I think so:


From AllAccess.com



CC Gets Restraining Order


A TEXAS judge ordered banks to fund the proposed $19 billion buyout of
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS by two private-equity firms CLEAR CHANNEL
said in a statement on early this morning (3/27), reports MARKE****CH.
District Court Judge JOHN D. GABRIEL of BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, granted a
temporary restraining order against the banks and CLEAR CHANNEL.

"He found in favor of CLEAR CHANNEL's claim that irreparable harm would
result if the banks were not immediately enjoined from tortiously
interfering with the merger agreement," the company said.

"Accordingly, Judge GABRIEL ordered that the banks, among other things,
must not 'interfere with or thwart consummation of the merger agreement'
by refusing to fund the merger transaction, insisting on terms that are
inconsistent with the commitment letter, or refusing to act in good
faith in the drafting of definitive loan documents," the company added.

CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS and
BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE
BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined
to provide the financing that they once said they would issue.

"It seems clear that lenders' remorse set in when credit markets
worsened," BAIN and THOMAS H. LEE said in a statement WEDNESDAY. "Now
they are trying to walk away from their commitment letter which clearly
states that they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets
might change."

CCU Up In Pre-Market: 29.50 +2.58 (9.58%)

Follow the effect of all this on CLEAR CHANNEL's stock price here.

D Peter Maus wrote:

I think so:


From AllAccess.com



CC Gets Restraining Order


A TEXAS judge ordered banks to fund the proposed $19 billion buyout of
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS by two private-equity firms CLEAR CHANNEL
said in a statement on early this morning (3/27), reports MARKE****CH.
District Court Judge JOHN D. GABRIEL of BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, granted a
temporary restraining order against the banks and CLEAR CHANNEL.

"He found in favor of CLEAR CHANNEL's claim that irreparable harm would
result if the banks were not immediately enjoined from tortiously
interfering with the merger agreement," the company said.

"Accordingly, Judge GABRIEL ordered that the banks, among other things,
must not 'interfere with or thwart consummation of the merger agreement'
by refusing to fund the merger transaction, insisting on terms that are
inconsistent with the commitment letter, or refusing to act in good
faith in the drafting of definitive loan documents," the company added.

CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS and
BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE
BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined
to provide the financing that they once said they would issue.

"It seems clear that lenders' remorse set in when credit markets
worsened," BAIN and THOMAS H. LEE said in a statement WEDNESDAY. "Now
they are trying to walk away from their commitment letter which clearly
states that they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets
might change."

CCU Up In Pre-Market: 29.50 +2.58 (9.58%)

Follow the effect of all this on CLEAR CHANNEL's stock price here.

Storm clouds form over Basse Road...

D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS and
BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE
BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined
to provide the financing that they once said they would issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court told them
to live up to their contract.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS
and BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY,
DEUTSCHE BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA
have declined to provide the financing that they once said they would
issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily decided
to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court
told them
to live up to their contract.



I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in negotiation
for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the company, and
earnings projections have all changed. The conditions under which the
letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is a
bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all the risk.


Too bad. A deal is a deal; unless there are event triggered escape
clauses written in, too bad. I say let the whole POS financial system
collapse. Let the truly strong survive. **** the greedy VCs.

D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS and
BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE
BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined
to provide the financing that they once said they would issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court told them
to live up to their contract.

I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in negotiation
for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the company, and
earnings projections have all changed. The conditions under which the
letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

Somewhere in the reading material (which I'm having trouble finding now)
there was a part where the contracted parties all acknowledged the changing
nature of financial markets and the risk of entering into a contract early
before the full impact could be determined. So basically the parties all
said they didn't care if conditions changed.

There it is, the last paragraph of what you posted:

"It seems clear that lenders' remorse set in when credit markets
worsened," BAIN and THOMAS H. LEE said in a statement WEDNESDAY. "Now
they are trying to walk away from their commitment letter which clearly
states that they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets
might change."

There's the part I was referring to. The banks made the commitment that
"they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets might change."

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is a
bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all the risk.

If the banks explicitly consented to shoulder all the risk, no matter what
it might turn out to be, AFAIAC they're stuck. And it appears the banks
did just that.

Myself, I think they're stupid for saying "things change, we don't care"
and not protecting themselves.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch

clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS and
BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE
BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined
to provide the financing that they once said they would issue.
Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court told them
to live up to their contract.
I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in negotiation
for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the company, and
earnings projections have all changed. The conditions under which the
letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

Somewhere in the reading material (which I'm having trouble finding now)
there was a part where the contracted parties all acknowledged the changing
nature of financial markets and the risk of entering into a contract early
before the full impact could be determined. So basically the parties all
said they didn't care if conditions changed.

There it is, the last paragraph of what you posted:

"It seems clear that lenders' remorse set in when credit markets
worsened," BAIN and THOMAS H. LEE said in a statement WEDNESDAY. "Now
they are trying to walk away from their commitment letter which clearly
states that they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets
might change."

There's the part I was referring to. The banks made the commitment that
"they bear all the risk that conditions in the debt markets might change."

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is a
bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all the risk.

If the banks explicitly consented to shoulder all the risk, no matter what
it might turn out to be, AFAIAC they're stuck. And it appears the banks
did just that.




I've not encountered the term 'letter of commitment,' before this.
'Letter of Intent,' yes. But 'Letter of Commitment,' no. So, I'm not
sure how ironclad the terms of this letter are. That is, whether it has
the full force and impact of a contract. Contract law states that in
order for a contract to exist, there has to be an exchange of
consideration. Prior to that, there is no contract. Even if one party
offers consideration, if the other party does not, there is no contract.

If 'Letter of Commitment' is an established legal instrument with
defined parameters, that's one thing. And yes, the banks are screwed.
If, on the other hand, it's a term coined by the CCU publicity
department for the purpose of trying this case in the press, that's
something else entirely. I've learned to read these statements with a
carefully jaundiced eye.

Given that the subsequent press notices have acknowledged that the
Court did NOT hold the banks' feet to this fire...only retain their
engagement through a subsequent hearing, it's becoming clear that there
is enough in question to make this a case for adjudication.

And I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal that would
do them harm.



Myself, I think they're stupid for saying "things change, we don't care"
and not protecting themselves.


Well, yeah....That said, I've not...nor, would I imagine, have
you....known any banker to walk into a deal without due diligence and
agreeing to shoulder all the risk, without agreeing to pocket all the
benefit.

There is more to what's taking place, here, than that which has been
presented.

And keep in mind that the press notices have been written by CCU.
That alone should raise a few back-of-neck hairs.

The only reason I brought any of this up, it to 1) underscore the
fact that days when CCU can do no wrong are over, and 2) that without
public vigilance, the madness implied by these headlines could well
result precedents sharply injurious to public economic health.

D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS
and BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY,
DEUTSCHE BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA
have declined to provide the financing that they once said they
would issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily
decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court
told them
to live up to their contract.



I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in
negotiation for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the
company, and earnings projections have all changed. The conditions
under which the letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is a
bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all the
risk.


Too bad. A deal is a deal; unless there are event triggered escape
clauses written in, too bad. I say let the whole POS financial system
collapse. Let the truly strong survive. **** the greedy VCs.


Then, why are you still here?



I am always here. I work in the escape business. We thrive during crises.

In article ,
friendlyneighborhooddisease wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE
PARTNERS and BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP,
MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined to provide the financing that
they once said they would issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily
decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court
told them
to live up to their contract.



I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in
negotiation for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the
company, and earnings projections have all changed. The conditions
under which the letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is
a bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all
the risk.


Too bad. A deal is a deal; unless there are event triggered escape
clauses written in, too bad. I say let the whole POS financial
system collapse. Let the truly strong survive. **** the greedy VCs.


Then, why are you still here?



I am always here. I work in the escape business. We thrive during
crises.


As usual, you missed the point.


No, the point missed me.

The point is at the top of your head.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Mar 30, 7:38*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,





*RHF wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:41*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,

*friendlyneighborhooddisease wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE
PARTNERS and BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP,
MORGAN STANLEY, DEUTSCHE BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA have declined to provide the financing that
they once said they would issue.

Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily
decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court
told them
to live up to their contract.

* I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in
negotiation for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the
company, and earnings projections have all changed. The conditions
under which the letter of commitment were made no longer exist..

* I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is
a bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all
the risk.

Too bad. *A deal is a deal; unless there are event triggered escape
clauses written in, too bad. *I say let the whole POS financial
system collapse. *Let the truly strong survive. ***** the greedy VCs.

* Then, why are you still here?

I am always here. *I work in the escape business. *We thrive during
crises.

- - - As usual, you missed the point.

- - No, the point missed me.

- The point is at the top of your head.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
-

- - Teli - Now that was a good Come-Back
- -
- - It was funny and worth reading.
- -
- - Much better than a simple minded : idiot, retard or moron
- - 'name calling' type of Reply.
- -
- - i knew that you had it in you to be interesting
- - keep-up the good work ~ RHF
- - *.

- I see you didn't care for the movie in the other thread.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
-

Teli - Loved the Movie - Can't Wait to Read the Book ! ~ RHF

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dave wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:
dave wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
CLEAR CHANNEL has agreed to be purchased by THOMAS H. LEE PARTNERS
and BAIN CAPITAL. But lenders including CITIGROUP, MORGAN STANLEY,
DEUTSCHE BANK, CREDIT SUISSE, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND and WACHOVIA
have declined to provide the financing that they once said they
would issue.
Sounds more to me like the banks unilaterally and arbitrarily
decided to pull
out of an ironclad contractual commitment they made, and the court
told them
to live up to their contract.


I'm wondering how ironclad that is. This deal has been in
negotiation for a while, and market conditions, stock values of the
company, and earnings projections have all changed. The conditions
under which the letter of commitment were made no longer exist.

I can't see the courts forcing the banks into a deal they know is a
bad deal, especially when the banks are expected to shoulder all the
risk.

Too bad. A deal is a deal; unless there are event triggered escape
clauses written in, too bad. I say let the whole POS financial system
collapse. Let the truly strong survive. **** the greedy VCs.

Then, why are you still here?


I am always here. I work in the escape business. We thrive during crises.

Sounds like you smoked all the profits.

You a creepy little man.