Warshaw Argues Against Soros Fund Management’s Motion to Strike
In a court filing submitted on Monday (3/2), Connoisseur Media CEO Jeffrey Warshaw presented the Connecticut Superior Court with his reasons why the court should not grant Soros Fund Management’s motion to strike in his suit against the company for breach of contract, unfair trade practices and more. In the original complaint filed in May of 2025, Warshaw alleges that he had a deal with Soros Fund
Management’s Michael Del Nin in 2022 and began working together “to try to acquiring Cox Radio, with Del Nin agreeing that Warshaw would manage the business as CEO upon successful acquisition.” While both parties were doing due diligence on the CMG deal, Warshaw learned that an Audacy majority stake holder was willing to sell its stake in the company. Warshaw says he steered SFM and Del Nin to the deal that made SFM a majority stake holder of the new Audacy in early 2024. Warshaw alleges he was promised he’d be the next CEO of Audacy or that he would get 5% of SFM’s profits from the Audacy acquisition. Later, SFM filed a motion to strike arguing that talks between Del Nin and Warshaw did not rise to the level of an employment offer. In his recent filing with the court, Warshaw says SFM reads “the Complaint in the light least favorable to Plaintiff. And they introduce new facts and make factual arguments that must be left for resolution by a jury at trial. Even so, based on the Complaint’s detailed allegations, Defendants’ arguments fall apart. Defendants ask the Court to believe that Jeffrey Warshaw, a veteran executive and dealmaker in radio, attempted to ‘cozy up’ to Defendants, newcomers to radio. But why did they seek an introduction to Warshaw in the first place? Why did they need Warshaw to source the Audacy transaction, and quickly ask him to introduce them to Audacy’s controlling debtholder? Why did Michael Del Nin call Warshaw 107 times between October 2023 and October 2024? On breach of contract, Defendants argue that the Complaint does not plead definite and certain terms of the contract between Warshaw and SFM. That ignores the definiteness of the contract terms alleged, as well as controlling precedent holding that an oral agreement is enforceable so long as missing terms can be ascertained by fair implication or industry custom. Defendants also downplay the value of Warshaw’s sourcing of the Audacy deal and his introduction of Defendants to the firm holding a controlling interest in Audacy debt.”