I'm not a lawyer, but I have spoken to several who say fraud is difficult to prove. I would think that to do something as serious as remove a team, you would have to prove fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are a couple of things that come to mind. The contract between Bennett and Schultz also tacitly includes the NBA as a partner, because the sale to Bennett and any possible move could only happen with the consent of the NBA. Regardless of any intent or hope to move the team on the part of the owners, it was clear there was no hope or intent on the part of the NBA. There had to be a failure on the part of Seattle to live up to the second half of the following sentence for the NBA to allow a move: "It is our desire to have the Sonics and the Storm continue their existence in the Greater Seattle Area and it is not our intention to move or relocate the team, so long, of course, as we are able to negotiate an attractive successor venue and lease arrangement."

I do think it is interesting that, in their lawsuit, Schultz' lawyers completely left out the highlighted part of the above sentence. Was there concern on their part that it was prejudicial to their case? It is the key part of the agreement with Schultz. The first half of the sentence has a completely different meaning if you leave out the second half. The "intent" of the ownership group can only be understood if the sentence is whole.

I can understand, if an arena was built and Bennett still tried to move the team, that fraud could be claimed. But, since the second half of the above sentence was never fulfilled, there is no concrete evidence to prove that fraud absolutely existed. It will come down to actions versus e-mails, and there are conflicting e-mails. Ward's e-mail about possibly selling the team if an arena was built, the "sweet flip" e-mail, the e-mail in July of 2007 about discussing an arena with Sabey.....all of those directly contradict the fact that there was intent to defraud at the time of purchase.

There may be other e-mails that contradict intent to defraud as well. Obviously, the lawyers used the ones that were most prejudicial in their lawsuit, and the ones designed for maximum effect in the press.

The bottom line, however, is that the NBA would never have allowed a move if an arena had been built, and so any actions that would allow the group to defraud Seattle would not have been approved. There was a built in fail-safe for Seattle in the sale.