Legal News

Clear Channel Q&A, the Legal Edition

By Jamie Heller

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 27, 2008 (boomark / email).