A new lawsuit by two Phoenix Suns minority owners alleges that governor Mat Ishbia has mismanaged the franchise and used it as “his personal piggy bank,” escalating an internal ownership dispute that began over the summer.
The filing, made public Monday in Delaware state court, comes from Andy Kohlberg and Scott Seldin, holdovers from the Robert Sarver era, and asserts that Ishbia has driven a once-profitable organization into losses while engaging in conflicted business dealings tied to his mortgage company, United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM).
The minority owners first sued in August, alleging Ishbia refused to grant access to internal records and carried out a June 2, 2025 capital call they say was designed to pressure and dilute their stakes. Ishbia filed a countersuit last month and, through a spokesperson, labeled their claims a “shakedown.” Monday’s filing responds to that countersuit and repeats the “personal piggy bank” allegation, citing what the plaintiffs describe as a pattern of conflicted transactions benefitting Ishbia’s outside business interests.
The complaint highlights specific decisions under Ishbia, who acquired the Suns in 2023 at a reported $4 billion valuation, including a new arena naming rights agreement with Mortgage Matchup, an affiliate connected to UWM, suggesting it exemplifies self-dealing that has “decimated the company’s finances.” A spokesperson for Ishbia has denied the allegations, characterizing the suit as a baseless attempt by minority owners to “freeload,” while the filing argues the team has shifted from profitability to operating in the red under his stewardship.
According to the legal filing, Kohlberg and Seldin contend Ishbia “does not own the Suns to make money for the company” and instead operates it as a personal fiefdom for his own gain and the benefit of UWM. They say he has concealed details of spending and pursued a “lengthy list of conflicted transactions,” only some of which they claim have been disclosed. The suit seeks relief from the court to address alleged misconduct and to prevent further actions that, in their view, erode the value and governance structure of the franchise.
Reports note that the plaintiffs view Ishbia’s capital call and subsequent actions as attempts to squeeze them out, while Ishbia’s camp frames the litigation as opportunistic and unfounded. Industry coverage has traced the dispute’s chronology from the August lawsuit through Ishbia’s countersuit and to Monday’s rebuttal, painting a picture of deepening acrimony and high-stakes questions about control and transparency in team operations.
Beyond the courtroom, the allegations raise broader governance concerns that echo league-wide scrutiny of ownership practices. The intersection of team business with an owner’s outside enterprises is central to the complaint, and the outcomes could influence how franchises handle related-party transactions and minority-owner rights.
