Two Suns minority owners are suing the team’s holding company and majority owner Mat Ishbia, alleging mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and a lack of required transparency from Ishbia.

The team says the suit is simply part of a pressure campaign to get Ishbia to buy out his minority partners at a premium.

Kisco WC Sports II and Kent Circle Investments filed the “books and records suit” against Suns Legacy Holdings LLC on Wednesday in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where many business disputes are handled due to Delaware’s long-standing role as the preferred state for U.S. companies to incorporate. 

Kisco is led by Andrew Kohlberg, a former professional tennis player who now runs a senior living business and has been a limited partner in the Suns since 2004, while Kent Circle is led by Scott Seldin, who has an Arizona-based real estate business. They, along with all the other previous minority partners, were given the choice of staying on under Ishbia or selling their stakes when he bought the team from Robert Sarver two years ago. Kisco and Kent Circle chose not to sell their stakes, while the rest of the minority owners did.

The suit is heavily redacted in some areas and seeks internal documents in order to determine whether Ishbia breached contractual agreements with the partners.

Ishbia bought a reported 57% stake in the NBA’s Suns and WNBA’s Mercury at a $4 billion valuation in 2023. The suit is highly critical of how he has run the team since then.

According to the suit, the drama began last September, when Kisco—“dissatisfied” with Ishbia’s management of the team—started negotiations to sell its stake to Ishbia. The suit cites a lack of details about how a Mercury practice facility was funded as one example of his mismanagement.

The Suns declined to comment. But the team’s version of the story is very different from that of the suit, according to an Aug. 26 letter sent to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and viewed by Front Office Sports. The letter, signed by Suns attorney David Marroso of O’Melveny & Myers LP, says Kisco and Kent Circle have demanded that Ishbia buy their interests for $825 million, implying an enterprise value of more than $6 billion for the team. That would represent a 60% increase compared to when Ishbia bought the team in 2023.

According to the letter, the increasing valuation of the Suns is “a direct result” of multiple factors, including the NBA’s new $77 billion media-rights deal, but also “massive investments” made into the Suns and Mercury by Ishbia, including in real estate, local media rights, arena upgrades, and more.

However, the team’s market value “is not the point,” the letter says. It insists that Kisco and Kent Circle “have no right” to compel Ishbia to buy their interests at all, though they are free to market their stakes and find a buyer elsewhere. 

The letter, sent Tuesday, says Kisco and Kent Circle have “resorted to threatening baseless litigation and sensationalized press coverage as a means of intimidating and coercing [Ishbia] into unprincipled and unjustified buyout negotiations.”

“That will not work,” the letter says. “[Ishbia] will not be bullied by these sharp and abusive tactics.”

A representative for Kisco and Kent Circle responded to the letter, telling FOS “we’re not going to comment on baseless assertions.”

While Kent Circle didn’t yet seek a buyout along with Kisco, “it too had growing concerns” about Ishbia’s management, the suit says. The discussions continued through the middle of this year, at which point Kisco requested Ishbia “provide a final response” to its offer to sell by June 1.

Instead of responding by that date, Ishbia held a capital call requesting additional money from investors on June 2. The suit says the call was “part of a leverage strategy to exert pressure on and dilute the company’s minority owners.” According to the lawsuit, the per-unit price attached to the call was “strikingly low” compared with what they say is the Suns’ true valuation, meaning those who failed to fund their share risked not just dilution but a severe write-down of their equity. 

The suit also alleges that Ishbia may have cut undisclosed side deals with other partners tied to the call—which would be in violation of a clause in the LLC agreement stating all members must be treated equally, the suit claims. The relevant portions of the agreement are cited in the suit but heavily redacted. Specifics of the alleged side deals were not clear, which is part of why the plaintiffs say they need access to books and records.

While the Suns ultimately produced some documents, “including an agreement signed by [Kisco and Kent Circle] that they already possessed,” the suit alleges the team has failed to provide the complete records needed to assess potential breaches of the LLC agreement. 

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Michael Carlinsky and Michael Barlow of Quinn Emanuel, framed the fight as a transparency issue, saying in a statement, “Our clients sued to obtain records to which they are entitled as minority owners of the Suns.”

“They are concerned by the manager’s approach towards minority owners, and want more information about certain spending and capital raises in which the manager has engaged,” they said. “Transparency with minority owners is not optional, and our clients think it is critical to the success of the Suns.”

German sportswear giant Puma is at a crossroads. 

The company’s stock, which trades on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, is down more than 45% over the past year, its sales are declining, and its largest shareholder is reportedly exploring a sale of its 29% stake. 

The Pinault family, who has owned that 29% stake through holding company Group Artémis since 2018, has hired advisers to help with the sale of its stake, and the goal may be to find a buyer willing to purchase the whole company, Bloomberg reported earlier this week. Artémis also owns companies like Creative Arts Agency, auction house Christie’s, and more.

Matt Powell, a footwear and retail industry expert who heads up consulting firm Spurwink River, isn’t surprised the Pinault family might want out.

“Short-term results have been weak, especially in the U.S. and Europe, and that’s the biggest reason Puma’s stock has been down,” Powell tells Front Office Sports. “The business hasn’t been terrible, but it hasn’t been great either.” 

Puma has been trying to be too many things at once, Powell says. The company has invested significantly in basketball, with athletes like the NBA’s LaMelo Ball and Tyrese Haliburton, the WNBA’s Breanna Stewart, and LSU’s Flau’jae Johnson. But that category hasn’t delivered. 

“The basketball business isn’t great here in the U.S.,” Powell says.

Running is a brighter spot, and Puma’s Nitro line has resonated, but the category is highly competitive and rivals like Hoka, On, and New Balance have all been performing well, according to Powell.

Powell believes Puma needs to simplify. “They need to focus on a couple of key categories and ride the fashion winds as they’re coming in,” he says.

Puma appears well aware of the challenges it faces. In January, Puma introduced a new “cost efficiency initiative.” In April, CEO Arne Freundt stepped down due to “differing views on strategy execution” and was replaced by Arthur Hoeld. 

The Pinault family appears to want out of the Puma business. Bloomberg reports that suitors for the company include China’s Anta Sports—which has made recent gains in the U.S. and counts Kyrie Irving and Klay Thompson among its athletes—and Li-Ning, which lists retired NBA star Dwyane Wade among its athlete partners. 

Both companies dominate their home market but have limited Western presence.

“Neither have a big footprint here,” Powell says. “Both could see this as an entry into the Western world.”

One of the companies already poured cold water on the idea of a Puma takeover. Li-Ning “remains focused on the growth and development of the Li-Ning brand,” a spokesperson for the company tells FOS. “As of now, the company has not engaged in any negotiations or evaluations regarding the deal you mentioned.”

A representative for Anta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Telsey Advisory Group analyst Cristina Fernández says a Chinese buyer could make sense, but she also sees private equity as a possible path. 

“We have seen private equity be pretty involved with brands like these,” she says, “and then over time resurrect them and take them public.” 

Examples of that include Birkenstock, which was bought by PE firm L Catterton in 2021 and held an initial public offering in 2023, as well as Dr. Martens, which was purchased by PE firm Permira in 2013 and taken public in 2021.

Still, Fernández questioned whether now is the right time: “If Puma were to sell at this point, it would be kind of like what Foot Locker did by selling to Dick’s at a depressed value.”

“It’s not ideal if you’re the board,” she adds. “They have a new CEO who is putting together a strategy. Until they see whether strategic initiatives can improve the company, the board probably will not be in a rush to sell.”

For her, Puma’s struggles are about momentum, not structural decline. 

“Puma is not a broken brand,” Fernández says. “The company needs to go through its portfolio, see where it needs more innovation, bring back retro products, and find collaborations that hit—like it did with Rihanna in the past.”

In addition to some of the foundational issues Puma is grappling with, the company faces external pressures due to tariffs. The Trump White House has placed a 20% tariff on Vietnam and 19% tariffs on Cambodia and Indonesia, all of which are key manufacturing hubs for Puma. 

Puma is only just beginning to feel the effects of the tariff policies, according to Fernández.

“The tariff environment today for footwear is worse than it was five months ago,” she tells FOS. “That impact is big, and it’s going to run through 2026.” 

Representatives for Puma and Artémis did not respond to requests for comment.

Mark Cuban continues to speak publicly—and candidly—about his sale of a majority stake in the Mavericks. 

In a wide-ranging interview on the DLLS Mavs Podcast with longtime Mavericks reporters Marc Stein and Tim Cato, Cuban touched on a range of topics including the state of the NBA, the origin of his relationship with Miriam Adelson, and what he would have done differently in selling the team to the casino magnate. 

“I don’t regret selling the team; I regret how I did it,” Cuban said. “I would have put it out to bid. But I didn’t, so it doesn’t matter.” 

Cuban sold 73% of the team at a $3.5 billion valuation in December 2023. Since then the Celtics have sold for $6.1 billion and the Lakers at a record $10 billion valuation.

In the years since selling his majority stake, Cuban has continued to publicly weigh in on how the team has been run, and has been particularly critical of the Luka Dončić trade. Shortly after the transaction, Cuban said the team needed to “get a better deal.” He also told Front Office Sports he did not know about the trade until “just before it was announced.”

Cuban said he had expected to handle basketball operations after the Adelsons bought the team; the NBA has disputed his framing of the issue.

“Any decision as to what Mark’s role would be in basketball operations was a function of an arrangement to be made between Mark Cuban and [Mavericks governor] Patrick [Dumont],” NBA commissioner Adam Silver said in March. 

On the podcast, Cuban said he deliberately kept 27.7% of his stake in the team in order to meet the league requirement of owning at least 15% of a franchise to be a governor, and he again disputed Silver’s comments that the NBA wasn’t involved in any discussion over whether Cuban would remain governor. 

“I did have it in writing,” Cuban said. “Like I said before, there was a clause in there that gave me the right to be in every meeting, every trade discussion, everything. And the NBA took that out…Who the hell do you think took it out? I mean, I’ve got the letter from my lawyer saying the NBA made us remove it.”

Cuban also criticized the increasing role of private equity in the NBA and how it has changed the league’s priorities. The NBA allows a PE firm to own up to 20% of a team. As PE money has flooded in, Cuban said the league is less prioritized in catering to fans. 

“It went from very entrepreneurial, ‘what can we do to make the NBA better for fans’ to ‘how can we increase valuations,’” Cuban said. “And those are two very different types of businesses. It went from ‘private equity’s not allowed’ to private-equity-dominant. … I think the NBA is losing a step on the entrepreneurial side and the fan side. The guys at the Warriors say, ‘It’s not show fun, it’s show business.’ And I never ran it that way. And there were a lot of other individual owners that never ran it that way. But that’s not the way it’s being run today.”

Cuban declined to comment further in an email.