Because technically Crane didn't breach the contract. He just decided to maniplulate the terms of it. Go do some research on Crane and his business dealings. The Judge to his credit is trying to make the best of a bad situation. I could ask you why he just didn't toss the bankruptcy case too.
He absolutely was living up to the terms of the contract. The contract provided for the out. When he decided to exercise that out, Comcast ran to the bankruptcy court.
Of course he's worried about his equity going to zero - no one likes to lose money. That doesn't mean he's taking a net loss or that being leveraged is causing a problem. Those are two totally different ideas. He simply wants to get more out of his equity or walk. You keep forgetting that Crane was completely willing and ready to walk away and let his equity go to zero - as long as he got his value (media rights) back on his own terms. He can handle the losses - he demonstrated that by being 2 days from walking. The terms of his contract allow him veto rights which he has used. It's not even manipulative - the only reason to give people veto rights in the first place is to ensure everyone is happy with any deal signed. But since you don't like Crane, you appear to think he shouldn't allowed to use those rights. You're the only one that has claimed Crane isn't living up to his contract - neither the Rockets nor Comcast have even argued that.
Crane had a lawsuit in his backpocket to get his equity back. Quit trying to mislead those not smart enough to know better. More out of his equity or walk. That's asinine. He manipulated the MFN clause. That's huge in this as well. He was also speaking to providers about alternative deals outside the CSN H partnership. That's unethical and manipulative. I said he manipulated the terms of the agreement. I originally stated not living up to the terms but clarified that later. As far where I said living up to the terms, I was referring to why the MFN was put in place. It was not put in place to artificially support the Network. Crane has a contract in place that he doesn't like now and is being underhanded trying to destroy the Network to get out of the contract. That's why he came up with the BS lawsuit to support the ridiculous claim that he was duped.
Manipulated the MFN by exercising his rights under the contract that the Rockets and Comcast agreed to? That is absurd. Crane also tried to exercise his contractual right to leave, and it was met by a manipulative bankruptcy filing. You keep trying to paint Crane as the bad guy here. News flash: there are no good guys or bad guys. There are three businesses each looking out for their own divergent interests. That is what anybody with any sense of reality would expect them to do.
I explained why and how he manipulated the MFN. If you are to stubborn to figure it out then that's your issue. Crane has a very shady past that lends support to this as well. He's not a good guy.
Rubbish. The rules of the contract will clearly spelled out. Crane played within the rules set forth in the contract. Comcast didn't like the outcome and decided to run to the bankruptcy court in an attempt to change the rules midstream.
Summary for those who don't have the time to read through everything He didn't live up to the contract Yes he did No he didn't Yes he did Well, he manipulated it No he manipulated something else No he didn't Yes he did No he didn't Well he is a bad person Well he is no worse than others Yes he is No he isn't *** If you have any questions let me know, that pretty much sums it up though
Why don't you e-mail Les Alexander to ask him to go against his public statement and go ahead and provide daily updates so that you don't have to get your feelings hurt when there are none in the thread?
The MFN was never put in place to artificially support the Network for 16 months now. If you say different, you are being dishonest.
You plainly said he did not want to live up to a contract. He has clearly lived up to the contract by following the terms set forth within it.
If the MFN wasn't meant to serve the purpose its being used for, that's on Comcast for agreeing to those terms and not putting the intent in writing. Crane didn't negotiate the MFN - he bought an already agreed-to contract. If there was an informal agreement between the original parties on how to use the MFN, that's on them - Crane had nothing to do with it and has no obligation, legal or ethical, to commit to it, especially if he was not informed of said informal agreement in advance.
No, he doesn't want to live up to the contract but he opens himself to legal action if he just walks. Plane A was Crane finding a legal but unethical way to manipulate a clause in the contract to force his partners to either to give him better terms or bankrupt the company. Once he bankrupted the company plan B was to sue to get his money back with the ridiculous allegations. I don't see why folks around here feel that Crane doesn't have to act in the best interests of CSN H. That's his business just like the Astros are his business. The lawsuit on the same day he took over as lead negotiator was a prime example of Crane not giving a **** about CSN H. Let's be clear about the way he thinks and the kind of guy Crane is... the guy you folks are defending... Had to pay a settlement for: This is how your boy Crane rolls and why his word is worth squat. Telling subordinates not to hire blacks because “once you hire blacks, you can never fire them.” On other occasions, Crane explained the reason he wanted to keep blacks out of the company was that his top managers are bigoted and they would mistreat the minorities, “giving them no choice but to sue Eagle.” Did not permit the company to advertise job openings because he did not want to create a paper trail of unhired qualified minorities. To discourage blacks and women from applying, Eagle managers refused to let female and minority applicants enter its secured facilities to fill out job applications. Crane also warned managers not to hire women of child-bearing age because their productivity would be low. And top company officers told employees that women aren’t suitable for management positions because male managers won’t work with a woman. Sued his own General Counsel for corroborating the EEOC claims. In August 2006, Eagle paid $4 million to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice alleging that the company had inflated the costs of military shipments to Iraq. In June 2007, Eagle paid $300,000 to settle allegations of overcharging the government. In November 2008, Eagle paid $750,000 to settle allegations of providing kickbacks in order to procure contracts. The company was accused of conspiring with other shipping companies to price fix and overcharge the U.S. and British governments in the war effort. The Department of Justice ultimately agreed to stop pursuing the criminal charges against Eagle when Eagle fired its employees involved in the scheme, paid a $4,486,120.00 fine and agreed to cooperate in the government’s investigation. In 2007, New York-based Apollo Management, LP entered into a merger agreement with Crane’s Eagle Logistics and associated business vehicles for $38 per share. But, in a suit filed by Apollo (PDF), it was claimed that the “Merger Agreement was the product of a sham process, controlled and manipulated by Crane, with the tacit or express connivance of the remaining defendants, in order to allow Crane to reap significant financial benefit from a coerced, self-dealing transaction.” The suit continued to claim that “throughout the sale process, Crane has abused his position and influence over the board and management of the Company to prevent any third party from making a competitive offer for EGL and to preclude fair consideration by the board of EGL and its Special Committee of third-party bidders for EGL in order to secure his own acquisition of the Company at the lowest possible price.” Backed out at the 11th Hour to buy the Astros in 2008 Crane continued negotiation with Tom Hicks to buy the Rangers after Hicks had reached an exclusive agreement with Greenberg and Ryan. Unethical behavior by both parties and pretty much what he was doing by negotiating on his own with Fox. This is an example of him not wanting to live up to the contract.
As a business owner, he has an ethical obligation and a fudiciary responsibility to act in the best interest of CSN H. Carriage rates for this particular market for the Network have been baselined for some time now. Crane is abusing the MFN clause for his own self interest by not accepting what are now established market rates. Crane has even admitted that Comcast is paying above market rates. You have positioned yourself in this debate to have to believe that Crane spent 326M on a Network and that he didn't fully explore a crucial clause related to revenue generation and then calculate the potential positive and negative impact of that clause. Sucks to be you.
Objection...relevance. Also, who declared the company bankrupt involuntarily when they were not in arrears to the creditors who filed the bankruptcy? Here's a hint...it wasn't Crane. No wonder you are so far off base on this. You don't even have the basic facts right.
For this debate it's relevant especially the bolded part which is similar to the BS Crane is pulling now. It's also relevant that Crane isn't acting in the best interests of CSN H. I could give a **** if the bankruptcy was filed correctly or not. Like I told you, this is a chess game started with Crane making the first move. My guess is the Judge would have tossed it right away if that had been the case but who knows.
