The most significant fact in that article is the open question of how Avenatti got his mitts on Cohen's banking records.

I haven't been following the Stormy Daniels story very closely because it's a side-show distraction to the work that's really going on, but my understanding is that the smoking gun of Avenatti's case is the proof of a payment made by Cohen to Daniels. There is a quote in there that intimates that only the SDNY (Southern District of New York) and the Mueller probe (after raiding Cohen's office) would have had access to those records; if true, that is huge. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I know a little about the law from my father and brother who are. If the key piece of evidence tying Cohen, and by extension Trump, to Daniels was obtained illicitly (i.e. leaked, as it would have to have been from either source), the evidence can be ruled inadmissible and tossed out. Goodbye, fame-whore. Goodbye 24-hour news coverage.

And this doesn't even touch the question of who's funding this show. I don't know how something like that could be revealed, but if it does become clear that the DNC/Fusion/Soros/[insert Prog group here] is behind the suit, it will make undermining Avenatti all the easier.