|
 |
Apr-13-2008Judge rejects banks' request in Clear Channel case(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The banks being sued in the dispute over the $20 billion (10 billion pounds) Clear Channel Communications leveraged buyout, put forward arguments on Thursday outlining why the case against them in New York should be dropped. They argue they had not yet agreed a number of financing issues with the private equity firms trying to buy Clear Channel (CCU.N: Quote, Profile, Research ) when they were sued, which "exemplifies the reason why New York courts will not specifically enforce a contract to lend money," according to a copy of the filing. Private equity firms Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital filed complaints in New York and Texas against Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research ), Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research ), Credit Suisse Group (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research ), Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS.L: Quote, Profile, Research ), Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research ) and Wachovia (WB.N: Quote, Profile, Research ) to force them to fund a $20 billion buyout of Clear Channel. Clear Channel joined them in the Texas suit, but was not a plaintiff named in the New York case. The banks asked a New York state court to dismiss the case against them a week ago and earlier this week called for Bexar County, Texas, to throw out the case, too. [1] We have contracts around the world which have been thrown into uncertainty." Private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital had filed complaints in New York and Texas against Citigroup Inc, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia Corp, seeking to force them to fund a $20 billion buyout of Clear Channel. Clear Channel joined them in the Texas suit, but was not a plaintiff named in the New York case. The buyout firms claim the banks balked at providing financing when the debt markets deteriorated and asked for a change in its terms that prevented completion of the deal.[2]
A Texas state court has denied a request by a group of banks to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed against them by Clear Channel Communications and its proposed buyers, Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners. In a pair of lawsuits filed last month, Clear Channel and the buyout firms accused the banks ( Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia ) of illegally reneging on their commitments to provide financing for the $19.5 billion deal.[3]
The six lendersCitigroup, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group and Wachoviahave made another battery of new filings in the Texas case against them, reiterating some issues that already were out in the open. The banks want Clear Channel's tortious interference case against them dismissed, the money damages limited to the breakup fee of $600 million and the court's help in refusing specific performance, or Clear Channel's attempt to make the banks fund the deal. (The banks argue that Clear Channel, since it isn't part of the original funding agreement between the banks and private-equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital, can't be the one to ask the court to force the agreement.) The banks also put forth an interpretation of the deal that they were close to final terms before a Texas judge issued a restraining order forbidding the two parties to change the terms of the commitment letter. "The law is clear that when there are open material terms left in a contract, courts will not try to resolve those open issues for the parties by specifically enforcing one side's version over another's," the banks wrote in the filings.[4] Lawyers for the banks filed a motion yesterday in New York Supreme Court seeking a summary judgment dismissing, without a trial, the suit filed March 26 by Boston-based buyout firms Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP, also known as THL Partners. The banks, including Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Wachovia Corp. and Deutsche Bank AG, said they haven't breached their commitment and that their contract to finance the deal gives them until June 12 to provide the money.[5] Buyers Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners filed suit accusing Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia Corp. of fraud and breach of contract when the deal failed to close on March 27.[6]
Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital also filed suit against the banks in New York. "We are grateful the court saw through the banks' latest attempt to escape responsibility for the enormous damage they have caused our company," Clear Channel said in a statement reported by WSJ. "We look forward to taking this case to a Texas jury on June 2. The banks have asked that Bain and TH Lee's case against them in New York be dismissed, saying they are not in breach of contract, as that suit alleges.[7] On April 9, the banks asked a Texas state judge to dismiss a suit filed there by Clear Channel, Bain and THL. In New York, Clear Channel and CC Media Holdings Inc., the shell company created for the buyout, asked New York Supreme Court Judge Helen Freedman in Manhattan to dismiss the countersuit filed by the banks. If forced to fund the deal, the banks stand to lose at least $2.7 billion because loan prices have fallen since they agreed to the transaction last April. "The banks continue to believe the lawsuits brought by the sponsors are without merit and believe they should be dismissed,'' Tom Johnson, a spokesman for the banks, said yesterday in a statement. "We were actively negotiating the many important open items in the credit agreements when the sponsors launched this litigation, constraining further discussions,'' Johnson said in the statement. "The Banks stand by their obligations under the commitment letter and now look forward to the opportunity to be heard in court.''[5] There's been some drama both on and in the courts of San Antonio this week. On Monday night, on a San Antonio court of the hardwood variety, the Kansas Jayhawks won their fifth national title. This morning, in a San Antonio court of the legal kind, a judge handed Clear Channel and its two potential buyers an early win. (For those distracted by March Madness, Clear Channel and its private-equity buyers, Bain and THL, have filed lawsuits in New York and Texas claiming that a sextet of banks illegally balked on funding the $22 billion buyout of the radio giant.) While none of this is surprising, it's fair to say that this Texas lawsuit remains a serious thorn in the banks' side.[8]
Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio broadcaster, and its purchasers, Boston-based buyout firms Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP, filed lawsuits March 26 in Texas and New York to prevent the banks from reneging on a commitment to provide $22.1 billion in financing.[9] Clear Channel and its proposed buyers, Thomas H. Lee Partners LP and Bain Capital Partners LLC, say the banks illegally reneged on their commitments to fund the $19.5 billion deal.[10]
SAN ANTONIO -- A Texas judge on Friday denied a request by six major banks that sought the dismissal of a suit by Clear Channel Communications Inc. charging the banks with reneging on a deal to finance a $19.5 billion buyout of the media giant. State District Judge Joe Frazier Brown set a June 2 trial date for the case and the two sides agreed to a temporary injunction blocking the banks from ending their financing commitments before the trial.[11] Trial Date Set In Texas Clear Channel Suit SAN ANTONIO -- April 11, 2008: A Texas state court has denied a motion to dismiss by the banks that agreed to fund Clear Channel's $19.5 billion buyout and has issued a temporary injunction blocking the banks from interfering with the deal's closing, the Wall Street Journal reports.[7]
The two sides reached the agreement after Texas state Judge Joe Frazier Brown Jr. in San Antonio set a June 2 trial date for Clear Channel's lawsuit against the banks. Brown earlier yesterday rejected the banks' request to throw out the suit and said he would hear Clear Channel's motion for a temporary injunction. "We are grateful the court saw through the banks' latest attempt to escape responsibility for the enormous damage they have caused our company," Clear Channel said.[12] The buyout offer was set to expire 10 days later. Under the agreement, the banks are blocked from ending their financing commitments before the trial. "We are grateful the court saw through the banks' latest attempt to escape responsibility for the enormous damage they have caused our company," San Antonio-based Clear Channel said in a statement. "We look forward to taking this case to a Texas jury on June 2."[13] The buyout offer was set to expire 10 days later. "We are grateful the court saw through the banks' latest attempt to escape responsibility for the enormous damage they have caused our company," San Antonio-based Clear Channel said in a statement. "We look forward to taking this case to a Texas jury on June 2." In its suit, Clear Channel and a holding company established by its private equity buyers accuse Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, Wachovia Corp., Deutsche Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland of tortious interference.[11]
The injunction follows a temporary restraining order issued last month that blocked the bank group from "interfering with or thwarting consummation of the merger agreement by refusing to fund the merger transaction." Clear Channel sued the banks -- Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, and Wachovia -- to force them to close the buyout deal, which got regulatory clearance from the FCC in January and from the Department of Justice in February.[7]
"We want to complete the deal to buy Clear Channel, and look forward to urgently pressing our case that the banks must not be allowed to interfere," the buyout firms said. If forced to fund the deal, the banks stand to lose about $3 billion because loan prices have fallen since they agreed to finance it last April. They countersued April 4 in New York seeking to limit their liability to a $600 million termination fee.[12] The banks filed a countersuit in New York state court in Manhattan on April 4. They stand to lose about $2.7 billion on the transaction because loan prices have fallen since they agreed to finance the deal last April. In addition to dismissing the case, lawyers for the banks have asked the Texas judge to also "reject outright" a request for a temporary injunction barring them from interfering with the buyout.[9] During the Friday morning hearing in the 57th District Court in San Antonio, Judge Joe Frazier Brown Jr. rejected the banks' motion to dismiss the case, clearing the way for the suit to move forward in Bexar County. The banks were in court in New York asking that the case against them be dismissed. The banks contended that they had not yet agreed to a number of issues related to funding. The banks, which stand to lose some $2.7 billion immediately after funding the deal as it currently stands, asked New York Supreme Court Judge Helen Freeman to dismiss that case, which seeks at least $500 million in damages, arguing that there is scant evidence that they declined to fund the deal.[6]
A summary judgment motion asks a court to decide issues before trial. It's a clear, compelling brief filed by the crack litigators at Davis Polk. It makes three main points, asking a court for a declaration that (1) there's no breach of the commitment letter because the banks have until June 12 to fund the deal; (2) specific performance a fancy legal term meaning that a judge would force the banks to do the deal is unavailable under New York law; and (3) the banks' liability is limited to the $500 million break-up fee based on language in the merger agreement.[8]
April 11 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. and five other banks suing Clear Channel Communications Inc. and its buyers asked a New York state judge to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the financial institutions of refusing to fund the $19.5 billion acquisition.[5] Jeffrey Yorke, Radio and Records APRIL 11, 2008 - A Bexar County, Texas, judge Friday (April 11) refused to dismiss the lawsuit brought against six New York banks that failed to fund the $22 billion privatization of Clear Channel Communications by the scheduled March 27 closing.[6]
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - A judge in Texas on Friday refused a request by several New York-based banks to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Clear Channel Communications Inc and two buyout firms trying to acquire the radio operator.[2] A Texas state court denied a request by six banks to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Clear Channel Communications Inc and its two buyout firms who are trying to acquire the company.[14]
Clear Channel, lenders reach accord Boston Globe SAN ANTONIO - Clear Channel Communications Inc. and six banks, including Citigroup Inc., agreed on a temporary order that bars the lenders from reneging on a promise to finance the company's $19.5 billion sale to two buyout firms.[12] SAN ANTONIO -- Media giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. and the six banks it is suing agreed Friday to a temporary injunction that blocks the banks from reneging on a deal to finance a $19.5 billion buyout.[13]
The buyout of Clear Channel has been plagued by problems in recent weeks, and most recently the banks countersued CC and its private equity buyers. The banks stand to lose at least $2.7 billion if forced to fund the deal because loan prices have fallen since they agreed to the transaction last April, so in their countersuit, they are seeking to limit their liability to $600 million.[3]
Equity buyers, led by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee LLC, agreed last year to pay $39.20 per share for Clear Channel, far more than Friday's closing stock price of $29.45. The banks agreed to provide financing but the current market price would saddle them with an immediate loss of almost $2.7 billion.[11] The Texas court said Clear Channel and Private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital can pursue charges that the banks improperly interfered with the closing of the sale.[15] The court on Friday also granted a request from Clear Channel and buyers Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital for an expedited trial.[7]
In the Texas case, Clear Channel, Thomas H. Lee and Bain in claim "tortious interference" with the deal which "if allowed to continue and succeed, could result in immeasurable damages" exceeding $26 billion, according to the suit.[2]
Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio broadcaster, and its purchasers, Bain and THL, filed lawsuits March 26 in Texas and New York to prevent the banks from reneging on a commitment to provide $22.1 billion in financing.[5] A Texas judge rejected a request by the six banks in the $26 billion buyout dispute over Clear Channel to throw out a lawsuit, and instead set a June 2 trial date.[15]
In that case, the buyout firms accuse the banks of fraud and breach of contract to provide about $22 billion in financing toward the Clear Channel sale.[10] Clear Channel attorney Ricardo Cedillo countered that because the company wasn't a party to the financing agreement, it isn't bound by the terms. The banks are interfering with Clear Channel's contract with the buyout firms, he said.[12]
How could the liability cap be firm, but the financing terms laid out in the document not be?? I don't think you can pick and choose which parts of the merger agreement that you want to view as being final and which ones are able to be changed. This is a crucial point in terms of ccu's lawsuit in texas as they are argueing that the banks are interfering with their contract with the PE firms. If the PE firms wanted to walk away the liability cap could in theory come into to play, but since they want to go forward with the deal, and the banks are renegging on the terms of the committment letter, the committment letter is out and the banks are thus no longer shielded by that language in the contract. My real question is presuming that the TX case goes to trial, how do you even begin to calculate the economic damages that are justified to be paid to CCU. Shareholders would be immediately impaired, the company has spent how much $seeking FCC approval and dealing with the litigation, the company has divested pieces of their business, etc. What a giant clusterfuc&. My guess is that the banks wait till they all report over the next couple of weeks and then quickly move to get the deal done under the assumption that over the next 3 months they can figure out what to do with the paper.[8] The banks have argued New York courts hold that, except in cases involving real property, a party may not secure specific performance of a contract to lend money. They also argue the letter calls for them to lend money pursuant to documents that are to be negotiated later. They argue the two sides were in talks when the buyers sued. In a statement, a spokesman for the banks said on Thursday that they continued to believe the lawsuits were without merit and believe they should be dismissed. "We were actively negotiating the many important open items in the credit agreements when the sponsors launched this litigation, constraining further discussions, the spokesman said in an email.[1] The buyout firms filed two lawsuits against the banks, one in Texas and the other in federal court in New York. The banks were in court in New York asking that the case against them be dismissed. Copyright 1989-2008 RADIO ONLINE ® The publisher makes no claims concerning the validity of the information posted on RADIO ONLINE and will not be held liable for its use. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, incorporated in any information retrieval system or otherwise redistributed without the prior written permission of the publisher.[15] The private equity groups filed two separate lawsuits against the banks, one in Texas and the other in the New York State court system.[6]
NEW YORK -- A Texas state court has denied a request by a group of banks to dismiss litigation against them in the disputed sale of Clear Channel Communications Inc.[16]
"We continue to believe the litigation brought by Clear Channel and the (buyout firms) is without merit and we look forward to arguing our case in court," the bank group said in a statement. "We are grateful the court saw through the banks' latest attempt to escape responsibility for the enormous damage they have caused our company," Clear Channel said in a statement[14] "We continue to believe the litigation brought by Clear Channel and the sponsors is without merit and we look forward to arguing our case in court," said Tom Johnson, a spokesman for the banks. Under yesterday's accord, the banks, which also include Deutsche Bank AG and Morgan Stanley, can't terminate their financing commitments before the June trial, and must retain all relevant records and documents.[12] A hearing in that case is set for Tuesday, with a trial date of May 5. Earlier yesterday, Lamont Jefferson, a San Antonio-based attorney representing the banks, argued that even though Clear Channel and CC Media have no contractual relationship with the lenders, they seek to benefit from the commitment letter while disregarding its restrictions. "If they're trying to invoke the contract, then they should be bound by all terms of that contract," he said.[12]
Now, before you head off for the weekend thinking that Clear Channel and the sponsors have a slam dunk here, the banks are playing some strong defense in the New York case, in which a trial is set for May 5. Check out this summary judgment motion filed yesterday by the banks in the New York action.[8] Clear Channel joined the Texas suit, but was not a plaintiff named in the New York case.[14]
The deal came after State District Judge Joe Frazier Brown of San Antonio denied a motion from the banks that the Clear Channel suit be dismissed.[17] As we've said before, being a bank defendant before a Texas jury isn't a good thing, especially at a time when the reputation of big banks is on the downslide. Other negatives to consider: (1) one of the plaintiffs is San-Antonio based Clear Channel; (2) the alleged damages for a Texas jury to mull are more than $26 billion; and (3) it's scorching hot in San Antonio in June.[8] San Antonio-based Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio broadcaster, sued in Texas the same day with CC Media Holdings Inc., the shell company created for the buyout, seeking more than $26 billion in damages.[12]
Clear Channel Communications said Thursday a U.S. judge has barred a global group of major banks from backing out of a 19.5-billion-dollar private equity buyout of the radio and billboard giant.[14] The buyout firms and Clear Channel are seeking a temporary injunction prohibiting the banks from interfering with the closing of the deal.[10] "Instead of trying to preserve the status quo, 's requested injunctionseeks to change the status quo," the banks said. What is that status quo? The negotiations that the two parties still were engaged in when, the banks claim, Clear Channel and the private-equity firms filed their lawsuits with no warning. Deal Journal has written before about how negotiations could get started in this deal. It still is an open question as to whether negotiations will help a deal get done, or just continue the ill will until the June 12 expiration date for the deal.[4]
The $500 to $600 million termination fee is between the PE guys and Clear Channel. It does not apply to the banks. The banks are asking the NY court to say that it does but I don't think it was ever intended to shelter them from funding the transaction. If the deal doesn't go through the PE guys exposure is limited to this amount.[8] "We continue to believe the litigation brought by Clear Channel and the sponsors is without merit, and we look forward to arguing our case in court," the banks told the San Antonio Express-News.[11] The banks in the Clear Channel Communications case appear to want to negotiate. At least, that is how their new court filings sound.[4]
Dribbling for the sponsors: "We want to complete the deal to buy Clear Channel, and look forward to urgently pressing our case that the banks must not be allowed to interfere with the completion of the Clear Channel merger agreement."[8] Case in NY is about damages to private equity guys. They have no damages if the deal doesn't close. Even if they pay 500 or 600 million they are not damagedhave you looked at clear channel's stock price lately? And if they pay 500 million then the banks' cap goes to zero. It is all there in black and white.[8]
Clear Channel and the two private equity firms are seeking more than $26 billion in damages.[5]
Section 9.08(a) of the Merger Agreement therefore specifically and unambiguously precludes Clear Channel from even'seeking' to recover from the Banks any damages in excess of $500 million.[8]
SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Media giant Clear Channel Communications and six banks it's suing agreed today to a temporary injunction.[17] Lawyers for the banks filed a motion in San Antonio seeking dismissal on the grounds that the original financing agreement required any lawsuits be filed in New York.[9] The buyers have filed a separate suit in New York against the banks, alleging breach of contract and fraud.[17]
The banks were in court in New York on Thursday where they asked for the case against them be dismissed. The banks insisted that they had not yet agreed to a number of issues related to funding.[14] Attorney Lamont Jefferson, speaking for the banks, on Friday argued that the Texas case should be dismissed and folded into the litigation underway in New York.[2]
In New York, the private equity firms are seeking "specific performance" of a commitment letter that details the plans to fund the deal.[2] The deal blocks the banks from reneging on a deal to finance a private equity group's 19 1/$2 billion buyout of the San Antonio-based radio station chain.[17] The bank group also said in the filing that the buyout firms broke off negotiations over financing terms and filed suit before a resolution was in hand.[10] The buyout firms claim the banks balked at providing financing when the debt markets deteriorated and asked for a change in the terms of the buyout that prevented it from being completed.[1]
Several banks suing Clear Channel asked a judge to dismiss their suit over a loan. [9] Nothing about Clear channels stance. Its the same stance the bank had in Texas as in NY,Its also the same stance Clear Channel had in Texas that they will have in NY.Clear Channel won hands down in Texas. They will prevail in NY also. Thats if the Banks dont get smart quick and settle before the Ny Trial.[8] Clear Channel signed on to the suit in Texas and brought on well-known local litigator, Joe Jamail.[6]
Im so confused. Why would Clear Channel try to nix the deal by going to court? Arent they trying to protect themselves.[4] Shooting for the banks: "We continue to believe the litigation brought by Clear Channel and the Sponsors is without merit and we look forward to arguing our case in court."[8]
I should rephrase my previous question - I understand how damages could exceed a market cap. It would be more accurate to ask how the $26B in damages can exceed the market cap of Clear Channel before the LBO financing was even discussed.[8] The 'Company' in Section 9.08 is Clear Channel, and the amount referenced in Section 8.02(b) is the reverse break-up fee, which in no circumstance can be greater than $500 million.[8] Yeah confused I agree they seem to have a pretty good point here on this $500 million argument. Why don't they just pay Clear Channel that amount so we can all move on with our sad pathetic lives. Would Clear Channel agree to this or do they want to be bought out at $39.[8]
Clear Channel spokeswoman Michele Clarke declined to comment on yesterday's filing by the banks.[5] Did you read that language? Banks' liability to Clear Channel is capped at 600 million.[8] WSJ the last couple weeks have been saying, the bank this, the bank that,rarely mentioning anything about Clear channels good stance on the matter. Today they say it isnt a surprise that Clear channel wins.[8]
"We need relief," Clear Channel attorney Ricardo Cedillo said, arguing for a quick trial.[2]
Texas State District Judge Joe F. Brown Jr. rejected the request to dismiss the case and set a June 2 trial date.[3] Judge Joe Frazier Brown Jr. also heard a request for a temporary injunction against the bank group, which includes Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia.[15] Are any of you so naive as to believe that a Court would award damages to a PE group which could potentially bankrupt Citigroup and other banks.[8]
How come we're even talking in the billions here? I haven't seen the court papers myself, but as Lattman notes above the banks' liability seems to be capped at $500MM. Deal Professor also picked up on this: "Here, the banks cite Section 9.08 of the Merger Agreement.[8] You know if the banks cant find a way to do the deal,according to the rules, outside the courts. It looks like the courts will dictate to the banks how to do the deal according to the commitment letter. They(banks) already lost opening rounds and it looks like theyll loose the case if they make the courts decide.[4] The banks refusal to honor a commitment undermines the integrity of the entire financial system. Maximum penalty against them should be imposed by the courts for such flagrant bad faith negotiation and business conduct. Sadly, this deal wasn't taking place in China or the bank executives might just be executed.[4]
Oh i see even the WSJ has forgotten about the Email and alleged fraud by the banks, or the fact they tried to change the terms of the commitment letter drastically, that would cause a sour deal.[4]
I think the banks are saying now they want to talk,now that the courts have gotten involved. It looks like they are pulling a Johnny Cochran and stalling by complaining the Restraining order prevents them from talking. However the restraining order in fact directs them to talk and to honor the commitment letter.[4] At Friday's hearing, the Texas court said the banks had improperly interfered with the closing of the sale.[14] The court hearing is continuing to hear other deal-related matters, including a request for a temporary injunction against the bank group, reports the Wall Street Journal.[3]
Banks agreed to provide financing, but the current market price would mean an immediate loss of almost $2.7 billion. [17] The Merger Agreement defines 'Representatives' to include 'permitted financing sources,' i.e., the Banks.[8] The banks said the contract can't be considered breached until June 12, the termination date for the sale agreement.[10] There appears to be a separate and distinct provision in the contract that appears to explicitly cap the banks' (or any "agents'") exposure at the same level as the sponsors. Can anyone that has read the contract language above explain how you legally get around what appears to be a pretty explicit liability cap for the banks? With so many eyes on this deal, I'm surprised nobody caught on to this before now.[8] Best thing the WSJ could do along with the banks is to quit whining and fund the deal.[4]
SOURCES
1. Clear Channel banks argue case should be dropped | Reuters
2. Judge rejects banks' request in Clear Channel case | Entertainment | Industry | Reuters
3. FMQB: Radio Industry News, Music Industry Updates, Arbitron Ratings, Music News and more!
4. Deal Journal - WSJ.com : Clear Channel's Banks: We Can't Get a Deal Done in Court
5. Bloomberg.com: U.S.
6. Court Doesn't Dismiss in CC Case
7. Radio Ink - The Voice of Radio Revolution
8. Deal Journal - WSJ.com : Buyout Madness: The Clear Channel Litigation
9. Citigroup asks to drop suit | delawareonline | The News Journal
10. Banks Ask To Dismiss NY Clear Channel Suit On Eve Of Hearing
11. Clear Channel Lawsuit Heads to Trial | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
12. Clear Channel, lenders reach accord - The Boston Globe
13. Texas judge clears way for trial in Clear Channel buyout lawsuit; Samsung chief hints at resignation
14. Court Dismissed Banks Request in Clear Channel Case - International Business Times -
15. RADIO ONLINE ®
16. Free Preview - WSJ.com
17. Texas judge clears way for trial in Clear Channel buyout lawsuit
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON THIS SUBJECT:
Please WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open...
You might want to EDIT the default search query below:
Get more info on Judge rejects banks' request in Clear Channel case by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
