Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?

[King Woodballs]

210million from 175m, the 40million losses were added to the price supposedly.

that is what I heard

 

[RAgIn]

I'm not sure if this was posted yet, but the PBJ chimed in on the possible lawsuit between the COG and the GWI.

However, unlike Burnside, Sunnucks doesn't say they will actually follow through on the lawsuit.

The City of Glendale could file a lawsuit next week against the Goldwater Institute over the watchdog group's opposition and litigation threats related to the city's $197 million payout to prospective Phoenix Coyotes owner Matthew Hulsizer.

Glendale could seek damages from Goldwater if a $100 million bond sale fails to go through and Hulsizer can't buy the Coyotes. If that happens, the team would likely be sold to Canadian owners who would move them back to Winnipeg.

Sources familiar with the situation say Glendale's claim could center around Goldwater sending letters to bond underwriters saying the watchdog group could sue over the city's plan.

Seems like maybe Burnside jumped the gun a little. Or, maybe Sunnocks isn't as close to the deal as Burnside. It's a coin flip!

Neither side responded to requests for comment this weekend.

It's too bad the city didn't make a statement. That would go a long way....

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2011/03/glendale-could-sue-goldwater-over.html

 

[Killion]

You do not understand the heft and/or weight of whom you speak. Before you cast aspersions, please consult your nearest moderator who will assure you that facts and opinion are interchangeable for the truly bona fide posters.

Your learning.

 

[MountainHawk]

This is pretty much a given. The relationship here is between CoG and prospective bond investors. I think institutional investors (the primary market for the bonds) are sophisticated enough to have their own questions about the City's parking revenue projections, and would therefore raise the risk premium, but there would still be a market. The constitutional question pretty much kills the market.


It would not be difficult to show that the uncertainty created by GWI questioning the legality of the city's intended use of these funds has cooled if not killed the bond market.

However my question is - are we certain that GWI is a third party? What if they have collected a number of Glendale residents and are acting as legal counsel? That is, they are contemplating a law suit on behalf of specific Glendale residents, whose constitutional right to good governance is allegedly being violated. That wouldn't make them a third party, but counsel for an affected party.



Even if legal - if the bond issue present too high a risk to taxpayers, then killing the deal would avert, not cause damages.



Also - if the court declares that the CoG deal is not Constitutional, then the interference is legal.

Not sure I agree with the last part. Clearly, there are some things that GWI can't do to prevent the transaction even if it were an illegal transaction. (At the extreme, they can't kidnap the COG council members to prevent a vote.)

I think a court could find, at the same time, that the lease is unconstitutional AND that GWI committed tortious interference.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

I still think the threat of a lawsuit by COG is nothing but a negotiating tactic.

The thing I find the most interesting is that Burnside was the first to report that they're planning a lawsuit. Sanders hasn't written about it yet and Sunnucks is just going on what ESPN wrote. It's almost like COG wanted to leak this to the media and went right to ESPN.

The timing is also what I find strange. Why leak that you're planning on a filing a lawsuit on a Saturday?

IMO, COG knew exactly what they were doing and wanted to give GWI the weekend to worry in hopes that they would back off on Monday.

 

[pucka lucka]

Not sure I agree with the last part. Clearly, there are some things that GWI can't do to prevent the transaction even if it were an illegal transaction. (At the extreme, they can't kidnap the COG council members to prevent a vote.)

I think a court could find, at the same time, that the lease is unconstitutional AND that GWI committed tortious interference.

GWI hasn't done anything to prevent a transaction. They informed the bond underwriter that they reviewing the transaction because they believe it may violate the AZ state gift clause.

This topic has jumped the shark long ago.

 

[MountainHawk]

GWI hasn't done anything to prevent a transaction. They informed the bond underwriter that they reviewing the transaction because they believe it may violate the AZ state gift clause.

This topic has jumped the shark long ago.

Not sure how you can say that, unless you have an extreme bias in this situation.

 

[pucka lucka]

I still think the threat of a lawsuit by COG is nothing but a negotiating tactic.

The thing I find the most interesting is that Burnside was the first to report that they're planning a lawsuit. Sanders hasn't written about it yet and Sunnucks is just going on what ESPN wrote. It's almost like COG wanted to leak this to the media and went right to ESPN.

The timing is also what I find strange. Why leak that you're planning on a filing a lawsuit on a Saturday?

IMO, COG knew exactly what they were doing and wanted to give GWI the weekend to worry in hopes that they would back off on Monday.

The CoG hasn't said anything about a law suit publicly. I don't have much faith in sports journalists to get the story right. These guys & gals like to speculate based on speculation from unnamed sources.

 

[Faltorvo]

Well, that just isnt very nice at all. How would you like to wake up defrosting like 25cent Popsicle on a June day wearing nothing but a Mammoth Gonch 5000BC yrs from home?. Opening your eyes to see the Moon eating the Sun in a total Eclipse?. Having to go to Law School to make a living instead of eating peoples pets?. Bill yourself out at as Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer @ $5000 an hour, 50 hour Min?. Arguing complex Patent Law's before the Supremes in Washington DC, while everything from cars to cellphones' absolutely scares the Hell out of you?. Agoraphobic. Locked in your $6M Georgetown Townhome, frightened & alone.... Show some compassion Man....

Compassion for a lawyer that fabricates sht? Not a chance in hell brother.

BTW, how did you know i live in Georgetown?

It's a sad day when the caveman can catch such enlightened and knowledgeable types with their pants down and pssing into the wind.

 

[pucka lucka]

Not sure how you can say that, unless you have an extreme bias in this situation.

What have they done that would prevent the transaction? The only thing they can do to prevent it would be an injunction. All that we know is that the CoG hasn't sold the bonds. Have we heard from the underwriter?

Feel free to make up your facts. It's something that has become popular around here.

 

[MountainHawk]

What have they done that would prevent the transaction? The only thing they can do to prevent it would be an injunction. All that we know is that the CoG hasn't sold the bonds. Have we heard from the underwriter?

Feel free to make up your facts. It's something that has become popular around here.

They don't have to prevent, they have to INTERFERE, and they clearly did that by sending the letters to the underwriters. That point isn't even in dispute, and would almost certainly be stipulated to be true in a court of law. The only question is if it was IMPROPER interference.

 

[pucka lucka]

They don't have to prevent, they have to INTERFERE, and they clearly did that by sending the letters to the underwriters. That point isn't even in dispute, and would almost certainly be stipulated to be true in a court of law. The only question is if it was IMPROPER interference.

Prevent was your word dude. I will not argue in circles with you.

 

[Wham City]

They don't have to prevent, they have to INTERFERE, and they clearly did that by sending the letters to the underwriters. That point isn't even in dispute, and would almost certainly be stipulated to be true in a court of law. The only question is if it was IMPROPER interference.

May it be difficult to deduce what was chilling investors since the COG included the possibility of litigation from Goldwater in their bond statement to investors as well?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Not unless they use an illegal, unlawful or improper means.

Decided to weigh in? Got over that "need to be qualified to practice in AZ" thing?

Excellent.

That might be true, if they are going to use Ontario law and apply that standard or if the standard in AZ is the same.

You might note the high degree of similarity between the fact situation here and that in the Reach case that you referenced. Would you care to discuss that?

Watching out for the interests of the international bond investor community is assuredly not in the Goldwater mandate, much as PMAC's mandate was exceeded in the Reach case.

Add to that their material misrepresentations as to the test of the Turken case. and voila. Concise enough, I hope.

 

[Grumpz]

What have they done that would prevent the transaction? The only thing they can do to prevent it would be an injunction. All that we know is that the CoG hasn't sold the bonds. Have we heard from the underwriter?

Feel free to make up your facts. It's something that has become popular around here.

We also know that the CoG was unable to sell the bonds, for 6 weeks PRIOR to GWI issued statement.

The bonds weren't going anywhere because they were risky, well before GWI warned people of the potential of a lawsuit.

 

[Dado]

May it be difficult to deduce what was chilling investors since the COG included the possibility of litigation from Goldwater in their bond statement to investors as well?

Or maybe potential investors stumbled across this here HF board, saw all the public posts dissecting the Hulsizer deal and got freaked.

In which case I imagine a bunch of us here are gonna get a T.I. summons from CoG as well...

 

[Faltorvo]

May it be difficult to deduce what was chilling investors since the COG included the possibility of litigation from Goldwater in their bond statement to investors as well?

Didn't the COG bond statement happen before the GWI letters?

If so then possibly the GWI sent out their statements to clarify the situation.

 

[Dado]

They don't have to prevent, they have to INTERFERE, and they clearly did that by sending the letters to the underwriters. That point isn't even in dispute...

It is not in dispute that they sent a letter.

It absolutely IS in dispute whether such a letter constituted interference. It's quite possible the bond sale had already gone up in flames, and GWI sent the letter AFTER that determination in order to pad their resumes.

 

[RECCE]

lol, I just realized that it's not tortuous interference but tortious interference

I'm sure the former would work just as well though!

 

[Dado]

Right now it feels like torturous interference.

We have collectively gone into the deep deep weeds on this one...

 

[Wham City]

Didn't the COG bond statement happen before the GWI letters?

If so then possibly the GWI sent out their statements to clarify the situation.

IIRC GWI sent those letters out on January 31 and the date of the bond statement was February 16.

The question I would have is who specifically read the GWI letter?

 

[MountainHawk]

It is not in dispute that they sent a letter.

It absolutely IS in dispute whether such a letter constituted interference. It's quite possible the bond sale had already gone up in flames, and GWI sent the letter AFTER that determination in order to pad their resumes.

Right. This isn't really a case of facts, it's a case of law. The facts are going to be pretty much undisputed, which is another reason the court could decide quickly.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Compassion for a lawyer that fabricates sht? Not a chance in hell brother.

BTW, how did you know i live in Georgetown?

It's a sad day when the caveman can catch such enlightened and knowledgeable types with their pants down and pssing into the wind.

"Fabricates"?

Sorry, but you are way over the line. I have had it with your baseless allegations regarding my credibility.

Here is what I said:

IF Scruggs' allegations that Clint Bolick assured the CoG that they were okay with the deal are true, then it may be a case where GWI did not act in good faith and deliberately misled CoG. I suspect that there is a considerable amount of discussion and correspondence between CoG and GWI that has taken place in the
background of which we are not aware.

READ the above. I was very careful to note that IF the allegations were correct, then it may be such a case as described. At no time did I state that they were true.

I gave you the link, which had already been posted in this thread and was available to read even before I re-posted it. As it turns out, I had erred in referring to Scruggs instead of Hulsizer - as if THAT makes a difference to the substance of the matter. Nevertheless, I acknoowledged that relatively inconsequential error.

At no time did I reference that there was a quotation from Scruggs or Hulsizer. Yet, in a series of posts, you seem to assert that I did. You are in error.

I will not sit back and allow you to suggest that I am fabricating anything.

 

[Dado]

I wonder if the reporter who claimed the bond sale "failed" will also get sued for Torturous Interference...

 

[Grumpz]

Annnnnnnnnnd we still have no idea where the CoG is going to come up with $18 million for their gift, I mean subsidy, I mean management fee.