You're goshdarned right the lawyers won. As a lawyer who has busted his butt on countless occasions only to get paid a small percentage of what he was promised, good for those guys. They certainly earned their fee on both sides.
I don't do bankruptcy, but is the appeal denying the dismissal treated as an interlocutory appeal? If so, I'd think they'd have to prove that the judge was wrong on the law. The judge seemed to play it pretty safe with his interpretation of the facts. I do a lot of appellate work, and the one thing I never want is a smart judge crafting his opinion with surviving my argument on appeal as his primary goal. Isgur knew his decision would be appealed and judges don't like being reversed at all, period.
When a bankruptcy court order is appealed, the District Court or Circuit Court reviews the findings of fact for clear error and the conclusions of law de novo. So...the Court is unlikely to find that the findings of fact were flawed as clear error is a high standard. For that reason, most bankruptcy appeals are decided on whether the conclusions of law were correct. The appellate court will hear arguments of law de novo. Also, on the issue of a stay pending appeal, the rules allow the Astros to seek a stay from the District Court. However, such a motion filed in the District Court is always a long shot. Also, due to the issues involved in this case and what is at stake, it would seem that this would have been a good case to file a direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit and bypass the District Court. I ultimately think this ends up at the Circuit anyway.
Unlikely. It is a status conference. It hasn't been briefed yet and, to my knowledge, there has not been a motion to dismiss the appeal filed. If a motion to dismiss is filed, it will be litigated.
We may find out what arguments the parties intend to make on appeal and what the discovery and trial timelines are going to be. Other than that, I really don't expect too much out of this hearing. The judge could make comments that tip his hand, but i find that unlikely.
Discovery and trial? I figure this is just gonna be based on briefs and evidence already on the record at the bankruptcy court. Do you anticipate there actually being a new evidentiary process on appeal?
No read what I wrote..... There is no situation with only 1 provider in addition to Comcast carrying the games that wouldn't be called a rotten deal for the Astros. So he sent 2 different parties out to look for deals with all providers and not just to go back and fix that rotten deal with 1 provider cause that alone would make the deal profitable and save the Astros. You really need to stop. No.... The "harsh" words were directed at your hero turning law on it's head. Please point to an article on this that came to the conclusion that anyone involved with this was rebuked by the Judge in the same manner as Crane was. Get real and quit arguing just to argue. You're not very good at it. First off.... You are the one who said Crane didn't have to look out for CSN H and you should be the guy who knows better since you deal with bankruptcy cases. I guess this type of situation never came up before. Even if it didn't you should know better. So I guess this is your admission that you were wrong and you are using the well you did it too defense. Comcast is looking out for the their partnership with the Astros and Rockets by trying to get deals in place. The Network is bleeding money right now. The Judge, you know the practical guy you bragged about, well he thinks Crane will purposely try to kill deals.... I guess that time Crane promised to get deals done over night and did nothing but file a lawsuit (claiming he was duped, didn't get to see things he asked for but paid 326M anyway) the same afternoon kinda soured the Judge on Crane.... Imagine that. Too bad Crane didn't say he was washing down a pack of Skittles with some Iced Tea, you could start up a march for justice then.... Comcast the Network was never supposed to pay 3.40 per subscriber for eternity. They have to start with 1 deal and build on it to get to a profitable Network. All 3 partners made a huge mistake with the marketing campaign to get people to switch. It flopped big time. Not many people cared and Crane being in Operation Worst Teams in Astros History didn't help much nor did his stupid write me a 10M check aimed at the people he was trying to get to go to the trouble to switch cable providers to see his ****ty team. The Network lost their leverage for big money. So it isn't all Crane's fault but holding out to the detriment of CSNH for something that he isn't going to ever get is. Comcast and the Rockets want to adjust the game plan and that's what the Judge wants for all 3 partners.
TL, DR, but probably saying something like "Its all Crane's fault"... "comcast and the Rockets are trying to work it all out, and the evil Crane is ruining it for everybody!" Is it time for yet another thread?
As I under stand it, after Judge Isgur denied the request to stay his order, the Astros can go to the district court to ask for the same relief. This may be something to look out for within the next few days. Whether the district court grants or denies a request for stay will likely be a sign as to how it views the probability of success and the district court may well make a comment about its views on the probability for success while making its ruling.
There probably won't be much discovery, unless the Astros argue that the findings of fact were in clear error. The legal application of those facts will be reviewed de novo. That being the case, I would at least expect a lengthy hearing on the arguments of law. I also expect there to be motions and hearings regarding what can and cannot be included in the record on appeal.
By your own admission the judge sent two other parties out to find a better deal. Still waiting for that. At some point, you have to consider that the magic better deal may not be out there to be had. The judge found that Comcast brought rotten business deals to the partners and stripped Comcast of their ability to negotiate further. That, in itself, is a pretty serious rebuke.
They can, but a Rule 8005 spells out that they must also include in the motion why the bankruptcy court denied a stay. The District Court could issue a stay, but I think it is unlikely.
Wow..... You threw the towel in with those responses. You're still waiting because he is sending them out again likely without Crane having a say. So it's not at this point that you give up. you do realize that's the goal here in bankruptcy court? The judge used Crane's own words against him. Crane boasted that a deal was out there and the judge called his bluff. No matter what happens from here forward Crane won't get 3.40 per subscriber so brace yourself for his not being able to compete excuses... The Judge is concerned with this business turning a profit not some mythical number Crane says he needs to "compete".
Whatever Granville. You use the judge's comments to support your point while ignoring his comments that do not support your point. He sent the Adtros out to find a deal and sent the Rockets out to find a deal. Neither has. Clearly the judge thinks that deal is out there. Nobody has found it yet and the judge found no evidence supporting Comcast's request for the appointment of a trustee. Where that supposed deal will come from is anybody's guess. You claim that the judge will send the parties out to find a deal with Crane having no say. That is far from certain. If the judge does enter such an order, that issue will be heavily litigated. This touches on intellectual property law in a significant way. It deals with media rights that are granted by MLB. At that point, expect MLB to be very involved in the litigation. That issue alone will take months to sort out. The reality is that the judge dressed down Comcast's lawyers at the initial hearing, using the word collusion multiple times, and then sent out every party involved not named Comcast to try and find a deal.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>With a Little Patience, Maybe the Astros Can Make Out Like Bandits on CSN Houston <a href="http://t.co/dC0LFuEfIJ">http://t.co/dC0LFuEfIJ</a></p>— John Royal (@John_Royal) <a href="https://twitter.com/John_Royal/statuses/435438654140325888">February 17, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
All that article highlights is why the Astros wanted to have ownership in a RSN in the first place... it "presumes" that carriage deals can be struck at a level that generates the ad/media revenue for the Astros to turn a huge profit, and that's money that would not have to share with other MLB teams. Unfortunately, the carriage deals aren't there. They weren't there when the network first came out, they weren't there when Comcast turned over the negotiations to the Astros/Rockets, and they sure as hell aren't there now as there's still unresolved litigation as to whether or not the network is even allowed to declare bankruptcy. Yes, in an ideal world, the network gets restructured... and the other providers somehow decide to carry the channel (at likely an all-time low price for RSN's)... and the Astros decide to keep their large % of ownership... and the network eventually starts to make enough a profit to not only cover the media rights fees, but put more $$$ into each team's accounts that they don't have to share with anybody. There are a lot of steps that have to occur to even get to that point... the buyouts are still the most likely scenario, and the Astros can decide if they want to play the "we own a channel" game again with another company.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Roundup: CSN Houston owes $27 million each to Astros, Rockets, court records show <a href="http://t.co/TLXstL6u2Z">http://t.co/TLXstL6u2Z</a></p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/435602312812183552">February 18, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
