View Single Post
03-19-2013, 08:00 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
It sounds like you are talking about fraud. I don't see how Glendale has any chance of establishing any of the required elements in a manner fastidious enough to satisfy their burden of proof. Glendale created Glendale's problems. They weren't coerced by falsity. The potential for a non-Glendale sale was well documented from the time the NHLs bid was submitted to the court. The city was a willing partner; not an innocent victim. I'm not excusing the NHLs actions, I think they took full advantage of the situation, but making that into a civil claim sounds like a huge stretch.

I guess the city could make a desperate heave that the specific performance clause in the Moyes AMULA survives contract rejection in BK. But that's a tough road to travel and the probability of success is very low while the cost of pursuing that remedy is very high.
I think you've perfectly foreshadowed the first chapter in the ongoing Glendale saga post team relocation. If I know the city of Glendale, they absolutely love spending gobs of money on something that has a very low probability of success. So they'll be all over this litigation over specific performance that they already rejected. It's a great way to continue to blame someone else for their troubles while spending a lot of money with no real benefit for the city or its citizens. Perfect.

CGG is offline