Clear Channel Q&A, the Legal Edition

[WSJ_law_blog]

We know, you’ve been waiting for this all day — everything you wanted to know about the legal backstory to the Clear Channel litigation but were afraid, or just too darned busy, to ask.

Why were two mirror-image suits filed against banks in New York?

One suit was filed against a bunch of the i-banks, by Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman in NYC, and
another just against Deutsche, by Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in D.C. Kellogg Huber, like Friedman Kaplan, is another 50-something lawyer firm, according to its Web site. It was tapped because Friedman Kaplan was conflicted out of suing Deutsche, according to a person familiar with the case. (Biz conflict, ethics rules conflict, we don’t know.)

Why were suits filed in both New York and Texas?

The New York suits involve the private equity firms suing the banks. Jurisdiction over disputes concerning the commitment letter is New York. The Texas suit has Clear Channel as a plaintiff. It’s not a signor of the commitment letter and is based in Texas.

Is that all there is too it?

Not quite. Today, defendants in the Texas case sought to remove it to federal court. Here’s the Notice of Removal.

And who are the lawyers for the banks?

We’re still working on that, but Michael Carroll, Lawrence Portnoy and Brian Weinstein at Davis Polk are on the removal notice as representing the banks in the Texas action.