Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc Class C (BATRK) Risk Analysis

Principles of Nevada law and the provisions of our restated charter may protect decisions of our board of directors that weigh interests different from those of the holders of our common stock, or any series thereof, or that have a disparate impact upon holders of any series of our common stock. Under Nevada law, the board of directors has the duty to exercise its powers in good faith and with a view to the interests of the corporation. In doing so, the board of directors may consider all relevant facts, circumstances, contingencies or constituencies, including, without limitation, the interests of the corporation's employees, suppliers, creditors or customers; the economy of the state or the nation; the interests of the community or of society; the long-term or short-term interests of the corporation, including the possibility that these interests may be best served by the continued independence of the corporation; or the long-term or short-term interests of the corporation's stockholders, including the possibility that these interests may be best served by the continued independence of the corporation. Directors may consider or assign weight to the interests of any particular person or group, or to any other relevant facts, circumstances, contingencies or constituencies and are not required to consider, as a dominant factor, the effect of a proposed corporate action upon any particular group or constituency having an interest in the corporation. Under the principles of Nevada law referred to above and the business judgment rule, you may not be successful in challenging these decisions if a majority of our board of directors is disinterested, independent and adequately informed with respect to decisions of the board and acts in good faith and in the honest belief that the board is acting in the best interests of all of our stockholders.

Our restated charter provides that, subject to limited exceptions, the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County, Nevada (the "Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court") (or if the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court does not have jurisdiction, any other state district court located in the State of Nevada, and if no state district court in the State of Nevada has jurisdiction, any federal court located in the State of Nevada) shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the exclusive forum for certain specified types of "internal actions" as defined under Nevada law, including (a) those brought in our name or right or on our behalf; (b) those for or based upon a breach of fiduciary duty against any director, officer, employee or agent of ours in such capacity; (c) those arising pursuant to, or to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of, any provision of the Nevada corporation laws, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws or certain voting agreements or trusts. In addition, our restated charter provides that the federal district courts of the United States shall be, to the fullest extent provided by law, the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action under the Securities Act. In addition, Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. These choice of forum provisions may otherwise limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents. Stockholders who do bring a claim in the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near the State of Nevada. The Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. Similarly, the federal district courts may also reach different judgments in Securities Act cases than state courts. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our restated charter to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Nevada law has a provision limiting or eliminating the individual liability of both directors and officers unless the articles of incorporation provide for greater liability. A director or officer of a Nevada corporation is not liable unless the presumption that such person acted in good faith, on an informed basis and with a view to the interests of the corporation has been rebutted. In addition, there must be proof both that the act or failure to act constituted a breach of a fiduciary duty as a director or officer and that such breach involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law. In addition, the Nevada provision permitting limitation of liability applies to both directors and officers and expressly applies to liabilities owed to creditors of the corporation.

To comply with the policies of MLB, our restated charter provides that, subject to certain exceptions: (i) employees of MLB and related entities may not own our common stock, (ii) persons who are owners, stockholders, directors, officers or employees of any MLB Club other than the Braves may not own 5% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock, (iii) no person may own 10% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock and (iv) no person may (A) own 50% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock or (B) have the ability to exercise control over our business affairs unless, in the case of clause (iii) or clause (iv), such person is expressly approved by MLB (which, in the case of clause (iii), includes GAMCO Investors, Inc.) or qualifies as an exempt holder (which includes Gregory B. Maffei, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, John C. Malone, or any person approved by MLB as the "control person" of the Braves and certain related persons of each of the foregoing. In the event that a holder attempts to acquire shares of our common stock in violation of these restrictions, the applicable excess shares will automatically be transferred to a trust whereby such shares shall be held for the benefit of the excess share transferor, and subject to the ownership or control thresholds described in the above clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) which is purported to be breached, such excess shares may be sold for cash, on the open market, in privately negotiated transactions or otherwise, except that to the extent the purported transfer is in violation of clause (iv)(B), then such excess shares that are shares of BATRB will first be converted to shares of BATRA. No assurance can be given that the trust will be able to sell the shares at a price that is equal to or greater than the price paid by the holder. In addition, the holder's right to receive the net proceeds of the sale, as well as any dividends or other distributions to which the holder would otherwise be entitled, will be subject to the holder's compliance with the applicable mechanics included in our restated charter. In addition to the influence Mr. Malone could exercise in respect of his voting power (see "- Factors Relating to our Corporate History and the Split-Off - Mr. Malone owns shares of our common stock representing approximately 47.5% of our aggregate voting power (based on the number of shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2023), which may be deemed to put him in a position to influence significant corporate actions and may discourage others from initiating a potential change of control transaction that may be beneficial to our stockholders."), the share ownership limitations and MLB approvals required for certain transfers of shares of our common stock, in each case included in our restated charter, may have an anti-takeover effect, potentially discouraging third parties from making proposals for acquisitions of greater than 10% of our common stock or a change of control transaction. In addition, if MLB does not provide approval of a specific transaction, these provisions could prevent a transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then-prevailing market price or which our board of directors or stockholders might believe to be otherwise in the best interest of us and our stockholders.

Certain provisions of our restated charter and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of us that a stockholder may consider favorable. These provisions include the following: - (i) no person may own 10% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock and (ii) no person may (A) own 50% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock or (B) have the ability to exercise control over our business affairs unless, in the case of clause (i) or clause (ii), such person is expressly approved by MLB (which, in the case of clause (i), includes GAMCO Investors, Inc.) or qualifies as an exempt person (which includes Gregory B. Maffei, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, John C. Malone, or any person approved by MLB as the "control person" of the Braves and certain related persons of the foregoing, as well as Liberty Media until such time as Liberty Media no longer owns 10% or more of the number of outstanding shares of our common stock without retaining any power, including, without limitation, voting power, with respect to such shares);- authorizing a capital structure with multiple series of common stock: a Series B that entitles the holders to ten votes per share, a Series A that entitles the holders to one vote per share, and a Series C that, except as otherwise required by applicable law, entitles the holders to no voting rights;- classifying our board of directors with staggered three-year terms, which may lengthen the time required to gain control of our board of directors;- limiting who may call special meetings of stockholders;- prohibiting stockholder action by written consent (subject to certain exceptions), thereby requiring stockholder action to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders;- requiring stockholder approval by holders of at least 66?% of our voting power with respect to certain extraordinary matters, such as a merger or consolidation of us, a sale of all or substantially all of our assets or an amendment to our restated charter (except in the event approved by at least 75% of our board of directors);- establishing advance notice requirements for nominations of candidates for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at stockholder meetings; and - the existence of authorized and unissued stock, including "blank check" preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors to persons friendly to our then current management, thereby protecting the continuity of our management, or which could be used to dilute the stock ownership of persons seeking to obtain control of us.

We are classified as an "emerging growth company" under the JOBS Act. As a result, we have reduced Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance requirements, as discussed elsewhere, for as long as we are an emerging growth company, which may be up to five full fiscal years. Unlike other public companies, we will not be required to, among other things, (i) comply with certain audit-related requirements that we would otherwise be subject to but for our status as an emerging growth company, (ii) provide certain disclosure regarding executive compensation required of larger public companies or (iii) hold non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation. To the extent that we rely on any of the exemptions available to emerging growth companies, you will receive less information about our executive compensation and internal control over financial reporting than issuers that are not emerging growth companies. If some investors find our common stock to be less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Our multi-series structure may result in a lower or more volatile market price of the shares of our common stock or in adverse publicity or other adverse consequences. For example, certain index providers have announced restrictions on including companies with multi-series share structures in certain of their indexes. S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell have announced changes to their eligibility criteria for inclusion of shares of public companies on certain indices, including the S&P 500. These changes exclude companies with multiple classes of shares of common stock from being added to these indices. Any such exclusion from indices could result in a less active trading market for, and adversely affect the value of, the shares of our common stock, in part because mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and other investment vehicles that attempt to passively track these indices will not be investing in the shares of our common stock. In addition, several stockholder advisory firms have announced their opposition to the use of multiple-class structures. As a result, the multi-series structure of our common stock may cause stockholder advisory firms to publish negative commentary about our corporate governance practices or otherwise seek to cause us to change our capital structure. Any actions or publications by stockholder advisory firms critical of our corporate governance practices or capital structure could also adversely affect the value of the shares of our common stock.