King Loses Round With Supreme Court Supreme Court Denies Promoter’s Bid In His Insurance-Fraud Case

Boxing promoter Don King, hoping to make himself less vulnerable to insurance-fraud charges, lost his appeal in the Supreme Court.

The court, without comment, Monday refused to drop Don King Productions as a co-defendant in a second trial.

In two other sports rulings, former NFL star George Webster failed to have his disability pension increased (see story, page C2) and a Chicago sports arena’s policy banning fans from bringing their own food inside was left intact.

King was indicted in 1994 stemming from a 1991 insurance policy he obtained from Lloyd’s of London against losses in case a fight between Julio Cesar Chavez and Harold Brazier had to be canceled.

The match was called off after Chavez was hurt while training, and King claimed $350,000 in losses for money he said was paid to Chavez for nonrefundable training expenses.

Government prosecutors contend King’s payment to Chavez was considered by both to be a loan and King knew loans, being refundable, were not covered by the policy. King said no fraud took place.

A 1995 trial in New York ended in a hung jury, and prosecutors subsequently obtained a superseding indictment that named both King and Don King Productions, of which he is the sole owner.

After mistrials, indictments that add new charges or new defendants, carry the presumption that prosecutors are acting out of vindictiveness.

King argued the new indictment - carrying the potential for increased fines and the loss of his corporation’s license to promote bouts in various states - was the result of such vindictiveness.

In the arena case, the court, without comment, dismissed arguments that the United Center’s ban on outside food unlawfully harmed vendors who used to sell peanuts near the center before pro basketball and hockey games and other events.

Eighteen peanut vendors filed an antitrust lawsuit in 1995, accusing the arena of unlawfully using its monopoly power in the sports market to control food sales in and around the center.

A federal judge ruled against the vendors, saying the center could not be accused of monopolizing its own customers.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed as did the Supreme Court.