month.
Stadium renaming during the middle of a deal is not very rare. Sometimes due to a merger, sometimes due to a company going out of business, but it happens enough that it should be boilerplate text by now. It's probably there but there's still a process they have to go through to make everything legal. It is interesting that Cal was able to quickly remove FTX from their football field even though they have a long-term naming rights deal with the cryptoclowns.
I highly doubt there is any laws at all, strictly whatever is in the contract concerning the name of the stadium and the payout. It's a civil matter between legal entities.
> "Without going into the details, it's been a pretty good year for us," Bankman-Fried said. "To the point where, frankly, we don't need to rely on the other 18 years to have the funds for this."
FTX is not the first cryptocurrency business to buy some credibility with a grandiose sponsorship it can't really afford. I doubt it's the last one either.
