JC,
No opinion, but a couple observations.
There's obviously enough of a disagreement on the facts, which I don't think the court will be able to ignore, so I think SM's affidavit will probably successfully overcome MSG's request for a summary judgment. And a summary judgment for dismissal would be extremely unusual. Guess those are opinions, huh?
The clearest disagreement is on whether SPNG owed MSG any money either when they handed them the check (the $70M job) or when MSG banked it. I noticed something interesting on the face of the check that might be pertinent. In the area normally used for "purpose" we clearly see "7843-1" preceded by what MIGHT be "INV#". To this layman's eye the 7843-1 was written by the same person that wrote the numerical dollar amount and the date...logically then by the drawer. In the same area, in what appears to me different handwriting, we see "cust 16729"....it wouldn't be unusual for a notation like that to be made by accounts receivable personnel. Jamming that steaming mound of speculation together, I couldn't help but wonder "If SPNG is providing an invoice number and MSG is applying the check to their account, how much of a leap is it to think that SPNG owed them some money?"
What for? I have no clue. The very last item in the affidavit says something to the effect that (paraphrasing) if MSG meant to include the Auto and Pet subsidiaries (with whom 2 of the 3 agreements were made) in their claim they should've included them in their original filing. This statement comes out of the clear blue sky....which frankly leads me to believe that it has something to do with things. Tickets are part of one of those deals and SPNG is obligated to cover the production costs of some of the advertising materials in one of them also.
The real situation with the RM check is beyond me. Every time they draw a check something funny happens. All I can say about it is, no matter how much money I had, I wouldn't plop down $360,000 without at least a signed napkin saying what it was for...and in reasonably specific terms.
Finally...it doesn't make any sense to me that the case can go forward without it being severed. If it's true that there are no MSG agreements with RM, then it doesn't make any sense to me that SPNG and RM should be co-defendants. I'm not a shareholder, but if I was I'd be wondering why I'm footing a piece of RM's legal bill....unless it's in return for
You know where this goes.
