Here's the statement in question:
"The team does not have any present intention of, or agreement or arrangement with respect to selling, relocating or otherwise transferring the assets of the Team, other than exploring the alternatives to relocate the Team to a new arena in the greater Seattle, Washington area."

I believe Exhibit 19 is the contract with the NBA, not with Schultz, if I read it correctly. I don't know if that means the NBA would have to sue Bennett to enforce this. I also don't know if the side letter would be linked to this document as well, since that includes the provision that a new arena and lease are part of the conditions, which this statement doesn't mention.

I'm no lawyer either. If I read this correctly, the "sweet flip" e-mail still doesn't constitute fraud, as it and Ward's later e-mail regarding his possibly selling if the team gets a new arena would not violate this since that would imply the team would stay in Seattle were that to happen. I think they could sell at any time, as long as the team remained in Seattle. As far as McClendon's statement goes, I suppose it's going to hinge on interpretation of the statement. "We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we "hoped" to move to Oklahoma." I don't have any precise quotes here, but I'm positive that in McClendon's interview, he also said that Seattle "still has time to come up with an arena and the team will stay if that happens".

So, is "hope" the same as "intention"? I don't know. Are actions more important than words? That will require at least a lawyer to determine.