The stalking horse bid wasn't for a liquidation. That was in the event that the entire network was put for sale to operate as a going concern. If it turns into a liquidation, the network would no longer be a going concern. It is a big difference.
Crane has said from beginning that media rights are not transferable. There is specific language saying media rights go back to Astros if a trustee is assigned. MLB has rights to show national games and had no agreement with CSN. The limits on MLB are unknown, but MLB probably is hesitant to test their powers to their limits on behalf of the Astros as it would the other teams when they try to negotiate local media rights. PS I hate auto correct.
Thread was started for news about CSN Please take the other junk elsewhere, there are forums on the site or that kind of junk CSN news goes here please
Related article: http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-sp-baseball-shaikin-20140601-story.html Dodgers, TWC could take legal action over SportsNet LA Bill Shaikin This is not the first time the Dodgers moved to a new cable television channel that most of their fans could not see. The Dodgers have been virtually invisible to much of Southern California this season. The SportsNet LA blackout hit its most infuriating level last Sunday, when fans could hear that Josh Beckett was closing in on a no-hitter but could not see it. The channel now known as Prime Ticket launched in 1997, with the Dodgers as the featured attraction but with cable companies declining to sign up. Fox Sports challenged that blackout in court. As the SportsNet LA impasse extends into a fourth month, the Dodgers and Time Warner Cable are considering whether legal action might help get the team on the air. Dodgers President Stan Kasten, who was trained as an antitrust lawyer, and TWC spokeswoman Maureen Huff each declined comment for this column. At issue: Are all the cable and satellite operators saying no to SportsNet LA acting independently or collectively? The latter would be a violation of antitrust law. That is what Fox alleged in its 1997 suit, arguing that a "plainly anticompetitive boycott" triggered by "concerted activity" among cable operators could be the only reason for the widespread rejection of Prime Ticket, "particularly given its popular scheduled Dodgers telecasts." The response from the defendants: "This 'conspiracy' allegation … is nothing more than an effort by Fox to blame everyone but itself for the unattractiveness of its new and costly product." That, Dodgers fans, is exactly where we are today. Just substitute "Time Warner Cable" for "Fox" in the last paragraph, then put the word "costly" in bold face, and you have precisely what DirecTV would say about SportsNet LA. TWC says its asking price for SportsNet LA is fair. DirecTV and other carriers say it isn't. No one releases actual dollar figures, so the comparable situations each side can cite amount to little more than rhetoric. However, when TWC launched its Lakers channel two years ago, the counter-arguments were the same as they are now: too much money, too many sports channels, too high a bill for customers. Within two weeks of the start of the Lakers' season, all cable and satellite providers had signed on (with the exception of Dish, which still does not carry the Lakers channel). The smaller carriers signed up first, followed by DirecTV. This time, no major provider has signed on, and so DirecTV is not at risk of losing subscribers to anyone except TWC. In an antitrust suit, TWC would get laughed out of court if the only evidence was that no one is carrying the channel, said Daniel Lazaroff, professor of sports law and antitrust law at Loyola Law School. "If people are refusing to deal with Time Warner unilaterally, making their own business decisions," Lazaroff said, "I don't see a problem with that." What TWC would need, he said, is some evidence that the carriers had agreed to draw a line in the sand against SportsNet LA. DirecTV Chief Executive Mike White, discussing options for dealing with rising programming costs, said this on May 15, at an industry conference in New York: "… the distributors start to stand together, like most of us have been doing in Los Angeles for the first time ever, by the way, with the Dodgers on outrageous increases and excesses." Cox spokesman Todd Smith said his company has no agreement with DirecTV, or anyone else, on a joint negotiating stance regarding SportsNet LA. "We can't do that," Smith said. "We don't have direct conversations with the other guys on issues like this." DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer said White was referring to the greater context of other sports channels that are not on the air, and not just in the Los Angeles market. "It seems that many of the distributors have independently reached the same conclusion," Mercer said. "With all the top college conferences and individual teams creating their own overpriced channels, many families can no longer bear the cost of having to pay for every single one." Still, the 'stand together' part of White's comment could be useful to TWC, Lazaroff said. "Do I think it's relevant? Yes," Lazaroff said. "Do I think it's enough? No." Here's the catch-22: A court probably would throw out an antitrust suit without some reasonable evidence, yet the court would have to let the suit proceed in order for TWC to get the legal authorization to pursue such evidence. It's not as if DirecTV would make White available to TWC attorneys just to be nice. That, Lazaroff suggests, is why TWC might be better off trying to interest the Dept. of Justice or state attorney general — each of which has subpoena power — into looking into the matter. James Hornstein, the co-counsel for Fox in that 1997 suit, said antitrust suits are expensive to fight and difficult to win, and they can take years to resolve. The Fox suit was settled, and it is possible that settlement talks could provide leverage to get SportsNet LA on the air. But Hornstein said he thought political pressure might be more effective, particularly given that the SportsNet LA deal removed almost all Dodgers games from free, over-the-air television. On Friday, representatives for TWC and DirecTV assured Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti that the two sides still were in negotiations, according to Jeff Millman, a spokesman for Garcetti. Let's hope they really are talking, and they're not just trying to pacify the mayor. Legal or political intervention almost assuredly would extend the blackout through this season. In any case, if the Dodgers and TWC wanted to get the guy Lazaroff said is the best antitrust lawyer in town, they would have to wait. He was co-counsel with Hornstein on the 1997 Fox suit. His name is Maxwell Blecher, and he's busy now, representing Donald Sterling.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/...-for-reorganization-plan-in-csn-houston-case/ Deadline nears for reorganization plan in CSN Houston case Posted on June 2, 2014 | By David Barron Wednesday could be a significant day in the Comcast SportsNet Houston case. June 4th will mark 120 days since U.S. District Judge Marvin Isgur placed the network’s parent company, Houston Regional Sports Network, under Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. As such, it’s the deadline for Haynes and Boone, the law firm that was appointed by the court to represent HSRN, to submit a plan of reorganization to the court. Chapter 11, as those of you who have been following the case recall, allows a financially troubled entity to stay in business while it reorganizes its affairs. The entity has an exclusive 120-day period to file a plan of reorganization, and the deadline in this case arrives Wednesday. Henry Flores, who along with colleague Charles Beckham handles the case for the law firm’s Houston office, said he would not have any comment on the firm’s plans in the CSN Houston case. Based on past court proceedings, however, it would not be a surprise for the reorganization plan to do away with the unanimous consent rule that requires all three network partners – Comcast, the Astros and the Rockets – to agree on matters of significance, including carriage agreements. The plan also is supposed to outline a path to profitability for the network, so perhaps it will include proposals for capital infusion from current network partners or perhaps new partners. As usual in this case, the unknowns outweigh the known factors. It is likely that the Astros would oppose an end to the unanimous consent rule, but that decision could wind up in Isgur’s hands. Also a mystery is Comcast’s intentions. The network initially said it would enter a stalking horse bid to purchase the network out of bankruptcy but reversed field in March. “Comcast initiated this bankruptcy proceeding in the belief that the Chapter 11 process would permit the network to reorganize, thus preserving the network’s value and the jobs of many employees,” the network said. “Much has happened, however, in the nearly six months since this involuntary case was filed. In view of these developments, Comcast is no longer prepared to purchase the network. “Comcast remains open to considering any proposal by the debtor for reorganizing the network successfully in Chapter 11, including through an auction or through further efforts to obtain additional carriage.” None of the parties have commented on what to expect Wednesday. Things have been quiet on the CSN Houston front recently, so perhaps work has been taking place behind the scenes with potential investors. Rockets CEO Tad Brown said in January that the team had met with representatives of several companies, including Fox Sports, Time Warner (which subsequently announced a merger deal with Comcast), DirecTV, AT&T (which subsequently announced plans to buy DirecTV), entertainment conglomerate AEG and private equity companies, including KKR & Co., Providence Equity Partners and Guggenheim Partners. There have been no public discussions of the matter, however, since February. Meanwhile, there are a few other developments in the CSN Houston saga and its related cases, and, no, none of them will have an impact on when or if those of you don’t have access to the channel will get it. Attorneys for Comcast and former Astros owner Drayton McLane have filed motions asking that the suit filed against them by Astros owner Jim Crane’s Houston Baseball Partners ownership group be heard by U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, not by Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur. Comcast says the issues in the case, in which Crane and his partners accuse McLane and Comcast of conspiring to withhold information about CSN Houston from Crane during negotiations to sell the team, are “non-core” to the bankruptcy case and thus should be moved to district court. They also say that moving the case to Hughes’ court would expedite the bankruptcy process, and they note that Houston Baseball Partners has requested a jury trial in the case. McLane’s attorneys support moving the case to Hughes’ court, in part because Isgur has said he lacks jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract charge against McLane Champions, the corporate name for the entity that owned the Astros when they were owned by the McLane family. Hughes, they say, would have authority to hear the entire case. “Subjecting McLane Champions, to two separate lawsuits, one in state court and one in federal court, both of which arise out of the same transaction and the same operative facts, would not promote judicial economy,” McLane’s attorneys argue. The Astros, meanwhile, want the case moved back to state court, where it was filed last fall. In a separate matter, McLane Champions has filed suit in federal court in Waco against National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh. McLane claims that National Union has failed to meet the terms of a policy purchased by McLane Champions that provides coverage for management liability, professional liability and other causes. Next up on the court calendar is a June 12 status conference and a June 23 hearing on the Houston Baseball Partners lawsuit. Both are scheduled before Isgur.
That's a huge unlikely hope that would open years more of litigation, long after CSN could no longer afford to pay anybody (and would get MLB and the NBA involved if it involved re-assignage). What happened to "they should honor the deal they all signed/agreed to"?
You are assuming a lot. 1. That a plan is timely filed. 2. That CSN can obtain DIP financing or a cash call. 3. That a prospectus showing a path to profitability can be shown as an exhibit to the plan. 4. That, even if consent is waived, carriage agreements can be reached that lead to actual profits. None of these are a given. Even if all of those things happen, there is no guarantee that such plan would meet all the requirements of Section 1125. If it doesn't, it won't be confirmed.
We can wait until Wednesday and see... kinda like we did when you said no way ATT would be interested in the Network. The court sees that there are still parties interested in the Network so that's a good sign that some kinda plan will be put in place to hopefully capitalize on that interest.
Its funny because you said nobody would be interested in going after the team's media rights... but they're all expected to buyout the network (which includes paying all the debt owed to the teams, and honor the previous rights fees agreements). Its all talk... and I'm not expecting anything "illuminating" on Wednesday that all parties will magically agree to. If anything, I expect that they've all made their moves behind the scenes and are just waiting for the inevitable end to this saga to move on.
Here's what I said... Things could have changed when the ATT merger was announced and that development was what I was commenting on. An article came out regarding recent developements that supported my opinion. This kinda stuff is why I don't like responding to you.
Actually, this is what you originally said: "Regarding things that are clear.....Fox doesn't have to offer the teams big money now. Where are they going to go?" One thing that is becoming more and more clear... the teams would have been on widespread tv by now without this bankruptcy farce. Find me one shred of evidence that supports the contrary. Odds are, the threat of more legal action exists vs. an actual "solution" forthcoming on Wednesday... I'll be pleasantly surprised if it all works out without the channel going away.
Geezus.... I just told you that things changed with the latest merger.... Even then read what you wrote.. I didn't say then or now that anyone was going to pay Big Money (what Crane wants) ATT acquiring DTV provided them with a larger chunk of viewers and if they bought CSN H they'd have Comcast and likely TWC locked in. Throw in the fact they'd likely buy the Network on the cheap and not have to pay partners = profitable network. What evidence do you have to 100% assure us that the teams would be on widespread TV now?
The DTV / AT&T merger actually makes a purchase of CSN by either much less likely. Regulatory review of this merger is going to be a bear, and likely very lengthy. By the time regulatory is done, CSN H will either be sold or liquidated. Seeing as how companies don't like to do anything to rock the boat pending regulatory, I just don't see either even considering a bid on the network during regulatory review of the merger.
Fair enough. My point about profitability stands. Let's assume that veto is out the window. If Comcast (negotiating) agrees to the offer made by DTV previously, the judge is unlikely to approve it. He already called that deal "rotten."
This thing is so complicated. The Network deal could be considered rotten because now the market indicates the Network overpaid the teams for their media rights. If the Judge tosses this, I'm ok with it. It just seems like he would have done that early on if that were going to happen. Staying tuned for the latest update tomorrow.
