More News on Sonics Lawsuit

If that be the case then contracts with players, trades made would also be voided. Would players be required to repay money to the team since with this argument they would have been paid illegally. I think they would have to honor the ownership of record at the time contracts were signed and accepted by all parties concerned.

I wouldn't worry about this. I don't give the Schultz suit much shot at even getting past the first round of motions to dismiss. It would kind of surprise me if we even get to the summary judgment stage there.

That said, Rabid, the equitable powers of the court do not have that sort of effect. The court could unwind deals only related to the alleged fraud in pretty much any manner it sees fit.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I don't see how they could look at the contract to play in an arena as fraud. They have to play some where? It could be argued that Key was not suitable to play in after 2010 and nothing in Washington is suitable. You could argue that trading players to make the team weaker was part of the fraud alleged. Rolling back those trades in my estimation would be a logical move to make. I'm not sure cherry picking what you roll back has an end to it.

I kind of wonder if Schultz wants to get into litigation with OKC over this. OKC could have this tied up in court long after ownership was determined by the court in Seattle. If you were a prospective buyer in Seattle, would you want to buy them under these conditions?

The court doesn't have to rescind every single deal the PBC has done while owning the team -- just those which were procured by the alleged fraud. In other words, a move to OKC -- procured by alleged fraud; signing the employment contract of a coach? Not procured by the alleged fraud... see the distinction? The court's powers in equity are vast and can be used to do just about anything with regard to a contract like this.

-- I don't think that's going to happen though.

Just to get past the issue of standing is going to take some really creative lawyering. Even if that happens, fraud is very difficult to prove.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

That's my point. Even if Schultz feels an OKC lawsuit is not going to have a chance of winning, just the threat of a lawsuit with an uncertain end might be enough to put off a prospective buyer. Then, if they can't get the legislature to do anything, it would be even more offputting. So, we could end up with a team in limbo.....no owner but the trust. What if the legal case goes past the 2010 date when the lease with Seattle expires? Who signs a lease with the team if the lease is up in Seattle but there's no owner? Schultz wouldn't have the authority to do so, and how could a trust sign a binding lease? For what length of time would the lease run? Who would negotiate the lease? There are so many questions it's ridiculous. Again, I think Schultz would have had a much stronger case if he just asked for the team back, and forgot about the trust. This could become a convoluted mess. I'm sure he doesn't want it back, however, because if he couldn't find a buyer, he'd be back at square one.

This is my question for the lawyers among us. Since Schultz is not truly asking for a return to the pre-purchase state, would all contracts truly be voided? Is there not a legal grey area, since the existence of a trust is a new condition for the team and not a return to the situation that existed before the sale?

I don't know what kind of crack the ESPN analyst was smoking.

The equitable powers of the court can set aside some deals and let some stand...

We'll never get there though, not to worry

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

In other news, June 16th is rapidly approaching.........

If the trust can't negotiate a lease and no one wants to buy the team, then what's stopping the NBA to declare the team dissolved and create a new team? Then they could place the team in OKC.

I think this is probably a very complicated question.

I HIGHLY doubt the NBA could do that.

You can't just snap your fingers and make a multimillion dollar entity vanish. There'd be an anti-trust suit filed against the NBA and the plaintiff would win. This is why voting whether to "allow" relocations is more of a formality than anything else. If a relocation were denied, off to court we go, and the plaintiff will win because the NBA is pretty much a per se violation of the anti-trust Act.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Well, yeah it's posturing. We have a war of posturing going on right now. And like, Midtowner pointed out, this isn't as easy as jumping in a legal time machine and undoing everything. That may be the intent of the lawsuit, but the court would recognize the unrealistic nature of such a remedy and also try and avoid further damage to any other "innocent" parties involved. You have to kind of realize that if fraud was proven, Oklahoma City would be as much a victim of the fraud as Seattle. And, yeah, if fraud is proven the city, on behalf of the taxpayers, should sue the PBC.

I don't get this at all. The city of Seattle's suit will determine if they can execute the lease without specific performance. It's my understanding that that will basically be the foundation for whether or not Seattle gets paid and whether the team moves this year or in two years. How does that have zero impact? If anything, it's the only one that's NOT posturing and there is a real legal issue along with the question of whether it's prudent for the Seattle to take the money and run or bleed the PBC dry and get nothing in two years.

If the team can't negotiate a lease, where do they play? Do they only play away games? Can the team negotiate contracts with players? Who signs the contracts? A judge?

I'm beginning to lean toward Schultz's law suit being thrown out. The trust would just put the whole team in limbo with no end in sight. Plus, what do they do with paying back Bennett's group for what they have been out so far? Does Schultz give them back their money? If not I can bet you that would go to the Supreme Court before it's settled.

What for? We passed a sales tax with a portion being contingent on getting an NBA team. If we don't get them, then we don't build the practice facility. If we break ground on it and the team subsequently doesn't come, it's anybody's guess on how THAT would work out...

Nope. The trustee. There'd be someone appointed to oversee the assets of the trust and then convey it for consideration to a willing buyer who would keep the team in Seattle.

I think it'll be thrown out, but not for the reasons you think it'll be thrown out.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Oklahoma City becomes home to the damn nicest YMCA in the country!

Hahah can you imagine?!

What for? For all the revenue we'd lose from non-execution of the lease, along with all of the tangential revenue the "economy" was going going to receive as a function of the lease.

I'm not talking about the practice facility or the Ford Center. I'm talking about the lease. We'd sue because we entered an exclusive agreement based on information provided to us from the PBC. The lease itself has specific value as does the fact that we can't negotiate with another organization during the term of that lease. If the PBC can not execute the lease because of a fraud which they perpetrated, then the city should seek remedy on behalf of the citizens for the damage caused the city by that fraud.

Kansas City might still lay claim to that.