Ever since CAA went to war with a group of former agents who jumped ship to become managers at Range Media, the conflict has played out like an extended game of cat and mouse. The agency alleges that the defectors—Jack Whigham, Dave Bugliari, Michael Cooper, and Mick Sullivan—took off with confidential intel and are now helping Range C.E.O. Pete Micelli run an unlicensed competitor. But proving that claim has been a Sisyphean slog, with CAA forced to jump through hoop after hoop just to secure the most basic discovery. Arbitration subpoenas gave way to public court petitions, which spiraled into jurisdictional appeals and other theatrics. Just last week, CAA filed a new lawsuit, aimed at compelling testimony from the assistants who left alongside their bosses, accusing them of being part of a broader “effort to block CAA from getting at the truth.” Yes, CAA is suing its former assistants. Behind the aggressive maneuvering lies a less-publicized twist. I’ve learned that, a few months ago, the arbitration panel quietly ruled in favor of the ex-agents on a pivotal issue: CAA, the panel found, improperly withheld the equity that the insurgent agents had vested over decades. Critically, the panel applied California law, rather than CAA’s strong preference for Delaware law. When it comes to employment agreements, California favors employee mobility and is notoriously hostile to noncompetes. Delaware is more corporation friendly, and presumably would agree with CAA that voiding the ex-agents’ shares was legally sound. The arbitration panel’s choice of California law ended up giving credence to the ex-agents’ claim that CAA voiding their shares would discourage Californians from changing jobs, thereby hurting competition in the marketplace. Now, the question is how much those shares are worth. The ex-agents say $70 million, a valuation based on the 2023 acquisition of a majority stake in the company by French businessman François-Henri Pinault. CAA says zero—unless there’s a liquidity event, like an I.P.O.—or at most, much less than $70 million. Even then, CAA argues, any payout should be offset by alleged loyalty breaches that took place behind the scenes before the agents’ departure. Hence, the ongoing scramble to depose assistants and reconstruct who said what to whom and when. The latest arbitration hearing wrapped a couple weeks ago with no resolution. Another three-week session is set for May, giving CAA time to pry loose evidence. Meanwhile, a parallel lawsuit against Range is pressing forward, with CAA accusing the company of being “built on deceit.” Range calls this suit a retaliatory P.R. stunt, designed to send a “chilling message” to anyone thinking about defecting—evidence, they argue, that at CAA, “contractual agreements and legal protections” take a back seat to “the whims and greed of its leadership.”

Whether this ends more favorably for CAA and its C.E.O., Bryan Lourd, than its bruising legal battle with UTA a decade ago remains to be seen. You remember that one, of course. Back in 2015, a different set of high-profile agents—Greg Cavic, Gregory McKnight, Martin Lesak, Jason Heyman, and Nick Nuciforo—made a similarly dramatic exit. CAA howled, calling it a “lawless midnight raid” and accusing the agents of recruiting colleagues and wooing clients like Will Ferrell and Chris Pratt while still on the CAA payroll. As with today’s Range fight, the case revolved around contractual loyalty and the ever-blurry boundary between fair competition and foul play. The CAA–UTA scuffle pinballed between arbitration and L.A. Superior Court for four years before it eventually settled. And though the terms were never disclosed, I can report that UTA paid CAA just $6.5 million to make it go away. The agreement stipulated that neither party would be declared the prevailing one. But given that CAA was gunning for a far higher payout—and likely could’ve negotiated a commission split in that ballpark from the jump—it wasn’t exactly a win for Lourd & Co. So, is history repeating itself? CAA certainly seems to be using the same playbook. In the Range case, it’s leaving no stone—or rogue assistant—unturned. You can safely assume everyone’s legal bills are somewhere between extravagant and obscene. Speaking of which: Bryan Freedman, the litigator representing the agents who joined Range, also represented UTA in the earlier case.

Here’s a remarkable footnote that’s gone largely unnoticed: A piece of the CAA–UTA legal mess was only resolved last week. After settling with CAA in 2015, UTA sued its insurer, Markel, seeking reimbursement for $7 million in legal costs, roughly half of which went to Freedman. Markel balked, calling the figure “exorbitant” and claiming it wasn’t on the hook for damages stemming from a “willful” wrongful act—i.e., poaching agents, or, in legalese, UTA’s alleged inducement of CAA employees to violate their fiduciary duties. UTA countered that hiring rival agents is hardly a criminal offense, that allegations don’t equal evidence, and that Markel had a contractual duty to advance legal expenses. UTA brought in no fewer than three expert witnesses to defend the reasonableness of its legal fees and the settlement. Among them: former Gibson Dunn partner Scott Edelman, who noted that CAA had sued UTA directly, outside of arbitration—exposing it to the threat of punitive damages. On March 20, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Markel’s favor, holding that the insurer had no duty to foot UTA’s legal bills. Meanwhile, CAA seems to be reprising that strategy against Range, pursuing claims in arbitration against former agents who want their equity payout, while suing the agency separately in open court. Defending Range in the current matter is Edelman’s former partner, Orin Snyder. Small town.

Thanks, Eriq. I’ll be back on Thursday evening. Matt