F.A.M.E. LLC v. Emturn LLC and Evan Turner

── F.A.M.E. LLC v. Emturn LLC and Evan Turner ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE F.A.M.E. LLC d/b/a Falk Associates § Management Enterprises a/k/a FAME, § No. 230, 2025 § Plaintiff Below, § Court Below: Superior Court Appellant/Cross-Appellee, § of the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. N22C-12-003 § EMTURN LLC and EVAN TURNER, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees/Cross-Appellant. § Submitted: January 28, 2026 Decided: April 20, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Andrew S. Dupre, Esquire (argued), Brian R. Lemon, Esquire, Alberto E. Chávez, Esquire, AKERMAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for Plaintiff-Below/Appellant and Cross-Appellee, F.A.M.E. LLC. S. Mark Hurd, Esquire (argued), Alexandra M. Cumings, Esquire, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; James D. Curphey, Esquire, Kyle C. Gilliam, Esquire, PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio for Defendants-Below/Appellees and Cross-Appellants EmTurn LLC and Evan Turner. SEITZ, Chief Justice: A professional basketball player’s agent secured a lucrative endorsement contract for the player with a sportswear and sports equipment company. Part of the player’s compensation was paid in company stock. Five years after the player terminated the agent, the player sold some of the stock. The agent sought a commission on the stock based on its value when sold. After the player refused to pay, the parties took their dispute to the Superior Court. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the player’s motion. It held that the stock was commissionable, but the commission was due when the stock vested at various dates from 2011-2016 and not when the stock was sold. Suit was not filed until 2022, outside the three-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the agent argues that the court erred by granting the player’s summary judgment motion because there was a genuine issue of material fact about when the commission was due and therefore whether the statute of limitations barred the claims. The player cross-appeals the court’s ruling that the stock was commissionable. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Superior Court that the stock was commissionable but reverse its statute of limitations ruling because genuine issues of material fact existed about when the commission was due. 2  I. A. Evan Turner was a professional basketball player who started his career with the Philadelphia 76ers. Early in his career, Turner shook hands with David Falk, a prominent sports agent, on an agency agreement. They agreed that Falk’s agency, FAME, would represent Turner and receive a commission-based marketing fee based on leads generated by FAME.1 FAME negotiated, and Turner’s company, EmTurn, LLC, signed an August 23, 2010 endorsement agreement with Chinese sportswear and sports equipment companies Li-Ning Sports Technology Development (HK) Co. Limited and Li-Ning Sports USA (“Li-Ning”). In exchange for Turner’s promotional activities, Li-Ning agreed to compensate EmTurn in four ways: (i) guaranteed minimum cash compensation; (ii) cash royalties based on Turner’s signature product line; (iii) cash bonuses based on Turner’s on court accomplishments; and (iv) one million shares of Li-Ning restricted stock.2 The Li-Ning stock vested over time starting in 2011 and ending in 2016.3 1 App. to Appellant’s Opening Br. A34 [hereinafter “A”__] (First Am. Compl. ¶¶