All it means is items from the northwest contingent won't end up in the press as easily as items from the PBC ended up in the press. Not a biggie either way.. PBC attorneys get to see what they get to see, they just don't distribute copies freely amongst their clients, or the press.

For those who dinna realize early on, watching litigation unfold over weeks and months is far less interesting and exciting than when only the key bits are put together for 1 30-60 minutes show. Sorry bout that, just the nature of the beast.

Pechman ruled that the SuperSonics didn't make a good-faith effort to resolve the document dispute and failed to abide by an agreed-upon rule requiring 10 days to pass before challenging the confidentiality of documents.

I have to say this part sucks big time. Since one of the major points of issue here is "good faith efforts on the part of the Sonics" you would like to keep that language used by the Judge out of everything you do. If she says it once she can say it again. The attorneys for the Sonics should be going out of the way to be as accommodating as possible and let the City and Ballmer be the obstructionist. They had the perfect chance to do this with the "FAO" requirement from the Ballmer group’s evidence but the Sonics seemed to have missed an opportunity to show just how uncooperative the City of Seattle has been.

Finally, if you agreed to a 10 day waiting period why would you try and file a motion before the 10 days was up? That seems kind of amateur. If you are going to file early then you need to put in your motion why think the 10 days waiting period will hurt your case. This is the first time in the whole case that I have been discouraged.

Completely pointless. This kind of pisses me off.

From the actual article ...
> The Sonics' filing came two days before the NBA approved Bennett's
> bid to relocate the team to Oklahoma City.

Gee, filed early, in time to be almost certain the filing hits the press and gives talking heads and writers something to fuss over in the day or so before the vote ... whoa, how on earth could something like that happen?

Such a coinkydink that was, yesireeee bob.

Pardon moi, I feel a Gundy rising up

I have to say this part sucks big time. Since one of the major points of issue here is "good faith efforts on the part of the Sonics" you would like to keep that language used by the Judge out of everything you do. If she says it once she can say it again. The attorneys for the Sonics should be going out of the way to be as accommodating as possible and let the City and Ballmer be the obstructionist. They had the perfect chance to do this with the "FAO" requirement from the Ballmer group’s evidence but the Sonics seemed to have missed an opportunity to show just how uncooperative the City of Seattle has been.

Finally, if you agreed to a 10 day waiting period why would you try and file a motion before the 10 days was up? That seems kind of amateur. If you are going to file early then you need to put in your motion why think the 10 days waiting period will hurt your case. This is the first time in the whole case that I have been discouraged.

I disagree. This stuff is no big deal. Discovery disputes are par for the course in civil cases, particularly where there are big law firms on both sides. Here is where the big hours get billed.

The judge's ruling that documents marked "for attorney's eyes only" remain sealed is nothing really surprising. If those documents met the requirements for attorney/client privilege, then they're going to be sealed and that's all there is to it.

My guess is that there's plenty out there already to prove a conspiracy by the city. Lots of circumstantial evidence at the minimum.

Why that's important is that for Seattle to be asking for an equitable remedy, they must have "clean hands." Which means that Seattle, et. al., can't have participated in bad conduct themselves if they are asking the court to unwind the bad conduct of the PBC in this case.

Whether the PBC attorneys show good faith in discovery is really irrelevant to the disposition of the case. It has bupkiss to do with the merits.

Starting in 2010, we get to be the city with "THE Lease". lol

Oklahoma City says team must relocate, regardless of ownership | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/article/3241363/)

last night one of the news channels had the latest comment by mark cuban... and the girl who's house i was at changed the channel before i could hear what he had to say now.
did anyone see that or have a link to it online somewhere?

It's Mark Cuban, who cares what he has to say.

I look forward to the Sonics (or whatever they're called) beating up on the Mavs.

He was probably whining again about OKC being too close to Dallas and losing money because if a team were in OKC they wouldn't drive to see his team. I've heard that rant before....

In 2010 he can relocate to Seattle if he thinks a team should be there so bad. If he moves then it will be good for the Spurs, Sonics, Hornets, Trail Blazers, and Rockets. Doesn't he care about the NBA?

Looks like OKC is putting in their two cents. I don't know if it would matter if the sale of the team was rescinded, but I'm glad OKC is making there position known.

City says NBA team must move here | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/city-says-nba-team-must-move-here/article/3241788/?tm=1210398890)

By Nolan Clay
Staff Writer
Oklahoma City officials contend that the Seattle SuperSonics must relocate by contract to Oklahoma City "regardless of who owns the Team.”


Officials also reveal in a legal letter that Oklahoma City is prepared to sue in federal court to force the relocation.

The nine-page letter was sent Thursday to an attorney for the former owners of the Sonics. The former owners on April 22 asked a federal judge in Seattle to overturn the 2006 sale of the NBA team. They want the Sonics sold "to an honest buyer who desires to keep the Sonics in Seattle.”

The former owners are led by Howard Schultz, the chief executive officer of Starbucks, a popular coffee chain.

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said Friday, "We felt it was important that they understood our position. It was meant for informational purposes only. How it's received, I can't predict, but that was the purpose.”

The former owners' attorney, Richard Yarmuth of Seattle, declined to comment Friday.

The Oklahoma-based owners of the Sonics want to play in Oklahoma City, starting next season. They face two hurdles: the former owners' lawsuit and a separate lawsuit filed by the city of Seattle.

Seattle is suing to force the team to play two more seasons at Seattle's KeyArena because of a lease there. A trial on Seattle's lawsuit is set to start June 16 in Seattle.

In the legal letter, Oklahoma City's attorney wrote that the city already has "valid and enforceable agreements with the Team requiring it relocate to Oklahoma City at the end of the current lease with the City of Seattle.”

The move could be as soon as this summer if the judge in Seattle lets the team out of the lease there early. The agreement with Oklahoma City requires the team to play in Oklahoma City for 15 years.

Oklahoma City Assistant Municipal Counselor Wiley L. Williams wrote the team must relocate even if the former owners succeed in their lawsuit to overturn the sale. He wrote Oklahoma City is committed "to honor, uphold and to enforce the OKC NBA Agreements, as needed.”

"There is an expectation by City leadership and citizens that the owners of the Team, whomever they may be, will honor all of the Team's contractual obligations with the City — including the contractual obligation to relocate to Oklahoma City and to play home games at the Ford Center for the duration of the term of the lease,” the Oklahoma City assistant municipal counselor wrote.

How much is at stake?
Williams wrote Oklahoma City will spend as much as $120 million on projects to upgrade the Ford Center and build a practice facility. He wrote Oklahoma City would be obligated to sue on behalf of its taxpayers to force the team to relocate. He wrote the city also could seek damages.

He wrote, "Damages ... will be substantial.”

Any lawsuit by Oklahoma City would be filed in federal court in Oklahoma City.

The former owners want the sale overturned because they contend the Oklahoma-based buyers lied to them. The former owners contend the new owners never intended to keep the team in Seattle, as promised. Schultz has said he doesn't want the team back, just for it to be sold to a buyer committed to keeping it in Seattle.

Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett has said he made good-faith efforts and spent millions of dollars to keep the team in Washington. "We tried the best we knew how to try,” he said April 18.

Just a helpful hint when posting articles from Daily Oklahoman or Journal Record, you'll have to delete the "ads" and fix spacing, otherwise they get included as above. Thanks for posting the article though...

Metro is right, you always have to clean-up Oklahoman articles. Here's a tip though: Click on the icon of the printer in a news story - that's the 'Print Version'. It's much, much easier to cut 'n paste from that version.

Not a lawyer, of course, but...

if a court should rule that PBC obtained the Sonics under false pretenses, then leased the Ford Center, it would seem to me the city's complaint is with the PBC, not anyone in Seattle.

Not a lawyer, of course, but...

if a court should rule that PBC obtained the Sonics under false pretenses, then leased the Ford Center, it would seem to me the city's complaint is with the PBC, not anyone in Seattle.

The city's complaint would be with any owner of the team who refuses to relocate the team to OKC when the lease becomes active in 2010. Where I would think this might have some legal merit is the fact that Schultz isn't really asking for true recission. If he were, and he got the team back, I would think it would erase Bennett's ability to sign a lease with the city of OKC. But, since he's asking for the team to go into a trust, he's not truly turning back the clock to the day before the team was sold and I think that creates a legal grey area. I think.....not a lawyer.

But, I think this is just a warning shot over the bow to Schultz, because the lawsuit can be filed whether there's legal merit or not. It's telling him that anyone who buys the team, were his suit to prosper, will be facing a federal lawsuit from a city. That's money out of the new buyer's pocket up front, as well as legal hassles and the potential that he might really have to move the team to OKC, as he won't know that answer when he buys the team. That might make a new buyer goosey, which might end with the Sonics in limbo....Bennett et al don't own them and no one wants to buy them. I think this is an attempt to give Schultz pause, and realize this thing might not be as simple as filing a lawsuit and sitting back to see what happens.

The city's complaint would be with any owner of the team who refuses to relocate the team to OKC when the lease becomes active in 2010. Where I would think this might have some legal merit is the fact that Schultz isn't really asking for true recission. If he were, and he got the team back, I would think it would erase Bennett's ability to sign a lease with the city of OKC. But, since he's asking for the team to go into a trust, he's not truly turning back the clock to the day before the team was sold and I think that creates a legal grey area. I think.....not a lawyer.

But, I think this is just a warning shot over the bow to Schultz, because the lawsuit can be filed whether there's legal merit or not. It's telling him that anyone who buys the team, were his suit to prosper, will be facing a federal lawsuit from a city. That's money out of the new buyer's pocket up front, as well as legal hassles and the potential that he might really have to move the team to OKC, as he won't know that answer when he buys the team. That might make a new buyer goosey, which might end with the Sonics in limbo....Bennett et al don't own them and no one wants to buy them. I think this is an attempt to give Schultz pause, and realize this thing might not be as simple as filing a lawsuit and sitting back to see what happens.

Point is well taken. If Bennett and company must abide by a previous owner's contract to play at Key for the next two years, then he or other future owner's must abide by the contract to play in OKC. The federal judge has to take this into consideration when she rules on the present contract. She will be setting precedent for future rulings in OKC. Even if she declares Bennett's ownership invalid, she must rule in favor of all contracts signed by said ownership group to be valid. Otherwise a contract made with players, vendors, et al would be invalid. Can you imagine the mess she would create with that? Players traded would have to return to the teams they were traded to. If the Celtics win out, where would a championship team be playing members who were illegally traded to them. You just gotta love this...lol:dizzy:

All I know is if I am part of PBC, get the teamed stripped from me, and then am asked to sponsor the new OKC team (owned by someone with ties to Schultz), I am telling them eat you know what and die. Think about it, Big McLendon and the boys are probably the highest paying sponsors of an OKC NBA team. They are not going to help the new guys make money, even if it helps the city.

Don't make a poop where you're gonna make your soup.

FYI...folks it's McClendon not McLendon.

Listening to espn radio today, they briefly mentioned the suit by OKC and said it was nothing more than posturing, that "if" Schultz won the lawsuit, any contracts signed after the purchase would be considered void. They also said something like the Schultz lawsuit is the only one that matters, that the City of Seattle lawsuit will have zero impact for either OKC or Seattle.

Listening to espn radio today, they briefly mentioned the suit by OKC and said it was nothing more than posturing, that "if" Schultz won the lawsuit, any contracts signed after the purchase would be considered void. They also said something like the Schultz lawsuit is the only one that matters, that the City of Seattle lawsuit will have zero impact for either OKC or Seattle.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Listening to espn radio today, they briefly mentioned the suit by OKC and said it was nothing more than posturing, that "if" Schultz won the lawsuit, any contracts signed after the purchase would be considered void. They also said something like the Schultz lawsuit is the only one that matters, that the City of Seattle lawsuit will have zero impact for either OKC or Seattle.

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?

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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 think this is probably a very complicated question.

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 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.

Listening to espn radio today, they briefly mentioned the suit by OKC and said it was nothing more than posturing, that "if" Schultz won the lawsuit, any contracts signed after the purchase would be considered void.

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.


They also said something like the Schultz lawsuit is the only one that matters, that the City of Seattle lawsuit will have zero impact for either OKC or Seattle.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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...

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?

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'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.

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

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...

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

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

Hahah can you imagine?!

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...

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.

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

Kansas City might still lay claim to that.

[QUOTE=BDP;142853]Oklahoma City would be as much a victim of the fraud as SeattleQUOTE]

You said fraud. I have trouble believing OKC would be able to sue for fraud.

[QUOTE=BDP;142853]Oklahoma City would be as much a victim of the fraud as SeattleQUOTE]

You said fraud. I have trouble believing OKC would be able to sue for fraud.

One could only think such a thing if one didn't know what fraud was. No way can OKC sue the PBC for fraud.

That's just an absurd notion. Here are the elements (snipped from the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions) which a judge would use to instruct a jury to consider when deciding a fraud case:


Fraud relieves a party of the duty to perform a contract. Fraud includes any statement [or act] that is intended to deceive another party in order to influence [him/her] to enter into the contract. In addition, the party must have relied on the fraudulent statement [or act] in entering into the contract. Fraud consists of:

1. A suggestion, as a fact, of something that is not true, when the person making the suggestion does not believe it to be the truth; or

2. A positive statement of something that is not true, when the person making it had no reasonable basis for the statement; or

3. A person's concealing something that [he/she] knows is the truth; or

4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or

5. A person's remaining silent when [he/she] had a duty to speak. [Plaintiff] had a duty to tell [Defendant] about [the information that was not disclosed] because [give the specific reason for this duty of disclosure]; or

6. Any other statement [or act] intended to deceive.

Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. This means you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, it is highly probable and free from serious doubt that the contract was obtained through fraud.

Now.. fraud proponents, make your case using those elements. You can see as well as I that unless the PBC is certain that they don't or won't have the power to perform the OKC lease, there's no fraud.

There may be a breach of the lease, but no fraud.

I think BDP was asking is if Bennett committed fraud to acquire the team and the OKC lease was undone as a result then wouldn't OKC be a victim of the orginal fraud in Seattle.

I could probably come up with a good legal response to that, but that'd take more effort than I have energy for -- and maybe even some research. Sure, I suppose OKC could figure out some legal theory to sue on, but who they'd be able to sue (and who they'd actually sue, because no way does the City Attorney go after our city's 'favorite sons').

I'm not too sure what that theory would be other than breach of the lease or detrimental reliance or something to that effect, like I said, the sweep of the equitable powers of the federal judge are broad and to even begin to intelligently answer the question, we'd have to have a crystal ball and see what sort of equitable remedy she'd come up with in the unlikely event that this case is a winner.

I could probably come up with a good legal response to that, but that'd take more effort than I have energy for -- and maybe even some research. Sure, I suppose OKC could figure out some legal theory to sue on, but who they'd be able to sue (and who they'd actually sue, because no way does the City Attorney go after our city's 'favorite sons').

I'm not too sure what that theory would be other than breach of the lease or detrimental reliance or something to that effect, like I said, the sweep of the equitable powers of the federal judge are broad and to even begin to intelligently answer the question, we'd have to have a crystal ball and see what sort of equitable remedy she'd come up with in the unlikely event that this case is a winner.

So if the judge rules in favor of Schultz would he have to pay back the money to PBC? Or place the money in the trust? I can't see him getting the sale reversed and keeping the money too.

So if the judge rules in favor of Schultz would he have to pay back the money to PBC? Or place the money in the trust? I can't see him getting the sale reversed and keeping the money too.

No one knows. If the Schultz suit is successful, the judge can do just about anything to fix the problem. As I said, (4 times now?) the equitable powers of the court are broad.

I could probably come up with a good legal response to that, but that'd take more effort than I have energy for -- and maybe even some research. Sure, I suppose OKC could figure out some legal theory to sue on, but who they'd be able to sue (and who they'd actually sue, because no way does the City Attorney go after our city's 'favorite sons').

I'm not too sure what that theory would be other than breach of the lease or detrimental reliance or something to that effect, like I said, the sweep of the equitable powers of the federal judge are broad and to even begin to intelligently answer the question, we'd have to have a crystal ball and see what sort of equitable remedy she'd come up with in the unlikely event that this case is a winner.

So if the judge rules in favor of Schultz would he have to pay back the money to PBC? Or place the money in the trust? I can't see him getting the sale reversed and keeping the money too.

One could only think such a thing if one didn't know what fraud was. No way can OKC sue the PBC for fraud.

That's just an absurd notion.

You're not following all the assumptions that were made before we even began discussing this entirely hypothetical question.



I think BDP was asking is if Bennett committed fraud to acquire the team and the OKC lease was undone as a result then wouldn't OKC be a victim of the orginal fraud in Seattle.

Kerry was following, though.


I could probably come up with a good legal response to that, but that'd take more effort than I have energy for -- and maybe even some research.

I'm not asking for billable hours here, we're just walking down the legal yellow brick road and seeing where it goes.

Your legal insight is valuable and fills in the gaps nicely, but we're talking more about what would be argued, not what would actually happen or what would actually be ruled.

If the PBC is found guilty of fraud and the city is in any way harmed, then it should look for remedy. You're right that they may not want to sue the "favorite sons", but the city in no way should be waiving that right at this point in time and the legal posturing makes a lot of sense.

You're right that fraud may not be the right cause of action. Sorry it came off as absurd. I just didn't have the energy or time for research to find the correct one.

So if the judge rules in favor of Schultz would he have to pay back the money to PBC? Or place the money in the trust? I can't see him getting the sale reversed and keeping the money too.

That's exactly why he filed suit in this manner: he does want to keep the money. Under this scenario, the Trust is established for the purpose of selling the team, the proceeds of which go to PBC. Schultz keeps the original proceeds, PBC gets the proceeds of the forced sale and the new hypothetical owner keeps the team. I don't think it will happen but that is what Schultz wants. Dumb isn't it?

I'd have to read the sales contract, but doesn't it state that no third party shall be thought to have any claim under the sales contract? I could have sworn that was in there.

What OKC's remedies are depends on what the judge does if she does anything. We can't even begin to guess until PBC has lost and the judge has started carving things up.

That's exactly why he filed suit in this manner: he does want to keep the money. Under this scenario, the Trust is established for the purpose of selling the team, the proceeds of which go to PBC. Schultz keeps the original proceeds, PBC gets the proceeds of the forced sale and the new hypothetical owner keeps the team. I don't think it will happen but that is what Schultz wants. Dumb isn't it?


Under contract law, whenever you file suit to rescind a contract, (regardless of the grounds, including allegations of fraud), then if the court orders rescission, the parties are put back into the position they were prior to the execution of the contract. In this case, Schultz gets the team back and PCB gets their $350 million back. Then you throw in monies they might both be out that returns them to their pre-contract state. I have never seen or heard of a rescission wherein the person asking for rescission of the contract gets to keep the proceeds of the sale, and then in some fashion gets the product back. I know they are saying some sort of trust to be held for sale...but that is just outlandish. I can not ever see a court finding that sort of resolution as equitable. And this is a suit in equity.

We can't even begin to guess until PBC has lost and the judge has started carving things up.

I think we (I) were just continuing the line of thought created by OKC's counsel, which was obviously motivated by a hypothetical, or guess, that they could lose. Obviously it's all posturing and amounts to no real legal action or position. But, again, I think me and some others were just taking their motivation for writing the letter and seeing how it could possibly play out. Nothing more than that. I know it's just an undergraduate exercise to some, but was kind of a fun diversion until June 25 or so.

Under contract law, whenever you file suit to rescind a contract, (regardless of the grounds, including allegations of fraud), then if the court orders rescission, the parties are put back into the position they were prior to the execution of the contract. In this case, Schultz gets the team back and PCB gets their $350 million back. Then you throw in monies they might both be out that returns them to their pre-contract state. I have never seen or heard of a rescission wherein the person asking for rescission of the contract gets to keep the proceeds of the sale, and then in some fashion gets the product back. I know they are saying some sort of trust to be held for sale...but that is just outlandish. I can not ever see a court finding that sort of resolution as equitable. And this is a suit in equity.

That would be correct, if SChultz had filed for rescission. He did not. His requested remedy is a constructive trust.

That would be correct, if SChultz had filed for rescission. He did not. His requested remedy is a constructive trust.

Is this why it's believed it will be thrown out? If a trust is used to sell the team then it could be sold for way below market value. I would think the judge would know that. I would think she would toss the case based on that alone.

Rabid -- not really, there are lots of reasons people doubt this suit is all that worthy:

Doug Dawgz Blog: April 2008 (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html)

Doug pretty much says it all.

Under contract law, whenever you file suit to rescind a contract, (regardless of the grounds, including allegations of fraud), then if the court orders rescission, the parties are put back into the position they were prior to the execution of the contract. In this case, Schultz gets the team back and PCB gets their $350 million back. Then you throw in monies they might both be out that returns them to their pre-contract state. I have never seen or heard of a rescission wherein the person asking for rescission of the contract gets to keep the proceeds of the sale, and then in some fashion gets the product back. I know they are saying some sort of trust to be held for sale...but that is just outlandish. I can not ever see a court finding that sort of resolution as equitable. And this is a suit in equity.

Schultz is NOT asking rescission. He doesn't want the team back. He is asking for a constructive trust

As much as I want to hope most of what you all are saying is true, that this will get thrown out, what scares me is the following.

Munson, who is the top espn sports lawyer writes an article saying this suit has no chance at all (before actually reading it) and then a couple days after reading it writes a whole new article doing a complete 360 and going on a couple radio shows saying he was 100% shocked and goes on to detail why gives Schultz a 60% chance of winning his lawsuit.

I don't buy the argument that ESPN is doing this for ratings, the whole thing scares me and as much as I want to believe what some of you are posting, I have to put more weight with what Munson is saying.

ESPN - E-mails key in Schultz's suit to reverse Sonics sale - NBA

A question & answer session posted with a legal expert from ESPN, just a couple of the questions here (please see link for all of them)

Q: Schultz has been reviled in Seattle since he sold the team. Isn't this just a public relations stunt to allow Schultz to improve his public image?

A: The lawsuit is more than a public relations stunt. The allegations against Bennett and his group are serious and seem to indicate a fraud at the time of the sale. The chronology of the e-mails is compelling evidence that will allow Schultz to push Bennett and his group into a bad corner. If it were a PR stunt, both Schultz and Yarmuth would be holding press conferences and making dramatic statements. Neither would comment to ESPN.com beyond what is said in the lawsuit. The language of the suit is lean and spare. If anything, it understates the case. Their conduct and their lawsuit are clear indications they are serious about their allegations and their attempt to undo the sale.

Q: How does Schultz's suit relate to the city of Seattle's lawsuit to bind Bennett to the KeyArena lease, which is scheduled to go to trial June 16?

A: Both lawsuits are in the same courthouse and could easily end up before the same judge. The lease litigation led to the discovery of the damning e-mails that are the basis for Schultz's case. The cases, added together, present Bennett with serious problems. Both jeopardize his bid to move the team to Oklahoma City. If he loses the lease case, he can still try to buy his way out of the lease by increasing his offer beyond the $26 million bid that the city rejected. If he offered $50 million or a bit more, the city would likely be obligated to give it serious consideration. Even if the city were to reach a buyout agreement with Bennett before the six-day trial begins in June, the Sonics owner will still need to deal with Schultz's suit. If Bennett loses the Schultz case, he loses the franchise.

If either suit is successful in postponing the Sonics' move beyond the start of the 2008-09 season, according to the NBA Constitution, Bennett's group will need to reapply for relocation before the NBA Board of Governors.

Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who reports on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Munson also gave the Seattle a 55 to 60 % chance of winning this suit and keeping the sonics in ESPN chat and in a radio interview.

Does Munson talk about the standing issue?

I don't really see much of an argument to even get past that.

I've talked to at least five friends who are lawyers about this, one of whom is a law professor. They all think the suit is laughable and several called it an attempt to get good pr in Seattle without risking much. There are clearly differing opinions on the validity of this suit.

Nathaniele,
In my humble opinion, unless these espn "experts" cite any relevant case law to back their argument, then they are full of it. If someone is a legal expert why not cite several examples using case law on how Shultz's lawsuit has a 50-60% chance. It should be very easy since they are "experts". Unless they are only pandering to increase readership. All I have seen posted with case law is how the Shultz lawsuit is D.O.A. Courts are built upon case law and the evidence and I have seen many experts fail to report on this.
On a side note, I read a Seattle news report on how the Shultz lawsuit "has legs". The legal expert says the emails and other evidence "COULD BE enough for Schultz to get a HEARING on the merits of the case"....... Even the Seattle lawyer is not willing to say the lawsuit is good enough to go to trial. The ESPN writer even starts his report with how the lawsuit is a long shot.

All of the Washington/Seattle politicians are loving how this has taken the pressure off of them to do anything regarding an arena. How many people are talking about getting an arena deal done?

I forgot to add that if someone were to cite case law in a well thought out argument, then I might start to think Clay has a fight in front of him. I still do not believe a court would try to force a sale. How much would Clay be forced to sell for? Would he recoup all of his money he has spent up to this point? What about the signed lease with OKC? There seem to be way to many questions with no answers.