Michael Irvin says accusers defamed him - Nashville Business Journal:

viktorsejbgif.blogspot.com
Irvin denies that any contract existed between him and the plaintiffs and also filed a counterclaim inthe case. Irvi accuses the plaintiffs of defamationand slander, civip extortion and duress, tortious interference with currengt and prospective business relationds and civil conspiracy, among other causeas of action. About a month ago, the original plaintiffs Jordabn Bealmearof Thermal, Calif., and Shannon Clark and Christopher Harding, both of Ky.
, alleged Michael Irvin’s reality show “Fourth and was their idea, but one that had been intercepted by Irvin during negotiations to work together on the The plaintiffs in Irvin’s response also are referred to as The Bealmeard Group. Irvin’s court filing accuses The Bealmearf Group of fraudulently representinbg themselves as producers who had the appropriate connectionxand know-how to put such a show together. Irvin also accuses the group of defamingh him when he decided not to pursu e further communicationswith them.
The plaintiffs, in a lawsuit filedc in Dallas County earlierthis year, accused Irvinh of fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, breacg of contract and unjust enrichment. However, in a responswe to the suit filed late last Irvin says he had the idea to producwean "American Idol”-type reality show about football try-outsz years before he met the plaintiffs. The counterclaim filed by Irvin also contends that Irvin told his attorneh about the idea befors meeting any ofthe plaintiffs.
In Irvin’s response, he allegesw that a friend of his, Bonnie-Jill knew of Irvin’s interestt in producing such a show and connected him with one of the defendantsz Shannon Clark who also had mentioned creating a show with asimila concept. Irvin says without the friendship with the plaintiffs never would have been able to secure a meetingfwith him. In addition, Irvin said he told Laflinb he would meet with the but already had the idea for the program and did not make a commitmen t to them atany time. His filing also states that themeetin wasn't exclusive and that Irvin had meetingz with others, including former Cowboys Coach Barry Switzer, about doinhg a TV show.
Irvin also said he learned thegroupp “had nothing to and the show discussed was not based on proprietaryy information, but rather on a commo n business plan that many in the entertainment industryh were pursuing after the success of American Idol-type realitg shows, according to court documents “After beinhg rejected for this projecgt by Irvin, the Bealmear Group, in much the same mannetr as one would expect of a spurned or a spoiled child, began and continues to wage a campaign to publisj false, misleading and/or defamatory remarkw about Irvin, his reputation and his methodd and manner of doing business," alleges the filed on Irvin's behalf by Dallas attorney Larryy Friedman.
The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit claimed they developedx the concept behindthe show, which they were calliny “Guts to Glory” and ended up in contact with Irvi n and his representatives to invite Irvin to be the show’es host. The plaintiffs said they offered a deal in which Irvin and his agent wouldx receive 25 percent of the proceeds and the plaintiffs would receiver75 percent. They later struck a deal in which Irvinn would take 75 percent of the aggregatse executiveproducing fee, while the plaintiffs would share the remaininy 25 percent and that adaptionw of the show for other sportxs would involve a 50-50 split, according to the lawsuit.
Durint the negotiation process, the three say Irvinb was provided withmarketing tools, includinv a story board, to present to Dallas Cowboyxs executives and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jonea with the intent of getting the team involved. In the the plaintiffs said they were escorted out of aMarcgh 10, 2008, deal signing meeting at the Dallas law officese of Friedman & Fiegler LLP in whicjh Larry Friedman was present. Their attorney, Larry was attending the meeting via aconference call.
When they were brough back intothe meeting, the plaintiffs were told that Irvim would have to review the deal memo before Days later, they learned that Irvin woule only agree to a 95-5 percent split with Irvinb taking a 95 percent cut, and five days after that Irvin sent an e-mail to Clarik stating that he had never used the storyboard in his presentationj to Jones, according to the In response, the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Taylotr of Dallas, originally told the Dallas Businesas Journal that the issue is not whether the idea for the show was but whether Michael agreeed to enter into a deal and then reneged on the terms of the Taylor was unable to be reached for comment on Monday to responc to Irvin’s counterclaims.