After a New York state court judge dismissed Stern's suit with prejudice, his show's Twitter feed suggests that the shock jock is considering an appeal of the ruling.
Howard Stern has been left disappointed by the recent dismissal of his lawsuit against Sirius XM. Shortly after words came out that a New York state court judge has ruled in favor of the satellite radio company, a tweet from "The Howard Stern Show" account revealed how the shock jock felt about the decision.
"Howard is really bummed that a judge has dismissed his lawsuit against Sirius," the tweet posted on Tuesday, April 17 read. It further unraveled that the radio personality, who is replacing Piers Morgan as a judge on "America's Got Talent", isn't staying quiet about it since he "plans on appealing."
Howard filed a lawsuit against his bosses at American radio network Sirius XM in March 2011 over allegations they have failed to pay him performance-based bonuses. The shock jock also alleged that his employers have reneged on an agreement to hand over stock options if the company exceeded its subscriber estimates by two million or more listeners.
His hopes for a $300 million payday from the satellite radio company, however, were crushed when New York state court judge Barbara Kapnick dismissed his suit on Monday, April 16. In her ruling, the judge said that Howard couldn't count XM's nearly 10 million subscribers in calculating his bonus, adding that the language of his contract was clear and unambiguous.
"At the time the parties entered into the Agreement, it is clear that the only subscribers that the parties considered part of the 'total number of Sirius subscribers' for purposes of calculating 'Performance Based Stock Compensation' were those individuals who subscribed to the Sirius radio system," the judge wrote in her decision.
The judge further dismissed Stern's lawsuit "with prejudice," meaning the 58-year-old can't bring another case based on the same set of facts. Sirius XM, which now has more than 21 million subscribers, has on Tuesday, April 17 stated as part of a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, "The court found the agreement unambiguous and that we had complied with all our obligations under the agreement."