Today, once David Boies finishes up with Jamie fairly early, her side is expected to rest. Then, it will be Stephen Susman's turn to call witnesses. Jamie could not recall several key meetings and events in her testimony yesterday, and you can be sure Frank's legal team has assembled an array of folks who will try to fill in the gaps.
First will be the to-this-point mythical Larry Silverstein, the Boston attorney who represented the McCourts in several matters, including the creation and execution of the MPA. While yesterday's action mostly bolstered Frank's claims concerning the effect of the MPA, Jamie's most potent challenge is to its enforceability. The existence of diametrically opposing Exhibits to the Agreement--one specifically including the Dodgers in Frank's separate property, the other specifically excluding the club--is the biggest hurdle Frank must overcome.
He will start today by eliciting testimony from Silverstein that the Dodgers were always meant to be included, Jamie knew it, and she never even knew of the mistaken Exhibit A. It's more than a little surprising that Silverstein elected to show up this week. As you can imagine, the events which led to his involvement in this litigation seem to be either an honest, but dreadful, mistake, or something far more nefarious. It's possible that whichever McCourt loses will believe Silverstein cost their side at least a half-billion dollars. His participation in this litigation is risky, to say the least.
Also expected in court today is Reynolds Cafferata, a lawyer from the same firm as Silverstein, Bingham McCutchen. Cafferata will likely testify to his role in the creation of the MPA. Further, Jamie kept notes from what seems to be a fairly detailed conversation with Cafferata concerning the effect of the MPA. Jamie claims she did not understand what she was writing down; she was merely keeping records. Cafferata may testify to knowledge of Jamie's true understanding of the MPA, which would help Frank's arguments in favor of enforcing the MPA.
On cross, expect David Boies to find out just why Silverstein handled the "mistake" as he did. I don't think it's unfair at all to suggest that, if it was an honest mistake, a more thorough and immediate remedy might have prevented the litigation from dragging out this long. Of course, Jamie's side does not believe it was a mistake. Rather, they contend that her version of Exhibit A was always intended to be executed, and the substitution of the more-favorable-to-Frank Exhibit A was in bad faith.
It will be interesting to see how Silverstein answers Boies on cross. If Frank's story is true, Silverstein might be forced to throw himself under the bus. If Jamie's is true, it's at least possible that we might be steaming toward a conclusion this evening. Susman v. Jamie was expected to be the highlight of the litigation, but her sudden unfamiliarity with basic legal terminology took the wind out of Susman's sails. Frank's side needs today's witnesses to strike a blow, and he needs to avoid land mines in the process. Jamie, represented by the ultra-competent David Boies, will search out those land mines.
Should be a fun day. Stay tuned.
Manny Ramirez’s time in Taiwan is over
23 minutes ago