Not really knowing anything more about legal issues than what I see on Law & Order, I confess to being among those who focused too tightly on the injunction handed down today against Par Ridder, tossing him out of the Star Tribune for one year. Obviously, the injunction was designed to remove Ridder from a situation where he could continue doing “irreparable harm” to the Pioneer Press. Now … things could get really interesting.
Or not.
My esteemed former competitor/arch rival, Deborah Rybak, recently separated from the Star Tribune and soon to join me here in a bigger, far better, far hipper Slaughter, sought out attorney Ron Rosenbaum, KSTP-TV’s legal expert.
Her report:
.
.
.
Here’s what everyone missed yesterday in their rush to tell Par Ridder, “Hey, don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out”: Injunction aside, this case is HARDLY over.
The injunction is just one step (albeit a big one) in the process, confirms our legally fluent buddy Ron Rosenbaum. Singleton’s legal team originally asked for the injunction because, it claimed, Par and pals couldn’t be allowed to stay in their jobs and keep harming the PiPress until the case meandered to trial.
“It was a huge victory, but it doesn’t end the case,” said Rosenbaum.
“The finding of harm [that Ridder misappropriated and distributed PiPress confidential documents] also means that–more likely than not–the plaintiffs would prevail at trial. But with a finding like this, I doubt this case will ever go to trial.”
In other words, gentlemen at Avista, open your checkbooks and let the settlement talks begin!
Settlement overtures were allegedly made more than once by Avista during the run-up to the Ridder hearing in June, but Dean Singleton, out for blood, wasn’t interested. So has he proved his point now? Singleton told Editor and Publisher Tuesday that he was, “happy with the ruling but didn’t want to see it play out in a courtroom.”
Still, in trying to reach a settlement, Rosenbaum thinks putting a price tag on the damage caused by Par’s PiPress spreadsheet heist and distribution may be tough. “It’s not easy to know what the access to that information is worth and how it benefited the Strib.”
So it’s possible that settlement talks could break down and nudge Singleton back into court. Early chatter had the MediaNews titan dedicated to ensuring that Ridder never ran the Strib again. In light of the judge’s ruling, will Avista now balk at that demand? Who knows? Nobody can quite figure out why these guys have backed him for this long. Newsroom sources and others speculate that Ridder may resign from the paper in the days to come. At least, that would seem to be the classy thing to do…
Other newsroom gossip has former publisher Keith Moyer coming back to run what’s left of the paper. After all, it was Moyer who called some Strib reporters to compliment them on their reporting in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse. Ridder never bothered.
In the meantime, Judge Higgs has ordered Avista to fork over Singleton’s legal fees and other costs for his efforts to date, which he told E&P totaled about $5 million.
Rosenbaum said back in June that he never understood the Strib’s defense. With Tuesday’s decision, “the chickens have come home to roost. Par tried to play fast and loose with the facts and the law, and the Court did what it’s supposed to — make the aggrieved party whole. So good riddance to Par Ridder, he got what he deserved.”‘
Rosenbaum was openly contemptuous of Avista honcho-turned-interim publisher Chris Harte’s company-wide statement that Avista found the judge’s decision “unexpected.”
“I doubt very seriously he was surprised. I doubt that any lawyer who advised him to be surprised ever went to law school.” Rosenbaum’s derision excluded Avista’s local hired gun Bob Weinstine: “He’s a first-class lawyer and litigator. I doubt very seriously that Bob was surprised; he’s too smart for that.”
Rosenbaum also opined that Ridder’s mini-reign of terror might never have happened had Randy Lebedoff — the Strib’s recently reinstalled in-house counsel — been in place at the time of his hiring. Now, Rosenbaum says, “I assume that she will bring good counsel to a case that is nothing more than a huge black eye and an embarrassment to what used to be a venerable institution.”
.
.
(Thank you, partner. Back to Lambert.)
My question is this:
Dean Singleton would appear to be holding a very good hand — make that “extraordinarily good.” Judge Higgs’ decision essentially confirms that Singleton’s case is rock solid. (He wouldn’t have granted an injunction if it wasn’t.) Conversely, Avista is stuck with squat. A pair of twos, at best.
So why, looking at the millionaire gimps across the table, wouldn’t Singleton press on for punitive damages?
As I understand it, a push for punitive damages would grant Singleton access to something Avista’s close-mouthed, close-to-the-vest partnership would never ever want … namely, full disclosure of their worth. The mere thought of having to lay out who Avista actually is and what is in their tax returns would be enough — you’d think — for them to approach Singleton on bleeding knees — pleading for a settlement that puts a bullet through the head of this beast.
Dan Oberdorfer, one of Singleton’s attorneys from Leonard, Street and Deinard, was tight-lipped this afternoon about where his client might go next. “Let’s just say we are pleased with today’s decision.” If I were Oberdorfer I wouldn’t screw up a good deal trending bigger and better by the minute by making any irrationally (or rationally) exuberant comments to the press either.
So here’s my speculative analysis, based on following this tawdry, but outrageously expensive saga for the past few months. (One inside-Strib source, not a check-to-check reporter, puts Avista’s legal bill well north of Singleton’s. So, get out your calculators, Avista could very likely be looking at a legal bill of, at minimum, $10 million or more … to date. And for purposes of perspective, I am advised that $3 million buys 40 reporters per year at $65k plus $10k in benefits.)
As much as Singleton may have been annoyed by Ridder’s cavalier disregard for professional ethics, I’m still not buying that what he wanted most is to see the little rich kid slapped down in open court, or even to be proven right in his interpretation of ethical publishing. All that strikes me as too small potatoes for an operator like Singleton. This is a guy who sees himself as the only real newspaper man in what is very quickly devolving to a one-newspaper universe here in Minneapolis-St.Paul.
My guess is that Singleton, someone who understands the meaning of the word “ruthless,” sees Par Ridder’s almost adolescent bungling as a gift … which he can exploit to create very serious suffering for a group of dilettante publishers (Avista) who were hoping to make a quick killing and blow out of town without scuffing their tassled loafers.
The end game to this scenario has a battered Avista, already watching every Star Tribune revenue indicator fall into the toilet, becoming receptive to a fire-sale buy-out offer — from Singleton — years before they originally planned.
Here is an excellent Editor & Publisher story on the current state of Twin Cities newspaper finances.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply