Banks Seek To Limit Liability In Clear Channel Case

This is a good place to drop general and weird news, entertainment, and general show prep material that might be interesting to air talent or producers. Hot dog threads ALWAYS welcome.

Moderators: The People's DJ, David Paleg

Post Reply
Force Commander
Member
Member
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:19 am

Banks Seek To Limit Liability In Clear Channel Case

Post by Force Commander »

"We are the CC Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your broadcast stations. We will add your biological and creative distinctiveness to our own. Your broadcast personality will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
Tom Taggart
Member
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2001 11:30 am
Location: Marietta, Ohio

Post by Tom Taggart »

Classic case of forum shopping. Home many branches does the Royal ank of Scotland have in Texas?

Most contracts of that magnitude would have a clause specifying the jurisdiction where disputes are to be litigated. Undoubtedly NY in this instance.

Hence the bogus "tortious interference" claim to get what is really a contract dispute before a friendly Texas judge.

Apparently the agreement to finance this deal has a $600 million opt out clause, the banks willing to pay that rather than have to finance what they now see as a surefire loser.Somebody is going to have to give on price to get this deal done.

Meanwhile, everyone is bailing from Clear Channel world dominion HQ in San Antonio. Which either indicates:

A. They know the deal is not going to go through, and they are jumping ship before massive bloodletting destroys the company

-Or-

B. They think the deal is going to go through, and, having had a taste of the consultants sent down by Bain & Lee et.al., they are getting out while the getting is good.
Post Reply