US Attorney's Office Reportedly Investigating Multi-Million Dollar NBPA Contract
The situation involving Billy Hunter and the NBA Players' Association is getting more serious with each passing day.
According to Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo! Sports, the United States Attorney's office is looking into the authenticity of a contract that involved Hunter and an allocation of funds to his son.
The U.S. Attorney's office is investigating the authenticity of a National Basketball Players Association contract that authorized future payment of more than $3 million to an investment firm that employed the son of executive director Billy Hunter, sources told Yahoo! Sports.
The report also states that one of the main points of contention here is the legitimacy of signatures on the document.
Another source of controversy stems from an agreement between the NBPA and Prim Capital, which has been part of many union deals in the past.
Wojnarowski's report says that "the agreement called for a 'five-year term, stretching from the date of execution, that cannot be canceled or revoked while in effect for any reason by the NBPA.'"
Hunter has been executive director of the NBA Players' Association since 1996. His tenure has come under fire in recent months after questions surfaced about his business methods and his attempts to get investments for his children.
In April 2012, Wojnarowski also reported that Hunter tried to get an investment from the union for a bank that was directly linked to his son, Todd.
Hunter has recently come out to defend his business methods and record since he has been leading the NBA Players' Association, telling the New York Times that he "can rebut" all of the charges that have been brought against him.
There is no time frame listed for the U.S. Attorney's office to conduct its investigation—nor should there be. This is a matter that involves millions of dollars and many potential jobs being lost.
If Hunter and/or the union is at fault, action should be taken. The most important thing is that the whole situation is resolved in an appropriate manner.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?