Postponed Heat-Bulls game rescheduled to Jan. 29

Barry Jackson: 
Per source, one reason why the NBA hasn’t terminated Rozier contract and given Miami cap space (unlike what it did with J. Porter) is the league has not been given access to whatever evidence the feds have in their charges against Rozier. So NBA has no evidence to overturn its previous conclusion that Rozier did nothing wrong.

The NBA concluded Rozier did nothing wrong so neither Silver nor the Hornets chose to inform the Heat of the pending federal investigation. This decision to conceal relevant information for Miami to consider before agreeing to the trade, left the Heat competitively and financially vulnerable. Yet, The NBA/Silver/Charlotte have done absolutely nothing to resolve the situation. Riley should be suing both the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets for full reimbursement, restoration and damages.

• If a seller fails to disclose material information before a contract, buyers have legal recourse including rescission (canceling the sale for a refund), suing for damages (repair costs, lost value, fees, potential punitive damages), or, rarely, specific performance; claims often involve fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of contract, with remedies depending on proving the seller knew about the defect. 

WHEN CAN NON-DISCLOSURE RISE TO THE LEVEL OF FRAUD?

Failure to disclose facts that are relevant and important may rise to the level of fraud. To succeed with a claim of fraud by non-disclosure, the party who claims to have been defrauded (the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit) must prove all of the following elements:

• The defendant had a duty to disclose certain facts to the plaintiff because, for example, the defendant created a false impression or the defendant was a fiduciary
• The defendant concealed or failed to disclose these facts to the plaintiff
• The undisclosed facts were material, i.e., important and relevant to the subject of the contract
• The defendant knew that the
• plaintiff was ignorant of the facts and
• that the plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the facts
• The defendant was intentionally silent when they had a duty to inform
• The defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to take action or refrain from acting by failing to disclose the facts
• The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s nondisclosure
• The plaintiff was injured as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed facts

I believe this matter meets the criteria to be considered fraud.