Court Bond Safeguards Glendale During Coyotes Contract Dispute
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered the City of Glendale, Arizona to continue making its scheduled $3.75 million payment to the Arizona Coyotes while their contract dispute proceeds, but required the team to post an increased $1 million Arizona court bond to protect the city. This bond serves as financial security for Glendale’s taxpayers, ensuring the city can recover funds if the court later rules the contract invalid. The dispute stems from Glendale’s long-term arena agreement with the Coyotes, which the city now claims is financially unsustainable and potentially void under Arizona law due to alleged conflicts of interest involving former city officials. The case highlights how court bonds function as critical risk-management tools in high-stakes municipal litigation, balancing ongoing payment obligations with protection against potential future losses.
Updated: February 2026
By Gary Swiftbonds, nationally recognized expert in surety bonds, bid bonds, and performance bonds.
Below is a fascinating article on the continuing saga of Glendale Arizona and the Arizona Coyotes hockey team. This article details about how the judge requires a Arizona Court Bond to be posted to protect the City of Glendale.
The rationale behind this posting of a court bond is because the judge further ordered the City to pay the Coyotes its regularly scheduled payment. So, if the City were to prevail in the court action later, it would be protected through this bond.
A little bit of background: The City of Glendale, Arizona originally bid and got the rights to a stadium in which they were able to secure the Arizona Coyotes hockey team. Over the years, however, the situation has soured for Glendale – they are continuously losing money on the deal. Glendale wants desperately to get out of the deal while the Coyotes love this deal. So, we are entering into a phase of negotiation brinkmanship as well as court action, etc. It’s been very interesting for sure.
https://www.yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_92d2b6de-1e69-11e5-b022-e7b8f2bd00fd.html
Glendale ordered to pay Coyotes $3.75M; team to post increased bond to protect city
PHOENIX – A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ordered the city of Glendale to make its regularly scheduled payment to the Arizona Coyotes National Hockey League franchise during the parties’ ongoing contract dispute.
Judge Dawn Bergin also told team owners Monday to post a $1 million bond to be held while the parties’ case continues.
“We’re satisfied with the outcome,” stated acting City Manager Dick Bowers. “We’ve said all along that our primary obligation is to our citizens. The judge’s ruling enforcing an increase in the bond payment is an assurance for our taxpayers that we’re looking out for their best interests.”
The initial bond amount had been $250,000, according to city officials.
The city’s regularly scheduled quarterly payment to the team totals $3.75 million.
The bond would ensure the city would be guaranteed financial relief if the courts determine the city’s contract with the Coyotes to be invalid.
Both the city’s request for either a temporary hold on the entire amount of the payment or a bond to be posted by IceArizona were among options that were part of a motion filed by the city in response to the Coyotes’ filing for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The city is seeking to terminate its contract with IceArizona, the company which the Coyotes do business as. The team has gone to court, seeking to block that move and enforce the contract, Team owners have said they do not want to move the team. The Coyotes play in the city’s Gila River Arena.
The city claims state laws were broken in communications between two former city officials and the team. Glendale officials also have said the contract is a bad deal for the municipality, forcing it to shoulder a disproportionate amount of financial burden.
Regarding the communications issue, city officials have cited, Arizona Revised Statute 38-511, a law prohibiting city or state employees being a part of contract negotiations and later going to work for the other party to the deal.
Former city attorney Craig Tindall is now the team’s legal counsel. Former assistant city manager and communications director Julie Frisoni later did contract work for the team. Frisoni has denied anything improper occurred and that she had no input into the contract. Tindall has not publically commented on the matter.
The statute provides the city can void the agreement if former city employees who were “significantly involved in the initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating” the contract go to work for the other party.
The City Council June 10 voted 5-2 to terminate the Coyotes’ lease and cancel Glendale’s 13-year, $225 million contract with the IceArizona.
Meanwhile, city officials have offered to renegotiate the deal, something Coyotes officials have staunchly said they will not do.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the judge require an Arizona court bond in the Glendale–Coyotes dispute?
The judge required a court bond to protect the City of Glendale while the lawsuit remains unresolved. Because the court ordered Glendale to continue making scheduled payments during the dispute, the bond serves as financial security. If the city ultimately prevails and the contract is ruled invalid, the bond helps ensure Glendale can recover funds or obtain appropriate financial relief.
What does the $1 million court bond protect, and who benefits from it?
The bond protects the City of Glendale and its taxpayers from potential financial harm during the litigation. It ensures that funds are available if the court later determines Glendale was improperly required to make payments. The bond is a safeguard, not a payment to the city, and remains in place only while the case is pending.
Why was the bond increased from $250,000 to $1 million?
Courts may increase bond amounts when financial exposure grows or when existing security is deemed insufficient. In this case, the ongoing $3.75 million quarterly payment obligation led the judge to require a higher bond to better match the city’s potential financial risk during the dispute.
How is a court bond different from a performance bond?
A court bond is tied to litigation and protects parties from losses caused by temporary court orders, such as injunctions or restraining orders. A performance bond, by contrast, guarantees that a contractor will complete work according to a contract. Both are surety bonds, but they serve different purposes—legal protection versus contract performance.
How does Arizona Revised Statute 38-511 factor into Glendale’s case?
Arizona Revised Statute 38-511 allows a city to void a contract if former public officials who were significantly involved in creating the agreement later work for the other party. Glendale argues that this statute applies to its agreement with the Coyotes, making the contract potentially invalid and reinforcing the need for court-ordered financial protection through a bond.
{
“@context”: “https://schema.org”,
“@type”: “FAQPage”,
“mainEntity”: [
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Why did the judge require an Arizona court bond in the Glendale–Coyotes dispute?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “The judge required a court bond to protect the City of Glendale while the lawsuit continues. Because the court ordered Glendale to keep making scheduled payments, the bond ensures financial protection if the city later prevails and the contract is ruled invalid.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “What does the $1 million court bond protect, and who benefits from it?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “The bond protects the City of Glendale and its taxpayers by ensuring funds are available if the city is entitled to reimbursement after the lawsuit. It is a financial safeguard held during litigation, not a payment to the city.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “Why was the bond increased from $250,000 to $1 million?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “The bond amount was increased because the city’s ongoing payment obligation created greater financial exposure. Courts often raise bond amounts to better align security with the potential risk created by temporary court orders.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “How is a court bond different from a performance bond?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “A court bond protects parties from losses tied to legal proceedings and court orders, while a performance bond guarantees completion of contractual work, most commonly in construction. Both are surety bonds but serve different legal purposes.”
}
},
{
“@type”: “Question”,
“name”: “How does Arizona Revised Statute 38-511 relate to Glendale’s attempt to terminate the contract?”,
“acceptedAnswer”: {
“@type”: “Answer”,
“text”: “Arizona Revised Statute 38-511 allows a municipality to void a contract if former public officials involved in creating it later work for the other party. Glendale argues this statute applies, which is why the contract’s validity and the court bond are central to the dispute.”
}
}
]
}
When Courts Require Financial Proof, Bonds Become the Safeguard
The Glendale–Coyotes dispute shows how court bonds quietly play a critical role when high-stakes contracts collide with legal uncertainty. While the headlines focus on stadium deals and multimillion-dollar payments, the real stabilizing force is the bond itself—ensuring that neither side bears irreversible financial harm while the courts determine the outcome.
Court-ordered bonds exist to preserve balance. They protect taxpayers, municipalities, and private entities alike by placing financial accountability where it belongs during litigation. In this case, the increased bond requirement reinforces that principle, providing Glendale with measurable protection while contractual issues are resolved.
For cities, contractors, and businesses navigating disputes, this situation is a reminder that surety bonds are more than paperwork—they are instruments of trust, risk management, and fiscal responsibility. When legal obligations and financial exposure intersect, having the right bond in place can be the difference between stability and lasting loss.
If you ever find yourself facing a court-ordered bond requirement or navigating complex legal obligations, understanding how these bonds work—and securing them correctly—keeps the focus where it should be: resolving the dispute, not compounding the risk.