Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petition To Construe Power of Attorney and Review The Agents' Conduct and Grant Appropriate Relief
Petition To Construe Power of Attorney and Review The Agents' Conduct and Grant Appropriate Relief
William Bowlen
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
Ruscitti and D. Scott Robinson of Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP, hereby petitions this Court
to construe the power of attorney of Patrick D. Bowlen (hereinafter may be referred to as the
“Principal”) and review the Agents’ (as that term is defined herein) conduct and grant
appropriate relief pursuant to C.R.S. § 15-14-716. In support of this Petition, Petitioner states as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Simply put, this matter involves Defendants’ failure to, among other thing: (a) act
in Patrick D. Bowlen’s best interest; (b) act in good faith; (c) act loyally for the Principal's
benefit; (d) act so as not to create a deep conflict of interest that impairs their ability to act
impartially in Patrick D. Bowlen's best interest; and (e) preserve and implement Patrick D.
Bowlen's estate and business succession plan. As set forth below, Defendants hold a dizzying
array of positions related to the management and control of Patrick D. Bowlen’s assets, which
include interests in several closely held businesses, without any accountability. In addition, they
are refusing to implement a long-term succession plan that meets Patrick D. Bowlen’s stated
goals of keeping the Denver Broncos Football Club in his family and under the management and
control of his children, knowing that the implementation of that plan essentially means that
Defendants will be working themselves out of a position with the Denver Broncos Football Club.
Moreover, the actions of the Agents are causing dysfunction within the Denver Broncos Football
Club and the Bowlen family. Finally, and as set forth below, Petitioner has deep concern
regarding Patrick D. Bowlen’s capacity at the time the documents that appointed Defendants in
2. For these reasons, Petitioner files this Petition to further Patrick D. Bowlen’s
goals and wishes that the Denver Broncos Football Club remain in the Bowlen family. As such,
Petitioner requests, among other things, that the Court enter an order: (a) removing Defendants
as the agents of Patrick D. Bowlen; (b) appointing an independent party to serve as the
conservator of the estate of Patrick D. Bowlen with the power to remove the trustees of the PDB
Page 2 of 21
Trust (as that term is defined herein); and (c) exercise other powers of Patrick D. Bowlen
incapacitated, and lacks capacity to (i) revoke the power(s) of attorney at issue and (ii) revoke
the authority of the agents at issue. Patrick D. Bowlen currently resides at 9 Cherry Hills Drive,
employee of the Team (as that term is defined below). Mr. Ellis is also currently serving as a
Trustee under various trusts created by Patrick D. Bowlen, and, upon information and belief, is
acting as an Agent under the Durable General Power of Attorney of Patrick D. Bowlen dated
March 6, 2009 (the “Power of Attorney”). As explained below, he is also serving in various
executive and fiduciary capacities related to the business entities and assets of Patrick D.
Bowlen, including serving as CEO and Controlling Owner of the Denver Broncos Football Club.
employee of the Team (as that term is defined below). Mr. Slivka is also currently serving as a
Trustee under various trusts created by Patrick D. Bowlen, and, upon information and belief, is
acting as an Agent under the Power of Attorney. As explained below, he is also serving in
various executive and fiduciary capacities related to the assets of Patrick D. Bowlen, including
serving as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Denver Broncos Football Club.
Page 3 of 21
7. Defendant Mary J. Kelly is a resident of the State of Colorado and is an employee
of the Team (as that term is defined below). Ms. Kelly is also currently serving as a Trustee
under various trusts created by Patrick D. Bowlen, and, upon information and belief, is acting as
an Agent under the Power of Attorney. As explained below, she is also serving in various
executive and fiduciary capacities related to the assets of Patrick D. Bowlen, and served as his
personal family attorney prior to his incapacity. Defendants are collectively referred to herein as
(the “Agents”).
Bowlen, has standing to file this Petition, as he has a substantial interest in Patrick D. Bowlen’s
welfare.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to, among other things,
10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98 and C.R.S. § 15-10-303(1).
A. Family Information
11. Patrick D. Bowlen was originally married to Ms. Sally Parker. Patrick D. Bowlen
and Ms. Parker had two children, Amie Bowlen Klemmer (“Amie”) and Jane Elizabeth “Beth”
Bowlen Wallace (“Beth”). Following the dissolution of his marriage to Sally Parker, Patrick D.
Bowlen married Joan Annabel Spencer (“Annabel Bowlen”). Patrick D. Bowlen and Annabel
Bowlen currently remain married. Annabel Bowlen is also suffering from Alzheimer’s disease
and is also incapacitated. Patrick D. Bowlen and Annabel Bowlen have five children, Patrick III,
John, Brittany, Annabel, and Christianna. The seven children are referred to herein as the
“Bowlen Children.”
Page 4 of 21
B. The Bowlen Family’s Purchase of the Denver Broncos and Ownership Structure
12. In 1984, Patrick D. Bowlen and his siblings William Bowlen, John Bowlen, and
Mary Elizabeth Jagger (“Mary”) (collectively the “Bowlen Siblings”) purchased the majority
interests in the National Football League franchise known as the Denver Broncos (hereinafter
referred to as the “Team” or “Denver Broncos”) from Mr. Edgar Kaiser. The Bowlen Siblings
acquired the remaining minority interests in the Team in approximately 1986. At that time, each
13. Since the Bowlen Sibling’s purchase of the Team, and to comply with National
Football League (“NFL”) ownership guidelines, Patrick D. Bowlen acted as the controlling
owner of the Team and acquired additional voting interests from his siblings to reach the
14. The ownership of the Team is held through a complex business entity structure.
Specifically, the Team is owned by PDB Sports, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership.
Controlling ownership of PDB, Ltd. is held in Bowlen Sports, Inc., an Arizona corporation.
Upon information and belief, Bowlen Sports, Inc. is owned, directly or indirectly, by Patrick D.
Bowlen and John Bowlen. John Bowlen is Patrick D. Bowlen’s and Petitioner’s younger
brother. Defendants Ellis and Slivka are directors and officers of Bowlen Sports, Inc. Upon
information and belief, Patrick D. Bowlen’s ownership interest in Bowlen Sports, Inc. is held
through a trust, commonly known as the “Patrick D. Bowlen Trust”, under an agreement dated
15. Upon information and belief, the PDB Trust is also the owner of Arapahoe
Management Company, LLC, which in turn owns most of the outstanding membership interests
in Stadium Management Company, LLC. Both of these entities are Colorado limited liability
Page 5 of 21
companies. Stadium Management Company, LLC owns the leasehold interest in the football
stadium (and surrounding facilities) formerly known as Sports Authority Field at Mile High
Stadium (the “Stadium”). Under the leadership of the Agents, the Team has failed to secure
16. Over the years, Patrick D. Bowlen acquired ownership interests from his siblings,
including all of Petitioner’s and Mary’s interests. Mary’s interests were acquired in
of the date of this Petition, and upon information and belief, through the ownership structure
described above, Patrick D. Bowlen indirectly owns approximately 76% of the ownership
interest in the Team, and John Bowlen indirectly owns the remaining interest in the Team.
17. Prior to 2002, Petitioner and Patrick D. Bowlen had discussions about succession
planning for ownership of the Team. To that end, Patrick D. Bowlen told Petitioner that because
of the number of children each Bowlen Sibling had (Patrick D. Bowlen has seven children, John
Bowlen has five children, Petitioner has six children, and Mary has two children), he wanted to
limit the number of possible future owners so that he, as the controlling owner, would not have
to deal with each family. Petitioner and Mary also had a desire to sell their interests and, as a
result, in approximately 1994, the Bowlen Siblings began the process of implementing a plan
that would result in Patrick D. Bowlen buying out Petitioner’s and Mary’s ownership interest in
the Team.
18. To effectuate this plan, and as stated above, Patrick D. Bowlen purchased Mary’s
ownership interests in the Team in 1998/99 and Petitioner’s ownership interests in the Team in
Page 6 of 21
2002/03. In addition, the Bowlen brothers, following the example of their father, Paul Dennis
Bowlen, created trusts (as outlined below) to implement other estate planning needs.
19. Between 1994 and 2009, Petitioner had numerous discussions with Patrick D.
Bowlen regarding Petitioner’s and Patrick D. Bowlen’s estate planning and the use of trusts.
Upon information and belief, Patrick D. Bowlen created his first revocable trust in 1996. This
trust was amended several times between 1994 and 2009, including in 2002 (the “2002 Trust”).
In addition, in 2002, Patrick D. Bowlen created two irrevocable trusts structured to hold life
insurance during either his lifetime or the joint lives of Patrick D. Bowlen and Annabel Bowlen
(collectively, the “2002 ILITs”). The 2002 ILITs create a common trust structure for holding all
or portion of Patrick D. Bowlen’s interests in the Denver Broncos (and any other professional
sports teams) for the benefit of Patrick D. Bowlen’s descendants after his death. Upon
information and belief, the Agents are the currently serving trustees of the 2002 ILITs.
Defendants has advised some of Patrick D. Bowlen’s children that a credit shelter trust, to be
created at Patrick D. Bowlen’s death, will provide certain distribution rights in his children upon
each attaining the age of 40. This is the age Patrick D. Bowlen communicated to some of his
children that he believed his children would be financially responsible (this is coincidentally the
age Patrick D. Bowlen was when he first acquired ownership interest in the Broncos).
21. On April 25, 2016, Defendants issued a memorandum to the Bowlen Children,
regarding new separate, irrevocable, children’s trusts (each a “Stadium Trust”), that stated that
“the child will receive 100% of the trust principal” upon attaining the age of 40 and the child’s
separate trust would terminate at age 40. The Agents, either unilaterally or based on Patrick D.
Bowlen’s express intent, selected age 40 as the appropriate age of financial responsibility.
Page 7 of 21
D. Patrick D. Bowlen’s Wishes as to the Team
22. Prior to his incapacity, Patrick D. Bowlen expressed to Petitioner, numerous other
family members, and his closest advisors that he eventually wanted a member of his family to be
the sole owner of the Team. More specifically, Patrick D. Bowlen told Petitioner, other family
members, and his closest advisors that he wanted one of his seven children to become the
controlling owner of the Team when he no longer was able to serve in this critical position.
23. Patrick D. Bowlen also repeatedly expressed to Petitioner that Annabel Bowlen
should have absolutely no role in the management or operations of the Team. Patrick D. Bowlen
expressed the same statement to his closest advisors, expressing concerns about her management
24. Regarding any attempt to sell the Team, Patrick D. Bowlen told Petitioner, family
members, and his closest advisors that he had no interest in selling the Team and that selling the
Team would be an absolute last resort. In fact, Patrick D. Bowlen told Petitioner and others that
he wanted the Bowlens to be “an old family of the NFL,” just like the Rooney family with the
Pittsburgh Steelers.
25. Defendant Slivka has acted as the Denver Broncos’ general counsel for many
years. Over time, Mr. Slivka has also assumed a dizzying number of different (and conflicting)
roles, including: (1) Co-Trustee of the PDB Trust; (2) Co-Trustee of the Bowlen Family 2002-I
Irrevocable Trust; (3) Co-Trustee of the Bowlen Family 2002-II Irrevocable Trust; (4) Co-
Attorney-in-Fact for Patrick D. Bowlen; and (4) director and employee of Bowlen Sports, Inc.
Mr. Slivka also acts as the registered agent for many Bowlen-related business interests. Mr.
Page 8 of 21
Slivka assumed these conflicting and overlapping roles without any judicial approval or
supervision.
26. As a Co-Trustee, Mr. Slivka owes fiduciary duties to oversee the financial
performance of trust assets, including its stock ownership in Bowlen Sports, Inc., and votes in
the election of directors of Bowlen Sports, Inc., including the election of himself. As a Director
of Bowlen Sports, Inc., Mr. Slivka owes fiduciary duties to the shareholders of Bowlen Sports,
Inc. and approves the hiring and compensating of Bowlen Sports, Inc. officers and employees,
including himself. Mr. Slivka assumed these conflicting fiduciary positions and duties without
any judicial approval or supervision. Upon information and belief, Mr. Slivka is compensated in
27. Defendant Ellis acts as the President and CEO of the Denver Broncos. Like Mr.
Slivka, Mr. Ellis has also assumed a dizzying number of different (and conflicting) roles,
including: (1) Co-Trustee of the PDB Trust; (2) Co-Trustee of the Bowlen Family 2002-I
Irrevocable Trust; (3) Co-Trustee of the Bowlen Family 2002-II Irrevocable Trust; (4) Co-
Attorney-in-Fact for Patrick D. Bowlen; (5) Director of Bowlen Sports, Inc.; and (6) President
and CEO of Bowlen Sports, Inc. Upon information and belief, Patrick D. Bowlen did not choose
that Mr. Ellis assume these multiple roles. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ellis is
compensated in each of his overlapping and conflicting roles. Like Mr. Slivka, no court has
approved or provided any oversight regarding Mr. Ellis’ conflicting roles and his multiple
28. Defendant Kelly is “of counsel” at the Denver-based law firm of Reilly Pozner
LLP. Ms. Kelly has also assumed a dizzying number of different (and conflicting) roles,
including Co-Trustee of the PDB Trust and Co-Attorney-in-Fact for Patrick D. Bowlen. Ms.
Page 9 of 21
Kelly assumed these roles without any judicial supervision or approval. Ms. Kelly also acted as
Patrick D. Bowlen’s personal lawyer. Even though she has no role in the Team, she is
29. Patrick D. Bowlen began displaying signs of Alzheimer’s disease and incapacity
in or around 2006, and was, upon information and belief, diagnosed with Alzheimer’s (or early
onset Alzheimer’s) in 2006 by doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Around this time period,
family members and others close to him began seeing significant signs of Alzheimer’s, including
serious memory loss. This included forgetting the names of family members and friends, and
forgetting significant decisions he had made on behalf of the Team. Upon information and
belief, Patrick D. Bowlen began receiving preliminary treatment for Alzheimer’s at the Mayo
Clinic in 2006. In addition, around this time period, Patrick D. Bowlen required constant care
and traveled with close advisors, including Lorraine Spargo, Jim Schafer, and Steve
Antonopoulos.
30. In 2009, and as known by his family and those close to him within the Team,
Patrick D. Bowlen publically admitted that he was showing signs that he had Alzheimer’s. See
Woody Paige article, dated August 25, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A. See Woody Paige
article, dated April 23, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Indeed, Patrick D. Bowlen reported
having what he described as “severe memory loss” and that he was “very concerned of the
developing issues with Alzheimer’s….” See Exh. A. Importantly, this was approximately two
months after Patrick D. Bowlen made significant changes to his estate planning documents in
March 2009.
Page 10 of 21
31. Shortly after publically disclosing his condition, Patrick D. Bowlen began
relinquishing operational control of the Team. Indeed, it was so well known that people
throughout the NFL community were discussing it. See generally Alan Prendergast Article,
prominently on a large whiteboard on his desk that he had to refer to before signing any formal
document.
32. Notwithstanding his incapacity, in March of 2009, Patrick D. Bowlen revoked the
2002 Trust and established a new revocable trust called the Patrick D. Bowlen Trust (as
previously defined above the “PDB Trust”). This was less than two months before Patrick D.
Bowlen told columnist Woody Paige that he was having what he described as “severe memory
loss” and that he was “very concerned of the developing issues with Alzheimer’s….” See
Exhibit A. Given his capacity issues, Patrick D. Bowlen likely did not have the required
33. Upon information and belief, under the PDB Trust, and upon Patrick D. Bowlen’s
death, the assets in the trust will be divided into three trusts, including one that will hold the
Team in a fashion similar to that of the 2002 ILITs. Sometime between 2009 and 2014, the
Agents were somehow appointed trustees of the PDB Trust, as well as the 2002 ILITs, and will
be the trustees of the three trusts that are created upon Patrick D. Bowlen’s death. These
34. Upon information and belief, the Power of Attorney and/or the agreement creating
the PDB Trust, including any amendments thereto, permits the Agents to amend and/or revoke
Page 11 of 21
the PDB Trust, in whole or in part, including provisions related to the removal and replacement
35. By holding the power to amend and/or revoke the PDB Trust, the Agents
indirectly control their own fiduciary conduct as trustees of the PDB Trust. Additionally, the
Agents stand in place of Patrick D. Bowlen, and thus, in their capacity as trustees of the PDB
36. In a July 23, 2014, press release, Annabel Bowlen further confirmed that Patrick
“As many in the Denver community and around the National Football
League have speculated, my husband, Pat, has very bravely and quietly
battled Alzheimer’s disease for the last few years.”
See Bowlen Family Statement Press Release attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Team released a
similar statement that same day. See Team Press Release attached hereto as Exhibit E.
37. In late July 2014, numerous local and national publications, citing inside sources,
further elaborated on how everyone knew Patrick D. Bowlen had been suffering from
Alzheimer’s for years (See Denver Post Article date July 25, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit F),
and how people around the NFL were talking about it publically in 2009. See Rick Reilly’s
38. On July 23, 2014, Defendant Ellis, apparently acting as the CEO and President of
the Team, held a press conference at the opening of the 2014 Denver Broncos training camp.
During this press conference, Mr. Ellis disclosed that Patrick D. Bowlen was battling an
advanced stage of Alzheimer’s disease and had relinquished control of his assets (including his
status and role as the Denver Broncos’ controlling owner) to Mr. Ellis and two other trustees
Page 12 of 21
(Defendants Richard P. Slivka and Mary J. Kelly) to what he described as the “Patrick D.
39. During the July 2014 press conference, Mr. Ellis represented that Patrick D.
Bowlen intended for one of his children to succeed him as the Denver Broncos’ controlling
owner. Indeed, and as stated above, while he had capacity, Patrick D. Bowlen repeatedly told
those close to him and in the NFL that he had no interest in selling the Team, and that his intent
and goal was to keep the Team in the family and to have one of his children run the Team. The
Agents were clearly aware of this and publically confirmed in writing that they intended to honor
his wishes:
“There are no plans for the sale of the Denver Broncos, and the Pat
Bowlen Trust will continue to implement the provisions set forth by
Patrick D. Bowlen to keep the team in the Bowlen family.”
See Denver Broncos Press Release, dated September 21, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit H
(emphasis added). This is exactly what Patrick D. Bowlen told his closest advisors.
40. The Broncos, through Mr. Ellis, also stated that it was Patrick D. Bowlen’s long-
term goal for one of his seven children to run the Team when he or she is ready. The release also
made it clear that the Broncos will not be put up for sale. See Exhibit H. Additionally, in the
press release, the Broncos stated that the PDB Trust was set up by Patrick D. Bowlen more than
a decade ago as part of his long-stated desire to keep Team ownership in his family.
41. As stated earlier, Petitioner’s main goal in filing this Petition is to ensure that his
brother’s wishes are fulfilled, namely, that the Team be kept in his family and not sold, and that
Annabel Bowlen not have a role in the management and operation of the Team. To that end, and
with Petitioner’s support, Amie and Beth have submitted a succession plan that accomplishes
Page 13 of 21
these objectives, but the Agents have refused to accept the plan and instead have implemented a
plan that continues to keep them in control and fails to implement Patrick D. Bowlen’s wishes.
42. To that end, Patrick D. Bowlen expressed a longstanding desire for Beth to serve
in a management level role with the Team. During Fall 2011, Patrick D. Bowlen expressed his
desire for Beth to be employed in a management position and demonstrate her skills and talents
to the organization employees and thereby gain their respect. To be sure, he told Beth, “If you
are going to be sitting in this chair [as the controlling owner], there are steps you are going to
need to take.” Defendant Ellis was directed to work with Beth on a new management position.
43. Later in Fall 2011, Defendant Ellis met with Beth several times at the Starbucks
on Orchard Road. During these meetings, Defendant Ellis described job opportunities for Beth
and future succession plans for the Team. Defendant Ellis and Beth also discussed Patrick D.
44. In February 2012, the Denver Broncos organization officially hired Beth as a
45. One of her first official team responsibilities was attending the NFL spring
owners meeting in Florida in March 2012. After learning that Beth had attended the meeting,
Annabel Bowlen became very upset and threatened to have Defendant Ellis fired. It was
Annabel Bowlen’s desire to have one of her children become the next controlling owner. It was
at this time that the relationship between Defendants Ellis and Slivka and Beth became strained.
And, it was at this time that Defendants Ellis and Slivka became beholden to Annabel Bowlen
46. During this time period, Beth and Petitioner became concerned that Defendants
Ellis and Slivka would not honor Patrick D. Bowlen’s wishes that Beth assume a management
Page 14 of 21
role and that the Agents had significant conflicts of interest and a lack of accountability as a
result of their dizzying number of conflicting roles and fiduciary duties. Beth and Petitioner
eventually expressed these concerns to Patrick D. Bowlen and the NFL in 2015.
47. In response to these concerns, Patrick D. Bowlen requested a meeting with Beth
and Defendants Slivka and Ellis to discuss Beth’s employment and his expectation that Beth be
given meaningful employment responsibilities. Defendants Slivka and Ellis prevented Patrick D.
Bowlen from attending this meeting. During the meeting, they told Beth that, despite Patrick D.
Bowlen’s wishes, they would not be extending her any additional roles with the Team. In
addition, Defendants Slivka and Ellis told her that they would develop a criteria for the selection
48. Despite Beth holding a management position with the Team, Mr. Ellis refused to
work with Beth or provide her with meaningful work opportunities, in direct contradiction to
Patrick D. Bowlen’s succession intent and desire. Notwithstanding this refusal, Beth assumed
responsibility for the design, construction, and implementation of the Broncos Ring of Fame
49. During this period, the Agents’ relationship continued to deteriorate with Amie
and Beth. Indeed, in Fall 2012, and because Annabel Bowlen did not want Beth involved with
the Team, Defendant Slivka asked Beth, “Do you really want to be working here? Wouldn’t you
50. By Spring 2013, Amie and Beth were advised by one of Patrick D. Bowlen’s
Page 15 of 21
H. The Controlling Owner Criteria
51. In 2013 and 2014, and knowing that their father wanted one of his children to
replace him as controlling owner, Amie and Beth, through counsel, asked the Agents what the
long term ownership plans were for the Team given their father’s health.
52. In July of 2014, on the eve of Defendant Ellis’ press conference and
announcement of Patrick D. Bowlen’s Alzheimer’s as described above, the Agents met with
Amie and Beth and their counsel, and provided oral comments regarding the handling of Patrick
D. Bowlen’s assets and the succession plan for transitioning the Denver Broncos’ controlling
owner position to one of Patrick D. Bowlen’s children. Defendant Slivka stated the trustees
would decide which child would be named to succeed Patrick D. Bowlen and would select a
child who was “capable but not necessarily the most capable.” Defendant Slivka also stated
that each of the seven Bowlen Children needed to approve the new controlling owner selected by
the trustees before such selection would be approved and that each Bowlen child “has to agree.”
53. At the meeting, Defendant Ellis represented that the Team prepared and filed with
the NFL a written “succession plan” detailing the internal processes by which a future
54. On February 12, 2015, and three years after the Agents first advised the Bowlen
family members that they were establishing criteria for the selection of the next controlling
owner, the Agents released a three-page memorandum to the Bowlen Children listing the criteria
and qualifications by which the trustees indicated they will determine which of the Bowlen
Children will be selected as the next controlling owner (the “2015 Criteria Memorandum”).
55. The Agents have stated that none of the Bowlen Children have been eliminated
from the selection process or had been anointed, and that everyone would be treated fairly.
Page 16 of 21
56. At this time, Beth has met all but one of these criteria, and she was on her way to
satisfying the last criteria – 5 years of experience with the Team or in the NFL – before the
Agents wrongfully terminated her from her position with the Team. To that end, Beth
successfully worked for the Team between February 2012 and May 2016 in a position that her
father expressly stated he wanted her to fill. In Spring 2015, Beth informed the Agents that, in
an effort to meet another one of the stated criteria in the 2015 Criteria Memorandum, having a
least a J.D. or M.B.A degree, she had applied for admittance to the University of Denver Sturm
College of Law.
57. In Spring 2015, Beth was admitted to the College of Law and accepted the offer.
Just eighteen hours after receiving notification that Beth was returning to law school, the Agents
summarily and wrongfully terminated Beth’s employment with the Denver Broncos. At that
time, Defendant Ellis stated to Beth that her position had “no value” to the organization. This
fact, when coupled with the Agents’ combative behavior in 2012, strongly suggests that the
Agents’ termination of Beth’s position with the Team was but a pretext to prevent her from
meeting the criteria the Agents established in the 2015 Criteria Memorandum and from
becoming one step closer to being the controlling owner of the Denver Broncos as her father
wished.
58. Since the date of her wrongful termination, Beth has repeatedly requested that the
Agents provide her with a senior management employment opportunity with the Team as her
father expected her to have. Indeed, several months following her wrongful termination and
while still in law school, Beth requested a legal internship with the Team, which the Agents
immediately denied. The Agents have refused to carry out Patrick D. Bowlen’s intent regarding
Page 17 of 21
59. On May 13, 2016, the Agents met with Beth. This meeting occurred just weeks
before Beth would graduate from the University of Denver with her Juris Doctorate degree. At
this meeting, the Agents disparaged Beth’s achievements and work history, told her that her
father did not want her working with the Team, and made condescending, negative comments
about her integrity and work ethic. Petitioner and other senior members of the Bowlen family
were very upset upon learning of the details from this meeting.
60. Petitioner and other senior members of the Bowlen family believe that Beth is
qualified and capable of assuming operational control of the Team. As stated above, she has met
all but one of the criteria contained in the 2015 Criteria Memorandum. Since her wrongful
termination by the Agents, she has obtained significant professional and executive level
experience and completed her legal education. Nevertheless, the Agents continue to refuse to
accept her offer to return to the Team or to develop a mentoring and training plan for Beth to
61. In 2018, and with Petitioner’s support and the support of other senior members of
the Bowlen family, Amie and Beth submitted a succession plan to the Agents that would allow
for keeping the Team in the family, transitioning controlling ownership in the immediate future
to Beth (after additional mentoring), and transitioning controlling ownership in the near future
(once age of financial maturity is satisfied) to another Bowlen child. The plan included
management level opportunities for other Bowlen Children if they desired. The Agents rejected
this proposal outright, saying that Beth was not capable or qualified to serve as controlling
owner.
62. As stated through out this Petition, Petitioner files this action to further Patrick D.
Bowlen’s goals and wishes that the Denver Broncos remain in the Bowlen family. Given the
Page 18 of 21
Agent’s dizzying array of conflicting fiduciary roles and duties in their control of Patrick D.
Bowlen’s estate and business interests, and upon learning of the Agent’s wrongful termination of
Beth and unwillingness to accept Amie and Beth’s succession plan to keep the Team within the
family, Petitioner knew that he could not sit idly by on the bench and watch from the sideline as
the Agents failed to further his brother’s wishes. Based on the Agent’s actions, Petitioner knew
that the Agent’s were not acting in the best interest of Patrick D. Bowlen, but were rather
keeping themselves in control of the Team as long as they could. Moreover, the actions of the
Agents have caused and continue to cause dysfunction in the Team and Bowlen family. As such,
Petitioner prays that filing this action will relieve the Bowlen family (and the Team) from the
63. The foregoing allegations are incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein.
lacks capacity to (i) revoke the power(s) of attorney at issue and (ii) revoke the authority of the
agents at issue.
Bowlen, has standing to file this Petition, as he has a substantial interest in Patrick D. Bowlen’s
welfare.
67. In violation of C.R.S. § 15-14-716, the Agents have failed to, among other things:
(a) act in the Principal's best interest; (b) act in good faith; (c) act loyally for the Principal's
Page 19 of 21
benefit; (d) act so as not to create a conflict of interest that impairs the their ability to act
impartially in the Principal’s best interest; and (e) preserve Patrick D. Bowlen's estate plan. As
set forth in this Petition, the Agents hold a dizzying array of positions related to the management
and control of Patrick D. Bowlen’s assets, without any accountability, and are refusing to
68. The foregoing allegations are incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein.
69. The Agents shall reimburse the Principal’s estate for all fees and costs paid on the
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for the Court to: (i) construe the Power of Attorney, (ii)
review the Agents’ conduct, (iii) find that the Agents have breached their fiduciary duties to
ii. receive and review periodic reports and accountings from the trustees of
PDB Trust;
iii. cause the implementation of a succession plan for the Team consistent
iv. exercise other powers of Patrick D. Bowlen retained in the PDB Trust;
Page 20 of 21