WORLD Law Direct Forums  



Go Back   WORLD Law Direct Forums > Forum Information > Law News
REGISTER FAQ Calendar SEARCH Today's Posts MARK FORUMS READ
Personal Lawyer Legal Forms Forum Archive

Law News Breaking law news and events.

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-26-2008, 08:00 PM     #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Last Online:
07-16-2008 12:37 PM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Posts: 344
Default And We’re Off! Clear Channel Litigation Begins



This morning, the writing was on the wall — the planned privatization of Clear Channel Communications was on the rocks, with the private equity firms and banks backing the transaction failing to resolve differences over final financing terms.

This afternoon, the private equity firms — Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital — went on the litigation offensive, filing lawsuits in Texas and New York against a syndicate of Wall Street banks in an effort to force them to fund the firms’ $19 billion buyout, according to a dispatch from the Journal’s Matthew Karnitschnig and our very own law blog alumnus Peter Lattman.

Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman filed the New York suit (click here). The firm, with about 50 lawyers, sometimes gets a piece of high-profile cases where the mega law firms that regularly represent banks of the ilk sued here feel conflicted out of suing them, for ethical or biz reasons.

The pair of suits, one filed in Bexar County, Texas and another in New York’s State Supreme Court, charge that the banks — Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank and Wachovia — breached a contract with the private equity firms to fund the Clear Channel deal. Clear Channel joined the suit in Texas, where it is based.

The banks “pretended to negotiate the final documentation in good faith,” the New York lawsuit states, “but in reality inserted into the final documents poison provisions” squarely contrary to the terms of the agreement.

The firms’ decision to sue, which came after a breakdown in negotatiations over the finanicing terms on the deal, could undo the transaction just days before it was supposed to close.

Last edited by top_admin : 06-16-2008 at 10:16 AM.
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Add Forum to Google Toolbar | Format Your Messages

Posting Rules

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Under Fire for YouTube Order; Cap’n Awesome’s Unhappy WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 08-06-2008 09:21 PM
D.C. Circuit to Treasury: ‘Yer Money’s No Good Here!’ WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 05-20-2008 02:50 PM
Clear Channel Litigation Settling, Deal Re-Negotiated WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 05-12-2008 01:50 PM
Fallout from L’Affaire Spitzer: ‘Kristen’ Sues ‘Girls Gone Wild’ Founder WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 04-29-2008 02:00 PM
Clear Channel Q&A, the Legal Edition WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 03-27-2008 08:20 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms

Subscribe

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer which prohibits advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, and false, harassing or abusive statements. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of WORLD Law Direct. Questions and information submitted in the Forums are assumed inquiries for general information and not legal advice.

Copyright 2000-2008 by WORLDLawDirect.com, Inc.