I agree, Granville. I have lots of questions about ALL of that...from both directions. EDIT: Follow up on Crane's responsibility to CSN-H. If I'm the guys who invested into the Astros, I'm far more concerned with his fiduciary duties to me than I am with his duties to CSN-H. He can't serve all masters. I don't know how that resolves itself. I looked through the pleadings this morning from both sides, and I didn't get any clarity on that. There's case law pointing in both directions. It's a catch-22.
I did...I forgot about it until you just said that, but I'm sure that's why it popped into my head when I was writing that post. He's right. Crane has two masters (maybe more). Investors who poured money in for the purchase of the team...and partners in CSN-H.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>We again are starting with the argument about who should be responsible before the court for the bankrupt network.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433344921261457408">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Astros continue to argue that board members should not have to favor the best interests of the network over the best interest of the team.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433345873016131584">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Astros lawyer Harry Perrin: “I’ve been through a divorce myself, and you know when you’ve had enough and know when it’s not working. ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433349799035678720">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>"... I think Mr. Crane has had enough, and he wants to enforce his pre-nuptual agreement.”</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433349901397676032">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast lawyer Craig Goldblatt says CSNH directors “have an obligation under federal law to do what is best for the bankruptcy estate,” ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433351636505743360">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>So it is not futile, Goldblatt says, for the Chapter 11 case to continue.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433351748049043456">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Isgur: "I find that the stay should not be granted." He now is in the midst of a lengthy explanation of his reasoning.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433358227183382528">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Judge Isgur: “I think there is no shot of this on appeal. … The appeal has no merit in its likelihood of success.”</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433359917949272065">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>More from Judge Isgur: “Public interest is an important factor. These teams are important to our community. Putting a stay in place ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433360957486542848">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>"means that we are going to keep these programs off TV longer and I think the community I live in wants to have to have them on TV faster."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433361138927951874">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>By the way, Astros general counsel Giles Kibbe has now taken the Astros' slot on the CSNH board previously held by Jim Crane.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/433361536065626112">February 11, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Go read the closed thread there are several posters who claim that Crane didn't need to look out for CSN H. They were wrong again.
Sure, Crane has to "look out" for CSN... till its no longer functional as a company (bankrupt), and they can't even generate enough revenue to pay the rights fees to themselves. You disagree that Crane doesn't need to look out for the Astros as his #1 priority? The judge is going to make a ruling that attempts to solve the problem of the company running out of money, and trying to get the teams on TV... but it doesn't mean that it will be worth it financially to either team.
http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterocke...ttorneys-clearance-to-reoragnize-csn-houston/ Judge gives attorneys clearance to reoragnize CSN Houston Posted on February 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm by David Barron in CSN Houston A federal bankruptcy judge refused Tuesday to delay proceedings in the Comcast SportsNet Houston case, clearing the way for attorneys to proceed with efforts to reorganize the bankrupt regional sports network while the Astros try to get the Chapter 11 order overturned. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur said he did not believe the Astros would succeed in their appeal and that it is in the public interest for CSN Houston, which airs Rockets and Astros games, to have a chance at reorganization. “These teams are important to our community,” Isgur said. “Putting a stay in place means that we are going to keep these programs off TV longer, and I think the community that I live in wants to have to have them on TV faster. That’s what everybody has told me.” Isgur earlier this month approved Chapter 11 status, which allows the network to stay in business while it reorganizes, over the objections of the Astros, which own 46.5 percent of the company to 31 percent for the Rockets and 22.5 percent for Comcast/NBC Universal. Comcast has been unable to arrange carriage deals for the network, resulting in limited viewership and limited revenue and the network’s inability to pay tens of millions in rights fees owed the Astros and Rockets. The Astros have appealed Isgur’s order granting Chapter 11 status to U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, who could require several weeks to rule. In the meantime, the Astros asked Isgur to delay implementation of any effort to reorganize the network. “I think there is no shot of this on appeal,” Isgur said. “… The appeal has no merit in its likelihood of success.” Citing CSN Houston’s inability to pay rights fees, the Astros want to regain their broadcast rights and seek a new television partner. They also claim that by placing the network in bankruptcy, Comcast has triggered a clause in the partnership agreement that will enable them to leave the network, which would signal its demise. “I’ve been through a divorce myself, and you know when you’ve had enough and know when it’s not working,” said Houston attorney Harry Perrin, who represents Astros owner Jim Crane. “I think Mr. Crane has had enough, and he wants to enforce his prenuptial agreement.” Comcast attorney Craig Goldblatt, however, argued that the network can be reorganized successfully and said federal law requires board members to act in the best interests of the bankrupt network, not in the best interest of the team, if there is a conflict. “It is by no means futile to allow this case to proceed,” he said. “They (CSN Houston directors) have an obligation under federal law to do what is best for the bankruptcy estate.” The CSN Houston board is made up of four members – two representing Comcast and one representing each team. Rockets CEO Tad Brown represents the Rockets, and Perrin said Tuesday that Giles Kibbe, the Astros’ general counsel, will replace Crane as the Astros representative. Crane has complained that the only carriage proposal presented to the board by Comcast/NBC would result in the loss of up to $200 million for the network over a decade, potentially wiping out the Astros’ and Rockets’ equity. Isgur said those proposals were “appropriately rejected” by the Astros but noted Crane’s testimony during a hearing last fall that the network could succeed with the right business plan. The Rockets agree with Comcast that the network should stay under Chapter 11 supervision. Attorney Alan Gover, who represents the team, said delays in resolving the case so the Rockets can receive their broadcast rights fees “is an enormous burden” on the team and that the reorganization effort should proceed. “The network has been selling its (the Rockets’) product without having to pay the ontent provider,” he said. “The continuation of that state is highly burdensome to the Rockets.”
Lawyers - can you explain this part and what relevance it has? It seems to me that what the community wants is kind of irrelevant to how a privately owned business' potential bankruptcy would be handled. I would understand if wer were talking about public safety or some critical public service, but does the interest of sports fans and their desire to watch basketball or baseball right now really affect how to handle a case like this and shape 20 years worth of TV deals?
Judge Isgur has said and done some odd things. Why is he commenting to the media on the likelihood of the Astros appeal being a success? He really needs to be professional and make no statements.
He isnt just commenting out of the blue. That is his reasoning behind denying the stay. Would you rather he just denied it without giving a reason?
I don't understand the argument that keeping this in a Chapter 11 process will get the teams on the air sooner than dismissing the BK. But oh, well.
Isn't there an inherent conflict of interest any time three separate businesses form a joint venture and populate the board? If you assume that the Astros broadcast rights are not transferrable and that the Astros will not lose veto power to Comcast then I'm not sure what purpose Chapter 11 serves. Does Isgur think one of those two assumptions are not true? When the Astros gave up their veto temporarily for the Rockets to work deals they didn't even happen to the Rockets satisfaction. So who gains here?
I wonder if Isgur might be hoping that a buyout deal is more likely if CSNH remains in CH 11? I don't see a way out with the current board setup....an Astros buyout is the only way to break the impasse under the currant market conditions.
