second paragraph from link in first post. Comcast is calling it a loan. the Astros are broadcasting fees or are saying we are owed fees so we don't owe them money and Comcast is gonna say they didn't sign carriage agreements like they said they would and they owe us more money which cancels out any fees they think we owe them money has changed hands, and there are stipulations that haven't been filled (according to comast). its not just about payment. I would agree it seems like this would be an easy decision for the judge if they Astros weren't actively trying to walk because that is gonna cause a crap load of more lawsuits. (that being said that is an opinion not based in any legal training)
I don't even know what you're talking about here. Comcast is calling what a loan? The Astros don't owe anyone money - CSN-H owes the Astros money. The Astros didn't file the suit about that. There is already a procedure in place for what happens if CSN-H doesn't pay their fees: the Astros can walk away, which is what they indicated they were going to do. Who is the "they" here? I think you're getting who owes who what confused. Again, the Astros aren't asking for any money from CSN-H here - they didn't file the suit.
the Astros have received money through the partnership. how do you think they paid their expenses Who is the "they" here? I think you're getting who owes who what confused. Again, the Astros aren't asking for any money from CSN-H here - they didn't file the suit.[/QUOTE] did you read the quote? I never said they filed a suit. however they did say there was a failure to pay them rights fees I understand the station is the debtor. the Astros and rockets, and Comcast own the station. who do you think the money came from out of those three partners. so when I say that Comcast lent the money, I talking reality, not who on paper lent it.
Again - I have no idea what you're even trying to argue. You do understand that no one in the filing is actually trying to get money from anyone else in terms of debts owed, right? It's all about control - that's why I am saying the debt is not the issue here. It exists, but none of the parties are arguing about it.
CSN still owes any debts that it authorized. There is some question with respect to what debt was actually authorized properly. The larger loan from Comcast Lender is not in default...but it is still owed by CSN (actually the operating company for the station). There's no mention that any of the partners guaranteed that debt, and I'd say it's unlikely that either the Rockets or Astros would have done so. So CSN continues to owe the debt exactly along the terms of the payment arrangement previously agreed if the bankruptcy is dismissed. I believe Comcast Lender is a secured lender...so outside of bankruptcy, it could very well seek to foreclose on its interest. I don't know if there is an option for Comcast Lender to "call the note" and make all monies due under the note due and payable immediately. My guess is that, if that were the case, they would have called the loan and then thrown CSN into bankruptcy, saying it can't pay its debts as they come due. That would be a stronger position for the creditors. But ultimately Major is correct. No one is arguing that these debts are in default. They filed to slow down the Astros from walking for not being paid for their broadcasting rights....they filed to get a trustee appointed to make decisions in lieu of the partners (to break the stalemate regarding carriage)....and they filed to see if they could buy up all the assets of CSN through an auction run by the trustee. The Astros are arguing back that this is all crap. That's it's all a big ploy by Comcast to buy up assets that a trustee can't transfer anyway (namely, the Astros' and Rockets' broadcast rights). They're saying this isn't about taking care of creditors at all, because the Astros have agreed to backstop all debts owed by CSN to outside creditors (creditors that aren't affiliated with any of the partners). And they're arguing that, technically, the petition for involuntary bankruptcy is insufficient because it doesn't meet the requirements of the bankruptcy code.
I know that and they are both saying I deserve control because that partner OWES ME MONEY. they are arguing about it, are you just gonna ignore that the Astros said in the first link about this that they feel they are owed fees?
they did receive money but they were entitled to other payments that were not made by comcast. The fact that Comcast owes the Astros rights fees, residuals, money (however you want to say it) is not in dispute. I'm also confused as to what you are trying to say. The debts included in the suit are debts that Comcast say they owe Comcast affiliates. The Astros are saying they are not valid because they never agreed to them. The debt that Comcast owes the Astros is not involved in the case other than according to the Astros being the valid reason they have for walking away from the partnership.
They are owed fees by CSN...not by Comcast. They're owed fees by a partnership they are a partner in. No one is saying they deserve control...control has already been agreed to in a partnership agreement. That agreement already spells out who has what voting rights for different types of decisions that the partnership will face. Comcast Creditors are saying that there needs to be a trustee appointed to make decisions on behalf of CSN so that CSN can enter into carriage arrangements. So they're asking the court to appoint a trustee to circumvent the partnership agreement. But no one is saying they should have control because they're owed money.
the Astros say they have issues with the fees. that's from them. secondly, Comcast doesn't owe them fees, the station does. I understand that even though I keep getting told I don't. I understand that csn pays fees to the Astros. I understand that the Astros are part owner of csn.
They didn't say they have issues with the fees. They just stated that they are owed them. The fees that are owed to them, however, have nothing do with the bankruptcy filing - the Astros did not file and are not party to the bankruptcy filing. They are not asking CSN-H to pay those fees here.
The Astros are owed fees, but they have not initiated any legal proceedings (in the bankruptcy or otherwise) to get them. There not a pleading before the Court from the Astros asking the Court to grant them some of relief with respect to those fees. The fact they were owed fees that haven't been paid is a default of the broadcast agreement...and after 90 days of non-payment, they were allowed to terminate the broadcast agreement. They were 3 days away from that when the bankruptcy was filed.
Newest filing is a summons to CSN (the debtor) requiring CSN to file a response to the Petition for Involuntary Bankruptcy. Keep in mind, there has to be unanimous agreement between the parties (Comcast/Astros/Rockets) to file a voluntary bankruptcy petition on behalf of CSN. So who gets to hire an attorney on behalf of CSN to get a response in on this involuntary proceeding? Who gets to frame the response on behalf of CSN when a partner's affiliates are the only petitioners in the involuntary proceeding? Who has the authority to get a response taken care of and give shape to its argument? I'm asking, because I seriously don't know. My guess is it's not directly addressed in the partnership agreement...and the closest corollary is the fact that it takes unanimous consent of the partners to file a voluntary bankruptcy on behalf of the partnership. Interesting stuff to nerds like me. Do you know, Carl?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Astros accuse Comcast of trying to cheat team out of share of network: <a href="http://t.co/QHblEIpuRA">http://t.co/QHblEIpuRA</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/390251309720285184">October 15, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Comcast: CSN Houston will not survive if Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is dismissed: <a href="http://t.co/iDM2Bmwpxu">http://t.co/iDM2Bmwpxu</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/390293517869645825">October 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Astros threaten to take game broadcasts away from CSN Houston
It isn't a contingent claim if services with a known price are rendered. If Comcast Partner acted with apparent authority (and the affiliate didn't know the details of the partnership agreement), they could certainly bind the other partners. I understand what you are saying. I don't even necessarily disagree with you. However, when these things go before a bankruptcy judge, it isn't a slam dunk.
This is a mess. You have a debtor who may not have authority to file a response possibly facing a motion for sanctions if hey do not file a response. CSN is in a no win situation here. Yikes.
It's pretty obvious that Jim Crane lied about cockblocking the Rockets season last year, that's for sure.
Nothing before any court is EVER a slam dunk. Just seems the strongest argument is that the issue presented by the Astros creates AT THE VERY LEAST a "bona fide" dispute as to the debt. It's a contingent claim because there is a dispute behind it with respect to whether CSN actually incurred the debt...doesn't mean there isn't a valid debt incurred by Comcast Partner. But whether it's a valid debt or not isn't even what the court is to consider....all they're to consider is whether there is a legitimate claim that puts the debt in dispute with respect to the debtor. I can't imagine how there's not if that clause really is in the partnership agreement and they really didn't get approval from the Rockets and Astros.
