I haven't read the recent part of this thread closely, but: 1. I agree with Refman that to fully litigate an appeal of the order for relief will be very time consuming. 2. However, one thing to note is that just because this order is being appealed, it doesn't mean that everybody involved in this case just stop doing everything else and watch this appeal. It's more like a "walk and talk" situation where people still go on with other aspects of this mess while the appeal goes forward. Specifically, 1) the business negotiations for new carriage deals and a new structure of CSNH will still happen, and 2) unless the court orders that the Bankruptcy Court's order for relief (i.e. the order that puts CSNH under chapter 11 protection) be "stayed," that order for relief is an effective order and CSNH is under chapter 11 protection while the appeal goes on and the parties get to have fun doing all of the usual chapter 11 fun stuff. 3. One of these "chapter 11 fun stuff" that will probably happen soon is that Astros will request that they be allowed to terminate the media rights contract between CSNH and the Astros despite the fact that CSNH is under chapter 11 protection. I am not quite sure where the legal merits lie, but it looks like that Judge Isgur is leaning toward "no" as an answer because if the Astros can take back their media rights despite chapter 11 protection, then it would be hard to see how CSNH can reorganize or succeed as a business while only broadcasting Rockets games. Granting the Astros' request would seem to defeat the whole point of putting CSNH in chapter 11. But then again, I am pretty sure whatever ruling Judge Isgur makes here, and whatever ruling he makes on a plan of reorganization or asset sale, should we come to a point that he has to make contesting rulings on these issues, can also get appealed. 4. Anyways, the parties will have to be (and have already been) multitasking. They'll litigate and negotiate at the same time, and my guess is that eventually there will be some sort of consensual settlement among the parties-- it may take the bankruptcy court and higher courts making some rulings in favor of one side or another in order for the parties to reach that point, however, in order to narrow the gap between the different expectations of the sides.
Obviously my previous post assumes a stay pending appeal. In this case, there is a good argument for a stay pending appeal. Since the appeal is appealing the entry of an order for relief, if the case were allowed to proceed, at some point the appeal would become moot. I am much less optimistic than you regarding the parties reaching consensus. These are three entities that simply cannot reach a consensus on anything. I can easily see a situation where every order of the Court is appealed by somebody. Barring a surprise, this case will be messy and protracted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>ICYMI: Update on latest moves in CSN Houston saga <a href="http://t.co/rhNZ5hmwbI">http://t.co/rhNZ5hmwbI</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/432195109585563648">February 8, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, yeah. If the parties do want to pursue the "mutual destruction" route, they can. Doesn't make any rational economic sense, but these things can happen. If each side is determined to fight to the death. I guess we'll get stuck for a long time with CSNH not being able to sort out its governance question and sign carriage deals and the Astros not being able to take back their media rights, either, all while we go through various litigations and appeals. But in my experience, most business entities and business people end up making a rational decision at some point, the question is how much each side has to lose in terms of legal fees and economic opportunities before we reach that point.
That tends to be true. Most of the practice of law involves keeping your clients out of court. However, in this situation, the parties have become so married to their position and there is such acrimony that I think salvaging the relationship left the building. Honestly, I thought that Judge Isgur's first order in this case allowing a negotiating period with some harsh words from the bench would have been the collective wake up call. It wasn't. There is a reasonable probability that they slug it out for the distance.
The appeal has been assigned to Judge Hughes. This means that the appeal will first be heard in the District Court. It is likely that the losing party will appeal to the Circuit. The briefs will be interesting. If I were the Astros, I would focus my brief on the requirements of Section 303 for an involuntary petition and argue that those requirements were not met.
Hard to say. I haven't researched the case law on the relevant Code sections. A lot of it is going to depend on the briefing done by the attorneys and the argument at hearing.
It would seem to me that an appeal of a bankruptcy would be rare of course this is far from a typical case.
Appeals are filed from bankruptcy court rulings frequently. Bankruptcy is like any other area of law in that appellate opinions interpret the statute and those opinions shape future pleadings and argument in the bankruptcy courts.
There are many appeals filed for the actual bankruptcy ruling by the judge or for the judges rulings throughout the reorganization process? Don't get me wrong, I have zero experience in this area, but it seems to me unless you have one party who disagrees a partnership like this should go in to bankruptcy in the first place that there would not be many appeals on the original bankruptcy ruling. Then again, there may be a lot of situations just like this. Note-I am not debating you on this rather just curious because I admit I know nothing about this sort of thing.
I don't think you are debating with me...just trying to understand. I do appreciate that you wanted to make that clear though. The vast majority of bankruptcy petitions are voluntary. Voluntary petitions do not require a hearing or a ruling on whether the debtor entity should be in bankruptcy. If an entity files a voluntary petition, a creditor or the US Trustee can file a motion to dismiss if the entity does not qualify to be in bankruptcy or if they fail to persecute the case or fail to meet time deadlines. However, those motions are very different from the question of whether an involuntary petition was proper. I doubt that there are a lot of appeals of the entry of an order for relief in an involuntary case largely because there just aren't that many involuntary cases. It is important to note though that there have been appeals of this issue before and ere is case law on the subject. I admittedly haven't read the case law, but I do know it is out there. The legal standards articulated in the case law on point will be used to craft the appellate argument for each side. That is the reason I said that the briefs and argument will be paramount in the appeal. This should be interesting.
Thanks for the clarification. I would rep you for it but I get this message "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Refman again.":grin:
That's what I thought from the beginning (and still think). Didn't seem the Astros spent much time focusing on that issue at the hearing, though.
True. However, the Astros are specifically appealing the entry of an order for relief. That is the entire issue on appeal. There is not an issue regarding the appointment of a trustee or an examiner. I think that will make a difference in how this is litigated. Since (from what I can tell from the tweets from the hearings) there was not much argument about the requirements of Section 303, I fear that the District Court could reverse and remand for further proceedings in the bankruptcy court,
