Legal team of Alex Palou refutes claim that he should be held responsible for Pato O’Ward’s salary increase at Arrow McLaren IndyCar. Currently, McLaren is suing Palou for over $30 million in a commercial case in the UK. The amended action, filed by McLaren in February, accuses Palou of breaching his contract by choosing to remain with his current team, Chip Ganassi Racing, instead of joining McLaren for the 2024 season. Palou admitted to breaching his contractual obligations, but disputes various aspects of McLaren’s compensation claims. The legal team of the current IndyCar champion has made modifications to their defense in response to McLaren’s new allegation.
McLaren’s new allegations include holding Palou responsible for O’Ward’s $10.2 million salary increase and associated losses, such as $1.5 million due to General Motors not considering Palou’s replacement, David Malukas, an ‘A’ level driver. Palou’s defense denies responsibility for O’Ward’s salary increase, pointing out that McLaren has already hired Malukas as a replacement and has not provided sufficient evidence to support their case against Palou. Palou’s defense argues that McLaren’s lack of support for his future in F1 was the reason for his contract breach and that McLaren would have needed O’Ward regardless. It also states that O’Ward’s contract is unrelated to the dispute with Palou and that McLaren had a commercial motive to secure the best available driver. McLaren claims to have lost $1.5 million in General Motors payments due to Palou’s replacement not being an ‘A’ level driver, but Palou’s defense questions McLaren’s actions in seeking an alternative driver and argues that McLaren would be in the same situation even if Palou had been promoted to F1.
In their original defense, Palou’s legal team contested the use of the term ‘revenue loss’ by McLaren and insisted it should be ‘profit loss’. McLaren changed the wording to ‘profit loss’ in their amended claim, but Palou’s lawyers note that the alleged losses have either increased or remained the same. They demand further evidence from McLaren to support these claims. McLaren also stated they had to renegotiate their agreement with sponsor NTT, resulting in a loss of $5,381,000. Palou’s lawyers requested proof that this renegotiation was caused by Palou and that McLaren took reasonable steps to avoid it. They argue that Palou is not the main cause of the renegotiation.
