The Air America injunction request. There really IS a problem??

Here's the legal filing in NY's Supreme Court.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0414043air1.html

Read through the document - It sure looks like they've admitted not paying the LA station. The whole thing is about Chicago and how they haven't missed any payments THERE.

They make a big deal about how they are not in breach of the Chicago deal... but they don't say anything about California.

kind of a big difference there.

...i thought the lawyer for AA who came on the air yesterday said that they HAVE their money. Oh well, who knows. I'm sure it will get worked out soon...

to the LA station because they were being robbed. Liu's response was to puLL the pLug on both stations.

Liu empLoys ken starr. just hear on AAR.

They claim MRA is in violation of the Santa Monica Agreement... they say that on informing MRA of that, the doors of the Chicago station were locked to gain leverage.

Air America filed a complaint in court. IT doesn't seem to say anything about Santa Monica. If they can show MRA is also in violation of the Santa Monica agreement it should give them added weight for their Chicago claims. They don't seem to mention it at all.

Middle of paragraph 3.

Including the words "Santa Monica" isn't really what I'm looking for. Why leave out whether a check had a stop-payment on it or bounced?

They leave the impression that they are not coming to the table with "clean hands". There's no mention of being off the air in LA. They leave me with the impression that they expect to be off the air there for some time (they aren't even asking for relief in that regard).

On the air I got the impression they expected bth stations to be back up any time now because the other gur didn't ahve a legal leg to stand on... NOW I see they aren't even ASKING about one station.

Here's the exact quote:
"Upon information and belief, MRA took this drastic action because Air America Radio informed MRA that MRA was in breach of the agreement regarding the Santa Monica Station."

They didn't mention the specifics because they aren't relevant - unless AAR is committing perjury, MRA was the one that broke the agreement.

AAR "told" MRA they were in breach of contract.

We already KNOW they said THAT. They've been saying it on the radio all day.

That isn't the same thing as the oppsing company actually BEING in breach of contract.

And, now that I think of it, if they "told" MRA it was in breach of contract and immediately stoped payment on a check (basically the same thing as shutting down the station).. how is that not "skipping arbitration as the contract reaquires"??


This gets more and more confusing.

Once Liu had the money, AAR would have to file a lawsuit to get it back if arbitration went in their favor. I obviously don't know the details of the contract, but it seems that withholding payment is reasonable if the necessity of the payment is in question.

They would seem to deserve immediate injunctive relief if the case is that cut and dried...

BUT THEY HAVEN'T even ASKED FOR IT yet! Which leaves open the thought that the case ISN'T "cut and dried".

They don't need injunctive relief in Santa Monica. They do in Chicago. Hence, they did not sue for injunctive relief in Santa Monica, and did in Chicago.

MRA acting to shut down the LA station prior to an arbitration ruling. If the contract really DOES require arbitration in these situations than MRA would be acting outside of their rights to shut down the station and AA would be due immediate relief. There's no reason not to seek that relief pending arbitration rulings.

Since they haven't even ASKED for that I must assume they don't think they are entitled to it. There is therefore something we are not being told yet.

is a bush supporter..maybe someone has the press release that was posted last night..aa claims the guy is ripping them off...

A guy owning a pair of big-city "multicultural" (i.e. "foreign language") radio stations is a Bush supporter?

Or are we assuming that because he shafted a liberal radio group?

If he was such a big Bush supporter, why would he go into business with AAR to begin with? ....


Unless....

This day was planned all along??

showed that Liu donated to Lazio, and his wife was a donor to Lazio, Bush, and the RNC.

Nice try.

I just assumed Air America wouldn't ahve gotten in bed with a Bushie to begin with. I also found it hard to believe that a multicultural radio station is run by a Bushie.

If it's true it's true. That's fine (though like I said, it calls into question the intelligence of the AA guy who made the decision to work with him).

Are we sure this isn't one of those media "give to both teams" sort of things? Like many companies donate to both sides?

In the thread(s) regarding this from yesterday, it was shown that he did in fact donate to both sides (R and D).

They were working to resolve a problem with the owners double dipping for the LA station. AA stopped payment until the dispute was settled. The owner had no right to shut down the Chicago station in retaliation.

AA isn't asking for the LA station to be put back up yet, because they acknowledge a dispute and were trying to resolve it consistent with their contract.

the Chicago station from Air America's POV, so they want that settled immediately. They're paid up, they should have their air time.

They are disputing what was done in LA, and that's a separate issue. They were paying for air time that was also being paid for by somebody else at the same time.

At least, that's my understanding. They are dealing with two separate contracts here.

If you rent two houses from me and continue to pay the rent on one while I'm going through eviction proceeding on the other (not exactly parallel obviously), I may have a right of offset between the two contracts.

It MAY need to be in the contract... it MAY be in California or Illinois (or NY) law. The fact that there are TWO contracts does not necessarily seperate the two business relationships if the aprties are otherwise he same.

This TRO wasn't filed in CA because it's not about the CA contract.

Separate contract, separate dispute, separate court venue?

Why was the Chicago suit filed in NY?

They claim both are NY corporations, so you could sue in California on the LA contract and IL on the Chicago contract... OR in NY on one or both.

Why NY for Chicago and CA for LA?

I guess there could be more favorable laws in NY than IL, but no CA...? Either way... where's the suit?

Essentially, they agree to file all suits about the contract in a particular jurisdiction. As long the state picked has jurisdiction, it is cool.

I also think that both sides have offices in NY - thus jurisdiction.

not logical - but true

:-)

It just isn't a "given" that there is NO right of offset.

It's likely something to be fought over in court... it certainly isn't the "slam dunk" it's being spun as.

That is underlying. The injubction just seeks putting AAR back in Chicago while everything is ironed out in Court.

for a temporary injunction for LA???

It implies they know they have no legal leg to stand on.

That makes me uncomfortable.

If this works out that AA was unfairly deprived of the Chicago airwaves BUT MRA was within their rights to close down LA I won't consider this a victory for our side.

is only for the chicago station. The Los Angeles case is a totally different situation....they have not paid because their "Landlord" has frauded them the past couple of months by renting out space to their station to another company while AAR were also leasing space...This has nothing to do with Chicago.

they explained it quite well.

They paid for the LA and the Chicago airtime - in advance. Then the Lieu(?) guy sold their airtime in LA again, to someone else.

The simples analogy they used was - suppose you rent an apartment, but you can't move into it for a month. You've paid for it - it's your apartment, even if it's sitting empty.

Now suppose the landlord knows you're not moving in for another month, and he rents it to someone else?

If you paid the rent it's yours - whether you're using it or not.

If true, it would seem to be a very reasonable topic to include in the filing. They chose to leave it out... why?

The Chicago case is cut and dried and does not depend on who is right or who is wrong in Santa Monica.

If they had brought up Santa Monica in their Chicago complaint it would totally confuse the issue.

If AAR DID (and I doubt they did, the filing just confuses me as to why they aren't making the claim in court) fail to pay monies that were owed to another company - that company is not necessarily required to honor other agreements. They may or may not be seperable relationships.

because of the separate issues. The court in CA may have jurisdiction over that dispute, not NY State Court.

That's why the lawsuit is being filed in NYC.

.. Dealing with radio stations like this is not the best way to go. In the future, Air America should have a drive to raise money to out-right BUY a few stations around the country.

I would donate at least $100, and I am sure it is well worth the money to control your own network of stations.

OWNERSHIP IS MEDIA POWER!

A radio station that has nothing on the air is death. The owner of the station could make an argument like this: You were not broadcasting yet. This diminished my asset - my whole radio station. All other leased time would suffer. So I kept this thing going until you got on the air. My actions did not diminish you whatsoever.

That he would continue to take money from the current broadcaster at the same time he took money from AAR, until AAR got on the air.

I am too lazy. Is the contract attached as an exhibit?

They are NOT joined together....This was explained by AAR's legal counsel YESTERDAY on Randi Rhodes' show...

There are LOTS of situations where default on one contract would give a company offset rights to act on another contract. Does the contract specifically sever those kinds of rights?


If you have two accounts at your bank they are each governed by their own depositor agreement (contract). If you're overdrawn in one account and have funds in the other how many seconds do you think they'll wait to take the money? Do you think they can't close BOTH accounts if they want to?

Found this story in the Baltimore Sun

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/news/ny-etrad153758160apr15,0,6176600.story?coll=bal-entertainment-headlines


"We found out that he had actually stolen some money from us," Goodfriend said. "We said, 'Mr. Liu, you are not allowed to cash those checks until you come clean with us. Tell us how much money you took and what you are going to do to fix this.'"

Goodfriend said that the payment dispute only involves the California station and that Multicultural has been paid in full for the Chicago station. Liu did not return several phone calls yesterday.

But my reading of this is:

1) MRA broke some contract stipulation with AAR at the Santa Monica station.

2) AAR informed MRA of this.

3) MRA responed by locking AAR out of the Chicago station.

Nothing in the document suggests to me that AAR has any financial problems, at Santa Monica or elsewhere.

..AAR said 'don't cash the checks we sent you', Lui-ser then claims AAR 'bounced' those checks...

the whole point of the filing is relevant to CHICAGO, not LA. They are asking a judge to order Liu to restore access to the Chicago airwaves pursuant to the SEPARATE contract they have for that city.

The matter regarding LA is not the subject of this filing at all. It is only mentioned to explain Liu's motivation for removing access to the Chicago airwaves.

Whilst there is a dispute over LA, it is a separate case which AA may not have yet decided is worth taking legal action over.

But you said it much better!

Time for another cup of coffee for me . . .

They aren't doing anything in California right now. They are as much as admitting that MRA has a right to pull them off the air in LA.

They are addressing the most urgent legal matter first and the one that is a slam dunk:

that they were yanked off the air in Chicago even though they have NO DISPUTE in Chicago. They have a right to immediately be put back on the air in the places they have no contract dispute.

They will deal with the California dispute separately. They haven't "admitted" anything by the way they've handled the matter.

"the most urgent legal matter first"????

They are down in two of the largest markets in the country and they haven't taken ANY legal action on the LARGER of the two.

How/Why is Chicago "more urgent"???

You argue that first and get back on in that market.

Then AAR pursues the CA matter, which is obviously more complex because there IS an issue about Liu taking two checks for the same air time.

There's nothing wrong with handling this way, despite your protestations that there is. Okay?

It just leaves the LA station down. No reason why they should be in a hurry to bring up the second biggest market in the country.

Might as well go for the "easy" one first and pick up the other in a few days/weeks. Who cares?

All they should have to show is that they COULD win in CA to deserve relief. They delay with them off the air obviously demonstrates harm to AA. They just need to demonstrate "we have a good change at winning, but would be harmed by the delay even if we won". Since MRA would be unable to show that (he had PLANNED on having AA on his air), it should be almost as easy to tackle both cases.

Unless the facts are other than we've been told. They sure seem to be ACTING like they are. unless there's another action I can't find news of. Or negotions underway that they expect to move faster than a court.

about the TRO that they petitioned yesterday afternoon.

MY point has been all along that they seem to concede LA to MRA. They haven't even tried to bring it back up.

there.

I know that they are filing the case in NY. I know that they are seking injunctive relief in NY FOR Chicago.

Nothing in the filing says "we are due relief in LA", nothing ASKS for LA to be turned back on. They obviously didn't "forget"... that leaves the implication that they don't have a legal leg to stand on in LA. That scares me.

not that I agree or disagree, I didn't read the filing very thoroughly.

for the urgent aspects. It's the only thing that - per contract - can be brought to court. the rest goes in a different venue. procedure, not substance
See page 4, point 12 of the document

AA would have the right to sue for specific performance and gain injunctive relief pending that suit.

People keep talking about the "urgency" of Chicago over LA. Maybe having lived closer to LA than IL I'm biased.... but...

Again... WHY IS BEING OFF THE AIR IN CHICAGO MORE "URGENT" THAN BEING OFF THE AIR IN LA?????

So THAT's what happens when you hit "post" twice... hmmmm.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." :evilgrin:

No offense meant to my lawyerly brethren, of course. Contract law makes my puny head hurt is all.

and bypass the laws, they said "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

That's my memory anyway.