Sounds like a reach...OKC trying to cover their butts for their citizens who may have jumped the gun on taxes, etc. I hope someone is keeping tabs on OKC's reciepts for putting measures to ballot, etc....because I think they'll need them when they sue Clay Clay and the NBA. (really, his name is Wiley Williams?!?!)

Um, does this mean the states of Oklahoma & Washington are officially at war?

If Schultz does get the team back, OKC's suit has 0 chance against anyone other then Bennett; if Schultz wins it will mean that Bennett never had the authority to negotiate/sign the agreement with OKC in the first place.

I would think OKC would then have theoption to sue Clayish for fraud (I love that scenario but it will never happen), but I don't see Schultz's group having any liability here to OKC. I'm not a lawyer, but common sense......

Very good point "moo"! I believe that Schult's lawsuit, if successful, states that a judge would oversee the sale of the Sonics to a local ownership group, not return them to Schultz, just to clarify...

A couple of other things regarding this new lawsuit, Oklahoma City officials say that the Sonics must fulfill the terms of their new lease. First, they say that the Sonics are “contractually obligated” to play in OKC (possibly as early as next season), funny how they are signing contracts that disregard the “contractual obligation” of the Sonics to play in Seattle for the next two years.

Second, the NBA approved the move of the Sonics for only the 2008-2009 season. If the Sonics do not move because of the current lawsuits, the NBA would have to approve the move all over again. As per NBA rules, the authorization is good for only a year. Theoretically, the NBA could say NO to the move on a revote in the future. So, how can the OKC contracts future considerations be valid if it is contingent on another vote of NBA owners?

Last, as the OKC-Sonics lease was signed after the lawsuits were filed; it wouldn’t surprise me if the lease was written in “collusion” with Clay Bennett to have the strongest language for OKC--Even stronger than the normal city-team lease agreement.

OKC does bring up a reasonable point, they do have a vested interest now in the Sonics moving.

However, it seems more procedurally correct to try to intervene in the Schultz/Bennett suit. Such a motion would probably be denied on the grounds that Bennett adequately protects the interests of OKC. And, I'm not sure that OKC would do it. They'd want a second run at the issue.

And, they might get that second chance. They could easily argue that whatever was decided between Schultz and Bennett can't bind them. Yes, it's patently obvious that the whole point of the suit that Schultz filed is to prove that Bennett shouldn't have signed the deal with OKC in the first place. But, OKC will argue that they shouldn't suffer for Bennett's bad actions.

I'm not sure why they should. They would make the argument that the appropriate remedy would be damages against Bennett, rather than screwing over an innocent third party.

How this argument would play out isn't exactly clear (even to a lawyer). I think the most reasonable argument would be that OKC would get its reliance damages from Bennett, the guy who should have behaved himself.

By "reliance damages," I mean that they would not get their "expectation damages."

Stepping away from the lawyer talk:

OKC *expects* to get a basketball team for the money they're spending.

OKC *relied* on Bennett's authority to bring them a team by spending money on facilities.

So, because Bennett did not have the authority to bring a team to OKC, but OKC had every reason to believe that he did, OKC would get its money back from Bennett, but not from Schultz.

Of course, OKC wouldn't sue Bennett. So, here's one way of how I see it playing out (assuming that Schultz wins his suit):

Schultz proves that Bennett did not act in good faith. But, OKC is not bound by that decision.

OKC sues Schultz.

The parties have a HUGE fight over venue and jurisdiction. Does the suit belong in OKC or in Seattle?

Schultz argues that the lease isn't binding because Bennett never should have owned the team. If Schultz loses, this argument, the Sonics are off to OKC. If Schultz wins this argument...

OKC argues that Schultz owes damages.

Schultz argues that Bennett, not Schultz, is responsible for OKC's losses.

AND...

Schultz brings Bennett into this second suit, arguing that anything Schultz owes to OKC, Bennett owes to him (for misusing the team).

Of course, all of these arguments would probably end up happening at once because that's how litigation works.

As an alternative to a second lawsuit, after this letter, Schultz might be well-advised to sue OKC right now for a declaratory judgment that any lease executed by Bennett doesn't bind the Sonics. OKC would argue that such a move is premature because the Sonics haven't been returned to Schultz's control. But, if Schultz attempted this move, it would at least lay some groundwork to make the argument later.

Looks to me like Gay Bennett doesn't do anything in good faith. Bought the team on bad faith, and then negotiated a building lease in Oklahoma even before the team was cleared to be moved there.

If Schultz wins that would render any *lease agreement* between OKC and the current Sonics owners null and void. What a bunch of 'reaching at straws' idiots.

Can't we just offer them 500 head of cattle or something?

I think the one thing I take from this potential litigation is that OKC is scared and they can clearly see that Schultz has a pretty darn good case and that Clay-Clay and Aubrey are a bunch of bumbling, my wife-made-me-rich, you can track email? idiots.

I hate Oklahoma with a passion.

This is pretty much unrelated, but I'm looking forward to the Washington Oklahoma football game in September. All this humorous dickering between the two states only heightens the excitement.

Enough is enough. Can't we just send them the Sun Kings or something?

just because you paid for stolen property it does not give you the right to keep it.