More News on Sonics Lawsuit

If any of these lawsuits make it to a higher court, they won't have a leg to stand on.

Many of the judges in the Seattle courts are elected officials, so don't be surprised if it is granted.

The higher courts will overturn or throw out these suits, the relief sought isn't grantable.

A long shot if Shultz may win his suit; however, it's going to be difficult for him to sell to locals with Ballmer being the only applicant.

The courts can see through much of this, the relief sought that Shultz is asking isn't grantable through the courts--The NBA legal staff will file on this one because they have a right to approve their own ownership groups and Ballmer is definitely not being approved.

...and Shultz will at least say he tried.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of these are in federal District Court. There, the judges are appointed by the President upon advice and consent of the Senate. Their appointments are for life.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Would you show a link to what you just said? Much of what I have read in the OKC media is a regurgitation of what is being printed or said from Seattle.

The Sonics had a choice when the new owners took over. Keep the present team together and be limited by the high salaries they were paying. They chose to get rid of the salaries in favor of creating a younger team and more draft picks. They got lucky with last year's draft picking up an all star in the making. They should have a good draft this year as well. Several people out there that they can use. It appears they are trying to build a team for the future that will really contend for playoffs and maybe an NBA championship.

From what I see there was no love lost when Schultz owned the team and not much future with the team members they had. It appears Schultz was at his ropes end with improving the team or making a profit with the climate in Seattle. He sold the team when he had a chance to sell way about the market value and tried to make it look like he was trying his best to keep the team in Seattle. Truth be known he was doing cartwheels at making the sale and didn't care what happened after he pocketed his change. Say what you want, Bennett and company made an effort to keep the team in Seattle. It was a win win for them. Get a arena with a good lease and make money in a good market or short of that move to OKC which was showing signs of being a good market also and city and state govenments willing to embrace the team in a heart beat. He gave it a chance in Seattle, now it's time to see if they can make a go in OKC.

Who knows what will happen in OKC. Maybe the new wears off and the ticket sales fall off. Then Bennett and company will have another choice to make. Do they keep them in OKC or find another home for them. Maybe at that time Seattle has worked up a plan and funded it for a new arena. If Seattle hasn't completely distroyed what good feelings the ownership and NBA has for them, they might be able to get the team back. I would think though that with the present runs at making the team stay till the contract with the Key is over and the suits filed by Schultz and others, will lessen the chances of that ever happening. What Seattle and those representing the interests there should do is make the transition to OKC as smooth as possible in hopes that the NBA will look favorable to the return of a team there. Otherwise they will be destined to never in the next decade get a team and will forever appear to be sore losers. Only the high ground will save them at this point.

As long as Bennett's efforts exceeded those of Howard Shultz', Shultz chances of winning this suit is like that of a one legged-man in a butt-kicking contest.

You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!

I think I've read every single Sonics related article on the Times and PI over the past year and a half and still come to the conclusion that both parties in this situation are equally at fault...Your government has had 4 years to get something done and they did nada...Aside from passing a vindictive I-91 that is

Numerous times with numerous owners Olympia has sent them packing...I think too many folks in Seattle thought the league was just bluffing...Well guess what...They weren't

As for the one proposal made over 12 months...The legislature wouldn't even put it to a vote so why bother spending millions more when you know they won't even let it hit the floor?

This lawsuit festival won't do anything but prevent the NBA from returning to Seattle for a long long time

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

RabidRed: "You didn't read about the service man returning to Iraq in the DOK did you? I might put my bets on him!"

Give me some excerpts from what you have read? I'm totally clueless.

Sounds as though we had a hero return with one leg that kicked more than butt in Iraq?

srkboy:

Serious question here (or for anyone else who can answer):

What portions, if any, of the sales contract between the Bennett group and Schultz specified the terms of what constituted "good faith efforts"?

If Schultz had been truly so worried about keeping the Sonics in Seattle, identifying the acts of specific performance necessary to meet a contractual demand of "good faith acts" could easily have been enumerated, and ownership retained in full by Schultz had they not been met.

It isn't magic; you incorporate language to the effect of the original owner retaining 51% of the team upon initation of the agreement, and then a transfer of the remaining 49% to Bennett upon completion of items x, y, and z within so-many days certain that demonstrated whatever measure of "good faith" he wanted. But I don't think he did that - again, if he did, I'd love to see it. "Trying to create a winner" or "trying to make the team successful" isn't legal performance language - heck, I could argue that not "folding" the team is "trying" to make it succesful. It needs to be in writing - somehow - and to me that's why all this retrospective righteous indignation from Schultz sounds so terribly disingenuous.

Again, if there was language about good faith efforts in that sales contract, I'd love to see it, and have a lawyer read it to see if I'm anywhere near in the right ballpark. Contrary to that, I think all this legal nonsense is talk from a former owner who realized too late that the people pursuing his (former) franchise were serious - and now that the NBA has made the move "official," there's a great deal of hindsight CYA'ing going on...and Schultz won't mind spending a few million of his own fortune if it buys him even a bit of posterior-coverage in the public eye.

-sd

Link Great story and someone to be proud of.

It is really no more simple than this - Schultz excepted payment in full and cashed the check. Once you do that you have almost no chance of getting anything back. I learned that the hard way one time and I won't make that mistake again. I bet Schultz won't either.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

You sold a basketball team and had an understanding of a good faith obligation to deal with the current home city before moving and you weren't able to get your team back when you petitioned a court to place the team into a constructive trust which would in turn convey the team to local ownership who was interested in keeping the team?

Good news!

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Well OK - not exactly the same thing. However, Schultz is asking the judge to define "good faith effort" and insert a new clause into the agreement for what happens if Bennett does put forth a good faith effort. Sincs Bennett didn't put either of them in the letter and Schultz accepted the letter and payment then I don't see any way the judge goes against both of their wishes at the time and insert them now.

No, It is a joke what the Seattle media is telling you about the situation in Seattle. See, two can play this game.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

I'm pretty sure that Washington case law or statutes will give us a good idea of what "good faith" means in Washington. The restatement (which is a secondary law source, not authoritative, but very persuasive) says that there's an implied covenant of good faith in every transaction between the parties to make sure that the contract is executed.

A couple of issues pop out at me immediately -- the covenant is generally understood to be between the parties. Seattle was not a party to this contract, but merely a third-party beneficiary, and even that is arguable.

My understanding is that the 'deal with in good faith for 12 months' issue was in a side letter, not even in the actual contract. If that's the case, a court is probably going to be reluctant to unwind the deal on something it would deem to be an immaterial breach.

The major performance here was selling the team for $350M. That happened.

It's arguable whether Bennett, et. al. were in bad faith at all. It's arguable that Seattle even has standing here. It's arguable that the contract was no longer executory, but fully performed. it's arguable that even if all this stuff goes against the PBC, it's an immaterial breach anyhow, maybe compensable by some monetary damages, but the mother of all equitable remedies, conveyance into a constructive trust??? I think the chance of that remedy being granted here is about the same as Oklahoma State winning a national title in football next season.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I'll take your word for everything Midtowner. What do you think about the company Schultz is using to bring the lawsuite with. The Company filling the lawsuit wasn't an owner of the Sonics. Could it be argued that only the LLC that originally owned the team be the only entity that can file a lawsuit on its behalf?

This just in from the A.P. - Las Vegas is reporting an unusally high number of wagers from the Pacific NW betting the OSU Cowbys will win the NC next year.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Here's the link to the purchase contract. Look at the last document, #21, I believe. The three sections that jumped out at me, although I have no idea precisely what they mean, were 5.3, 7.3 and 9.6. I wondered if 7.3 was a blanket statement covering any other written materials between the buyer and seller, and I had no idea was 9.6 meant. 5.3 sounded like it was giving the buyer a lot of discretion on what he could do regarding accepting a lease or other offer. What do you lawyer types think?

http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/n...-exhibits3.pdf

betts, did you happen to read exhibit #19 4(G) dated 11/1/06 on page 7 of the document? What are (would be) your thoughts, or opinions? Would that constitute a breach of the contract under 7.3(A), or (B) of exhibit #21? Based upon any of the e-mails and/or A.M. statement? I'm not saying there was or was not a breach. I'm no Lawyer, just curious if you think #19 may be a factor. I see now what made Stern mad enough to slap A.M. with that $250,000. fine.

I've given up both my amateur psychology and amateur legal hobbies.

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.