NBA - Main

In filing, Knicks argue that alleged intellectual property theft by a ex-employee currently w/TOR falls outside the purview of the NBA constitution. They compel the court to not send case to an arbiter. They cite Adam Silver’s previous deferral to the court to decide the matter

I'd argue it does not fall outside the NBA constitution since the NBA constitution is pretty broad in terms of what falls under its purview. The NBA Constitution gives Silver the exclusive jurisdiction of "any dispute" involving two or more members (teams) of the association. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say Silver has "deferred" to the Court on the actual dispute itself, just that he is waiting to see how certain things play out (such as this motion to dismiss).

In Knicks' response to Raptors, NYK lawyers write that they intend to prove in trial that damages related to the alleged intellectual property theft exceed $10 million. The penalty Adam Silver can levy a team is capped at $10 million, per the NBA Constitution.

The latter part is true but this just reads like argument to me. I question if the damages for the Knicks really rise to that level.

NYK lawyers write that 'a Raptors’ minority owner currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Governors, which is the head of the body that hired (and can fire) the Commissioner and sets his annual compensation.'

The Board is comprised of all 30 members, and while Larry Tanenbaum certainly is the chair, anything involving Silver has to be approved by 3/4 of the Board. So, unless 3/4 of the league wants to stick it to the Knicks, I don't think this argument holds a lot of weight. Also, I don't think that matters since Silver is kind of obligated to resolve disputes involving the Raptors, so why not this one as well?