More News on Sonics Lawsuit

GWB

The problem is that a lot of the legal people from ESPN are saying that thanks to Bennett and his friends not being smart enough to know that email could be pulled at a later time that the sale and their actions were fraudulent.

With emails that say 2 days before they even bought the team that they were going to move the team to OKC, and a email from Bennett knowing that "McClendon's" comment that he got fined for might actually put them in jeporady with their good faith agreement.

"Bennett stated in an e-mail to Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon last Aug. 13 that the NBA was looking into issues "relative to certain documents that we signed at closing that may have been breached."

Bennett wrote that president of league and basketball operations Joel Litvin was looking into the possible breach.

Earlier that day, Bennett had written an e-mail to McClendon referring to the fallout from McClendon's comments to an Oklahoma business publication that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here."

"Yes sir we get killed on this one," Bennett wrote to McClendon. "I don't mind the PR ugliness [pretty used to it], but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of 'good faith best efforts.'"

The whole point of what this Munson guy from espn wrote was that Seattle has a strong suit that can prove the sale was a fraud, so much so that he thinks Seattle has a better chance of getting the team back than Bennett has of keeping it.

Its a mess, so much drama and its due to get worse, from the radio interview with Munson and other reportings even more damaging emails are going to start being released over the next couple weeks.

Which all brings me back to the same thing, which I can't get my head around, why in the hell did these morons put all this crap in email!!!!E@#)U@#!)!???

More news

Seattle attorneys seek chance to question Stern | NewsOK.com


NBA is saying that Seattle is just trying to harass Stern

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner,” NBA attorneys argued to a federal judge in New York City.

The NBA's president of league and basketball operations, Joel Litvin, has agreed to be questioned, but the NBA wants limits on what Litvin can be asked.

The NBA also wants limits on what information it should turn over to Seattle attorneys, particularly information on the finances of other NBA teams.

Seattle attorneys argued: "The NBA is a very important source of evidence regarding how NBA teams generally affect communities. This evidence will allow the City to test — and prove false — (the Oklahoma owners') ... claim that the loss of the Sonics will not hurt Seattle.”

The Seattle attorneys argued it is necessary to question Stern because he had private conversations with Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett on relocation and other related topics.

NBA attorneys argued whatever the Oklahoma owners told the NBA about their relocation intentions is "totally irrelevant” to the lawsuit.

Keep the faith, good faith is not hard to prove, the burden may be to prove a bad faith effort regardless of their original intentions.

What we've failed to remember is that Bennett did more than Schultz to get an arena deal done in Seattle. So, Howard himself will have to admit that he didn't put forth good faith before he sold the team to Bennett.

Had Seattle made an attempt to build something or counter we wouldn't be having this discussion. The team would still be in Seattle.

They have gone out and gotten all the legal experts who agree with their claim that they have a chance and that again is their PR hype.

I'll do some reseach next week, I hear that there may be legal experts out there that don't agree on the chances of Seattle's suits being successful.

Seattle dropped the ball, their own Initiative 91 (taxpayers revolt; can't use taxpayers' money to fund sports stadiums, unless it is profitable--it puts a tremendous financial strain on the owners).

Most major league sports franchises are a novelty to own, most, barely break-even financially.

-Most major league sports franchises are a novelty to own, most, barely break-even financially.


Until they are sold, and then come the profits....plus owning one helps you make lots of loot outside of your owning the team so it's not much of a point to make. LOL!

For what it's worth, I had someone I know who is an excellent trial lawyer and works all over the country look at the lawsuit. He said it is "weak". So, there's a differing opinion. Also, remember that these legal experts only have the lawsuit filed by Schultz available. They're not looking at all the data that Bennett's lawyer will provide. They don't have the interview with Schultz a day or two after the sale when he talks about Bennett and a possibly buyout of the lease. They don't have every interview Bennett has given to the Seattle press warning them about the fact that the city has a year to build the arena. They don't have any information about the dates and times of Bennett's presentations to the Seattle legislature, or the arena plan. They don't have information showing how much comparable arenas around the country are costing. They don't have Margarita Prentice's testimony about how much time and effort she thinks Bennett put into the arena deal. There will be a lot of data provided showing Bennett made a good faith effort.

Also, if you look at the data being provided, the Seattle newspapers keep leaving out the second part of the Aubrey interview, similarly to how the Schultz lawyer left the key part of the key sentence out of his lawsuit filing. We didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle..." is all they ever print. But there's a second half to the sentence, " we hoped to come here." Again, if you only look at the first part of the sentence, it looks like they intended from the beginning to move the team. If you look at the sentence in it's entirety, the word "hope" indicates only that was their wish. You have to ask why that part of his statement keeps getting left out of their quotes. Are they worried that it doesn't make their point, ala the sentence in the Schultz filing? Wishes don't matter. Action does. Leaving parts of sentences out or taking things out of context can give a completely different impression. Hopefully, Bennett's lawyers will be intelligent enough to make sure every single piece of data is present in it's entirety and in context.

It makes no difference what their intentions were, they tried to fulfull the contract. Schultz's lawyers will have to prove otherwise and they won't be able to. If every business deal was predicated on intentions and not on deed, no deal would go through. Many people have alternate plans if things don't work out. Seattle was given a chance to make the contract work and they dropped the ball. If Bennett and company had not given them the opportunity to build the arena, then there would have been a breach of the contract. They did, so there is no breach. You can argue the intentions all you want. Seattle and Washington state failed to make it possible to keep the team there. If the court rules otherwise, you must question bias on their part.

This whole situation is warped anyway.

What other item do you buy and then have zero control over what you can and can't do with your purchase?

Bennett bought the team, if he wants to move it, he owns it and should be able to do what he wants with it.

Shultz is really saying he wouldn't have sold the team if he thought that Bennett would move it out of Seattle right? I think that's not true... so he is just as guilty as not being on the up and up.

So, if he was that concerned with keeping the team and cared all that much about it, he should have kept the team himself and rallied his efforts to meet the teams needs and their demands.

He's like a jilted lover. He didn't want them but he doesn't want anyone else to have it either.

He can't have his cake and eat it too, which is what I think he thought he was getting.... Bennett buys the teams, takes on all the headaches, builds an arena and the team gets to stay.

But, this brings me back to, again really what other thing do you buy and then can't use it because the previous owner dictates what you can and can't do with it?

__________________
“In the end we are all separate: our stories, no matter how similar, come to a fork and diverge. We are drawn to each other because of our similarities, but it is our differences we must learn to respect.”

Karried, with all due respect, I think you can dictate in the contract what the property can be used for. If person A sells a lot and stipulates that the property can't be used for raising chickens, buyer B must abide to that or be subject to suit.

I don't think there was anything in the contract to limit where the team could play. If there was I seriously doubt that Bennett and company would have signed the contract.

Your right Midtowner, it's not about how you play the game, it's about winning the game.

Crosscut Seattle - Attention lawyers: The Sonics game is over

I watched this Youtube clip from a local Seattle writer...Think he sees through the parade of lawsuits

__________________
Dwight Schrute: Reject a woman and she will never let it go. One of the many defects of their kind. Also, weak arms.

What you guys seem to be missing (or leaving out) in this whole argument is the fact that he promised he would make a good-faith effort for 12 months.

He could have made the greatest effort known to man for the first 9 months, but if he didn't make an effort during the last 3 months, then he did violate the promise he made.

It's good to know that what we've got out there is enough to convince most people in law that we have a good chance to win this case. Especially considering that there will be a lot more being released to the public by the time the court date rolls around.

On that note, you should really stop this wishful thinking that Bennett and the Sonics will be able to dig up more dirt on Schultz and Seattle than Schultz and Seattle will be able to dig up on Bennett and the Sonics.

It's all going to be a matter of the judge's opinion about what constitues a good faith effort. Clearly, there wasn't much Bennett could do with the legislature after April. And, he was talking to the Seattle mayor, the Muckleshoots and Sabey after April, which contradicts the contention that he wasn't at least making an effort. The question is, "How much of an effort is enough."? It's not unreasonable for people in business to keep their options open, so I think it would be difficult to prove that discussing moving the team privately means they weren't willing to keep the team in Seattle......with a new arena.....which was the requirement for the team to stay in Seattle.

If it were me, I'd be pointing out to the judge what other cities in similar positions did to keep their team: Orlando, Houston.

I don' think anyone thinks that more dirt is going to be dug up on Schultz than Bennett. But, I'd be using his post-sale interview where he talks about what it would take for Bennett to buy out the lease with Seattle if I were one of Bennett's lawyer. But, who knows what evidence is present regarding the city of Seattle and their effort with Ballmer? None of it has been released.

Clearly, at least right now, David Stern is still on Bennett's side, and he's a powerful ally. I'm not saying I know what's going to happen, but I don't think it's a slam dunk for anyone.

Yeah but this time by both sides...Bennett will document his time and money spent trying to get an arena deal and it probably won't hurt having Prentice and the entire league backing him

He may win but if so it will likely just cause some more cash to be taken out of the ownership's wallets....Since he doesn't want to buy the team back it hurts his request for rescission

__________________
Dwight Schrute: Reject a woman and she will never let it go. One of the many defects of their kind. Also, weak arms.

Also, Bennett was actually quite public about discussions he was having with other cities as early as May2006. There are articles about it in the Seattle and OKC press. He continued to talk to people in Seattle about the arena as well, and there are articles supporting that fact. Where was Schultz at that time? How about when Bennett filed for arbitration? Where was Schultz? Any evidence he complained publicly or privately to Bennett or Stern? To be honest, it looks as if Ballmer said, "See if you can get the team back and I'll buy it." Schultz has had almost a year prior to now to file this lawsuit. How come he didn't want the team back four months ago? Eight months ago? Why didn't he file a lawsuit last August when Aubrey made his comment? Again, were I Bennett's lawyer, that's precisely what I would be asking Schultz. Where was your indignation then? Was it the presence of an alternate buyer that made you change your mind, rather than a belief that a good faith effort hadn't been made? I think his silence up until now speaks volumes.

I'm a bit late into this, but I'm going to toss in my opinions on this...

First, I'm no attorney, either, but I think there's a difference between "breach of good faith" and "fraud." Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact. Good faith is, essentially, "I was crossing my fingers behind my back when I signed the deal."

Contracts for the sale of property go down the tubes when you have matters that arise to the level of fraud. Breaches of good-faith negotiations normally don't get contracts derailed unless you can prove some material relationship between the negotations and the contract, eg were there provisions reflective of the "good faith" written into the terms of the sales contract.

The prior owners, to my knowledge, didn't integrate any requirement about staying in Seattle into their agreement. You either sell something, and the rights to it, or you don't. You just can't go back and yell "Kings X" and make it all go away. You can't sell a car provided the new owners promise not to repaint it purple. Ultimately, the positions in a contract are put into writing, it gets signed, money gets exchanged, and title transfers. That's it.

Even if the prior owners could prove a breach of good faith, or even fraud, what is his measure of damages? He's the seller, not the buyer, so it isn't like he bought a great looking car and found out there was no engine under the hood. Considering his price of $350 million, its going to be awfully hard to prove he was the injured party.

Let's pretend, for a second, that the old owners want to prove a lack of good faith. All Bennett's lawyers have to do is roll out ol' Stern himself, and have him testify to his own public words about how he felt there was no such breach. If anyone might be materially damaged about any such breach of good faith, it would be the NBA in moving a franchise from a larger to a smaller market.

Keep in mind, too, that ESPN legal analysis isn't very interesting if all the lawyers say "its a bad case, game over." You get a LOT more air time when you can spin "hey, he might win the thing," certainly in Seattle, and certainly among newspaper editors.

I think, in reality, there's no material demonstration that proves a lack of good faith or fraud, because no one in Seattle ever ponied up a legitimate proposal for a new arena. Had they done so, and Bennett turned it down, that might have been a bigger problem - and it would have resulted in a flip, not a reversal of the sale back to the original owners. Beyond everything else, the mere fact that Bennet et al didn't apply for relocation immediately mitigates against bad-faith. Even if it didn't, it would indicate shocking naivete on the part of those previous owners not to think an Oklahoma City-based ownership group wouldn't entertain the idea of moving the franchise at some point.

Bottom line, this creates some embarassing emails for Bennett to overcome, more bad PR, but in the bottom line it still ends up being a legal effort to remedy what amounts to "seller's remorse" - or much ado about nothing.

In practical terms, Seattle would be much better served if they realized they didn't take the leave threat seriously, and opted to pursue a future wherein they opt not to alienate the commissioner of the league who held open the door while the franchise they didn't want walked out with barely a notice until it was way, way too late to stop it. And *none* of that can be tossed at the feet of anyone in Oklahoma City.

-sd

Sure you're not a lawyer? :-)

It seems that the only people who will benefit from all these suits are the lawyers. But then their bosses have lots to give them. Schultz will just raise the price on his terrible drinks and Bennett and company will enjoy basketball in OKC.