Clarifying issues in PR guru’s suit

There’s an old saying that cobblers’ children have no shoes. So it was that Mike Sitrick chose to make his case in court, rather than in the media, over a private financial dispute (“PR Guru’s Public Spat Over a Debt,” Oct. 21).

The case against Ryan Kavanaugh does not hinge on his ability to pay at the time of Sitrick’s judgment against Kavanaugh, nor his net worth in November 2002, but rather on the accuracy of his written representation that he had assets of $100,000 or less at the time of a 2002 agreement with Sitrick. We remain confident we can prove in court that Kavanaugh’s representation was not accurate.

The story noted that Sitrick and Kavanaugh “signed ... a covenant, which among other things provided that Sitrick would ‘never’ seek to enforce the judgment.” In fact, that covenant is expressly conditioned on a clause in that same document stating that any inaccuracy of Kavanaugh’s written representation that he had less than $100,000 in assets at the time of signature vitiates any agreement by Sitrick not to execute on the judgment.

The story states that (in our initial application) we “made no mention of Sitrick’s 2002 agreement not to enforce the judgment, only vaguely referring to it in a footnote.” Not only did the footnote refer to the parties’ agreement, but the application also attached a Wall Street Journal article that mentioned it. Moreover, within days after the court issued the order restraining Kavanaugh from disposing of or secreting certain assets, Kavanaugh’s attorneys were in court not once but several times waving the covenant and asking the judge to vacate the order, a request he repeatedly denied.

The story also noted that the court “granted Sitrick an injunction, in effect ordering a lien placed on all of Kavanaugh’s assets and income, tying his business in knots.” We believe the effect of the order has been grossly exaggerated. The parties negotiated numerous “carve-outs” intended to provide Kavanaugh the funds necessary to pay all reasonable personal and business expenses.

Finally, the dispute between Sitrick and Kavanaugh would have been tried on Oct. 13 but for Kavanaugh’s successful efforts to postpone that evidentiary hearing through a stay of the Sept. 18 order. (We are confident the appellate court will clarify or modify the stay to allow the evidentiary hearing and other proceedings to go forward.) We believe the fact that Kavanaugh and his lawyer had the opportunity to show up and put on their case and they did everything in their power to avoid doing so says it all.

Patricia Glaser

Attorney for Michael Sitrick