The main question on "assignment" is going to be whether the Bankruptcy Code says to ignore the Copyrights Act or to enforce it with respect to exclusive copyrights licenses. And this is the question on which there is some conflicting case law. I still think that the court may allow CSNH to "assume" the media rights contract as long as CSNH keeps the contract for itself rather than selling it to a third party. Here is a short article on this issue and referring to the Fifth Circuit applying the "actual test": http://www.lorman.com/newsletters/article.php?article_id=1320&newsletter_id=278&category_id=8
No, you didn't have it right. Comcast damn well knew Crane would terminate and filing bankruptcy was an option they knew they had. You do this for a living, stop purposely acting naïve like a company as big as Comcast was caught off guard by Crane's notice to terminate. It's dishonest and dumb for you to say that. Never said Hughes ruled on anything. Get your facts straight.....another thing you should be good at but are not. I said he basically called Crane a bully (over the BS McLane lawsuit).
I agree with everything you said in this post. Where the water becomes more murky is in the event of a forced sale of CSNH. A lot more research would need to be done, but I am unaware of any case law directly on point.
Stop acting like Comcast could read his mind. Had Crane not told then that he intended to exercise his right to terminate, they wouldn't have known. They would have known that his right to terminate was going to vest on a date certain, but assuming that they knew without being told that he was going to actually exercise it is just more of your typical blather. The rest of your post isn't even worth reading, let alone responding.
Make no mistake, the goal is different in Chapter 11. The goal is now to find a deal that will result in the network being profitable. The goal previously was to find a deal that all of the partners were happy with. Can a deal be made that will result in profits? Not sure. If not, then the entire entity could be sold or they could possibly liquidate. Time will tell.
So they thought Crane would keep on not getting paid and do nothing about it? No damn way you are that dense. They stopped payment to begin this chain of events that would lead to getting this in court. And like I said your characterization of Comcast being caught off guard by Crane taking action to terminate is stupid.
Did you just read where I said that Comcast stopped paying Crane to get us in bankruptcy court???? This is the only way to get the impasse settled one way or the other. And no, Comcast and the Rockets were never going to let Crane just walk away.
So, essentially, Comcast and the Rockets never intended to abide by the contract they agreed to? Thanks for finally admitting that.
No they chose not to infuse more cash in to the network since it was on the road to bankruptcy with the path they were on.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/...-case-plus-judge-lynn-hughes-best-one-liners/ David Barron's list. A lot of these dates relate to the appeal of the order of putting CSNH in chapter 11. A number of others appear relate to an attempt to move the Crane's fraud lawsuit vs. McLane and Comcast into the bankruptcy court or at least federal courts. These are not all that impactful directly on the chapter 11 proceedings. The March 4 hearing would be interesting. This is when CSNH must present some proposal (likely a loan) to finance it's ongoing operations. My guess is Comcast will provide it. This "post-petition" loan will have the high priority when things are paid back. Often the financer of such a loan is an entity interested in owning the reorganized business. Also, at this time, the lawyers should present the court with some idea as to what their end game is. The judge shouldn't approve the borrowing of what could be millions of dollars of additional debt without knowing how it is supposed to benefit the bankruptcy estate. The papers filed seeking the approval of such new financing could be informative.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ed Sherman, aka <a href="https://twitter.com/Sherman_Report">@Sherman_Report</a>, on LA and Houston RSN struggles. <a href="http://t.co/OuTFE8SX41">http://t.co/OuTFE8SX41</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/USATODAY">@usatoday</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/438541482547363840">February 26, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> ... Distribution problems are hardly limited to the nation's second-largest media market. Comcast SportsNet Houston, a venture that includes the Astros and Rockets, was forced to declare bankruptcy due in part to a complicated dispute involving the partners. Unlike the Dodgers, the Astros have been the worst team in baseball in recent years. Interest is so low that a late-season game telecast actually recorded a 0.00 rating — meaning not a single Nielsen household in Houston tuned in for as much as 15 minutes. The bottom line, though, remains the same. DirecTV's York says CSN Houston hasn't received mass distribution because, "the price is unacceptably high." The network reportedly is asking in the $3-$3.50 per month range and for a much wider distribution throughout Texas than the various providers are willing to accept. Giles Kibbe, the general counsel for the Astros, says CSN Houston is just looking for a comparable deal to what's being paid to other regional networks throughout the country. He speculated that providers might be "looking to take a stance" in Houston. Kibbe says the impasse is taking a toll on the franchises. Though the Astros are still taking in significant revenue despite their lack of distribution - they were slated to receive $55 million in 2013 before the network's financial woes - it has still hurt the club. "It's been horrible for both teams," Kibbe says. "Our branding has been hurt significantly. We want our fans to be able to watch our games at a fair price. We also want a network that will allow us to field a championship-caliber team to be able to compete against the other top tier teams. We're not asking for RSN fees like the Dodgers. But we do recognize that Houston is one of the top markets in the country. We believe we have value." DirecTV's York argues that a solution to the sports network problems in Los Angeles, Houston and elsewhere will be for providers to offer an "a la carte" set-up to their subscribers, similar to a bill Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced last year in the Senate. "If the price for all consumers isn't fair, then permit the customers who really are interested to be able to get it," York says. ...
from the above article: Nothing, though, seems routine in the ever-changing sports TV landscape. Many distributors are saying enough is enough and declining to do deals with sports networks. DirecTV has yet to sign on to carry the Pac-12 Network. Comcast is the only major carrier to air Astros and Rockets games on the troubled Comcast SportsNet Houston. Coming up, the new SEC Network is expected to face significant distribution challenges when it debuts later this year, and the Big Ten Network will encounter resistance with its attempt to crack the regional markets of Maryland and Rutgers, which will begin conference play this fall. Jim Crane causing problems everywhere, it seems.
u What a dumb post... No one claimed he was causing problems everywhere. He is causing problems here holding out for ridiculous money for a ****ty team.
Wow... I thought providers were staunchly against the "a la carte" model in any way/shape/form. Would be interesting if "sports networks" are the straw that breaks the camel's back.
