Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Southern Heritage Classic Lawsuit
Southern Heritage Classic Lawsuit
v. Case No.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, Summitt Management Corporation, and brings this
complaint against the above-named parties and, as grounds therefor, would show unto this court
as follows:
do business in Tennessee, with a principal place of business located at 4466 Elvis Presley
1
3. Defendant Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning is the constitutional
governing body of the Mississippi state institutions of higher learning, which includes
Defendant JSU. Pursuant to Miss. Code § 37-101-15, the Board is charged with “general
supervision of the affairs of all the institutions of higher learning, including the departments
4. Defendant J. Walt Starr is President of the Board of Trustees of the Mississippi State
member of SWAC. SWAC consists of 12 schools which routinely play in athletic contests in
Tennessee.
6. This lawsuit is about a breach of contract that was executed by Plaintiff in Memphis and was
to be performed in Memphis.
performed in Memphis.
9. This court holds jurisdiction over the named parties and the cause of action pursuant to
10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to T.C.A. 20-4-101 and/or T.C.A. 16-11-114.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. SMC is the owner and operator of an annual football game known as the Southern Heritage
2
12. The Classic is part of a multi-day cultural celebration that includes a parade, multiple
entertainment events, a fashion show, and a college career fair, as well as the football game.
13. JSU has been one of the two teams playing in the Classic for 28 years. The other team is
Tennessee State University (“TSU”). The rivalry between JSU and TSU is intense and joyful,
thrilling for their fans, driving attendance well over 40,000 annually.
14. SMC has paid JSU fees exceeding $6 million over the years, during many years when JSU
was struggling financially. Over the years, TSU has won more games than JSU, but JSU has
been better in recent years, and stronger financially. In 2021, JSU was nearly undefeated and
15. SMC entered into a Southern Heritage Classic Agreement dated September 10, 2019 (the
“JSU Agreement,” attached as Exhibit A), whereby JSU agreed to play in the Classic for five
16. SMC also entered into a similar five-year agreement with TSU to be the opposing team.
17. SMC also entered into a long-term agreement with the City of Memphis to rent the Liberty
Bowl Memorial Stadium through 2024, the final year of the JSU Agreement.
18. Section 12.14(b) of the JSU Agreement provides that Mississippi law governs that contract.
21. By letter dated February 1, 2022 (the “Termination Letter,” attached as Exhibit B), from
JSU’s General Counsel Edward Watson to SMC’s sole shareholder and President Fred Jones,
3
22. The Termination Letter was the first correspondence of any kind between JSU and SMC
indicating that JSU wanted to terminate the JSU Agreement or was even contemplating such
23. The one-page Termination Letter did not allege any breach by SMC. It was labelled “Notice
24. The second paragraph begins with “Therefore, this correspondence shall serve as notice of
JSU’s termination of its participation in the Southern Heritage Classic and the Agreement
25. The only reason for termination stated in the Termination Letter was that “the Southwestern
Athletic Conference, JSU’s governing athletic conference has entered into an agreement in
which JSU’s will participate in events that conflict with the Southern Heritage Classic
Agreement. Said conflict prevents JSU’s participation in the Southern Heritage Classic.”
26. Subsequently, JSU’s head football coach Deion Sanders gave interviews in which he was
quoted as saying that the Classic was not profitable for JSU, that JSU could make a lot more
money by not playing in the Classic, and that JSU was now “doing business.” The coach was
clear that JSU was not playing in the final three years of the JSU Agreement, including 2022,
27. After subsequent discussions between SMC and JSU, JSU agreed to mitigate damages and
28. However, JSU was adamant that it will not honor the JSU Agreement in 2023 and 2024. This
was repeated in a Deion Sanders Instagram video post by JSU’s Vice President and Athletic
Director Ashley Robinson and Coach Sanders. Coach Sanders again indicated that the
Classic was not profitable enough for JSU despite its annual fee of $350,000. Coach Sanders
4
said that after paying for 11 busloads of people to travel to Memphis and overnight
accommodations, JSU came home with nothing, despite the $350,000 fee paid by SMC to
JSU.
30. JSU’s breach of contract means that SMC must find a replacement team for 2023 and 2024,
and its ability to do so is not at all certain. The Classic is a joyful 28-year rivalry. JSU’s
Coach explained that at the present time, JSU is the big attraction, that JSU’s participation
alone brings 40,000 fans to their games. The Coach’s boasts prove that JSU’s breach will
31. The Classic has become an annual cultural tradition for tens of thousands of people. They
plan for the trip to Memphis every year. It takes years to build up that sort of fan loyalty.
JSU’s breach means that virtually all of the JSU fans will cease coming to the Classic. SMC
does not expect that any available replacement team will attract that sort of fan following.
Nor is it a certainty that a high percentage of TSU fans will come to a game against a
32. JSU’s breach is horrible for SMC, TSU, and the City of Memphis.
33. JSU is in breach of contract and owes compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at
trial, exceeding $1.8 million per year for each of the two years.
35. SMC asked JSU to reconsider its Termination Letter and honor the JSU Agreement in 2023
and 2024, but JSU’s General Counsel declined and its Coach and Athletic Director are telling
5
the world that JSU will not be in the Classic in those years. JSU’s press release confirming
that it was still not playing in 2023 and 2024 is attached as Exhibit C.
37. JSU is in anticipatory breach of the JSU Agreement and owes compensatory damages in an
amount to be proved at trial, exceeding $1.8 million per year for each of the two years.
38. For SMC to mitigate damages, it needs to try to find a replacement school. That could be a
long process and is not at all certain to succeed. And it is unlikely that SMC will find a
replacement team equivalent to the fan-drawing power of JSU and a 28-year rivalry.
40. SMC is contractually entitled to specific performance of the JSU Agreement. JSU
contractually agreed to specific performance in Section 5.2 of the JSU Agreement, which
provides that in the event of breach of contract, “the non-breaching party shall have the rights
to specific performance, injunctive relief and all other remedies and rights available at law or
in equity.”
41. Alternatively, SMC is entitled to specific performance because monetary damages are
inadequate. SMC has built an enjoyable and profitable rivalry between two schools for 28
years. SMC will not be able to replace that rivalry during the final two years of the JSU
Agreement.
42. The JSU Agreement does not include a liquidated damages provision.
43. Specific performance is only requiring JSU to do what it has done for 28 years.
6
COUNT FOUR: TORT OF WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
BY DEFENDANT SWAC
46. SWAC is creating its own classic and wishes that JSU participate in that game.
47. SWAC knew that JSU was under contract with SMC through 2024.
51. JSU would not have breached the JSU Agreement but for SWAC’s conduct.
52. The decisions to schedule JSU in conflict with the JSU Agreement were made and executed
53. SWAC is liable for the tort of wrongful interference with contractual relations, and is liable
exceeding $5.4 million per year for each of the two years.
DEFENDANT SWAC
55. SMC and JSU had a 28-year business relationship defined by multiple contracts, the most
7
56. SWAC knew about this long-term relationship, including the existence of the JSU
Agreement.
57. SWAC was a stranger to this business relationship between JSU and SMC.
58. SWAC intentionally interfered with this business relationship by inducing, encouraging, or
otherwise assisting JSU in breaching the JSU Agreement and terminating the business
59. JSU would not have terminated the business relationship in 2022 but for SWAC’s conduct.
60. The decisions to interfere with the business relationship between JSU and SMC were made
61. SWAC is liable for the tort of wrongful interference with a business relationship, and is liable
exceeding $5.4 million per year for each of the two years.
63. Regarding Counts One, Two, and/or Three, SMC is entitled to recover certain costs,
64. Section 12.5 of the JSU Agreement provides that “If any action at law, in equity or by
mediation is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to court cost, mediation costs and necessary disbursements, in addition
65. In the event SMC is the prevailing party in the contract claims, it shall be entitled to court
8
66. Regarding Counts Four and/or Five, Alabama law provides that SMC is entitled to
compensatory damages, consequential damages, and punitive damages, which includes legal
fees.
JURY DEMAND
1) Conduct a hearing to determine the rights of the parties herein, with a jury being
empaneled therefor;
2) Issue a mandatory injunction compelling JSU to perform its duties as set out in its
4) Grant SMC such other, further, general, and equitable relief to which it may be