I wouldn't say that. Judge Hughes will hear the appeal. There are complex arguments that will be made, particularly surrounding the 1111(b) issues. There was multiple days worth of testimony and there will also be appellate briefs. Anybody who tells you which way the appeal is going is just guessing. As for the stay...that is a different issue. Comcast would have to file a motion for a stay from Judge Hughes. They would have to show irreparable injury from the denial of a stay and also that they tried to get the stay from Judge Isgur but it was denied. I don't think that Judge Hughes will issue a stay, but I also wouldn't be shocked if he did.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast has now filed its appeal of the Ch. 11 confirmation plan approval with U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529350715013996544">November 3, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast seeks a stay of the order, which it describes as "unlawful in several ways."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529351365001097216">November 3, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Alternatively, it seeks declaration that its appeal objecting to the ruling on the $100m loan won't be rendered moot by new channel launch.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529351630802538497">November 3, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast also is asking Judge Hughes to certify the case for direct appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529359215232446464">November 3, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Comcast also has requested a Wednesday hearing before Judge Hughes on its appeals.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/529359969578020864">November 3, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If Hughes doesn't grant a stay pending appeal, I don't see why it wouldn't be. I've only been following half-heartedly, though.
That is correct. Network still targeting November 14th launch as long as a stay is not granted by Judge Hughes.
I'm still struggling to understand this, even though Granville tried to explain it to me. (not saying he was off; just saying I still don't get it) To whom was the $100mm loan tendered? To CSNH or to the Astros and Rockets? If the loan was made to CSNH: - CSNH owes the Astros one-and-a-half seasons of rights fees - CSNH owes the Rockets a season(?) of rights fees - CSHN owes Comcast $100mm Why should Comcast get paid when the other creditors aren't going to? In fact, wasn't there at least one "cash call," in which the Rockets and Astros paid in to the network to help it stay afloat, rather than receiving revenue? I'm admitting that I don't understand this. From where I sit, it looks like Comcast is the one who owes money to the Rockets and Astros.
I'm not completely sure of any of this either, which is why I think it sits bad with me. All of the appeals keep making it look like Comcast is attempting to get the teams to pay them money that is owed by CSN-H while not being allowed to collect the money they are owed from rights fees. Add to that they probably don't 1) want to be tied to the contract terms they set forth themselves (MFN biting them in the butt now) and 2) they don't want to make it easy for a competitor to takeover where they failed. I could be wrong on this, but that is how it appears and I think why it rubs most people the wrong way.
It really seems to get messy when the courts are involved... a simple breach of contract with affected parties walking away would have been a faster resolution, a cheaper resolution, and a cleaner resolution.
Seems so ironic that Comcast launched this whole thing into an involuntary bankruptcy, and is now the party appealing the bankruptcy reorganization plan.
...with no alternative plan for reorganization; the absence of which leads us to liquidation.... which is exactly where we would have been had they not filed the involuntary. Fun.
This is corrrect. Neither Comcast nor the teams owe anyone money at this point - they are not required to contribute anything more than they already have. If anything, CSN-H would be responsible for whatever is owed to anyone out of whatever money they have. Comcast's argument is that their loan should be treated differently than rights fees not paid - I don't know the legal reasoning behind that, but one is a loan and one is unpaid revenues, so maybe that has something to do with it? Also, the Astros/Rockets voluntarily gave that money up to create a deal they liked, while Comcast did not. Ultimately, Comcast's goal is probably not to get the $100MM back - there's no real avenue to make that happen. I'd bet that they just want the deal blown up so they can get out of their carriage agreement that they are locked into right now.
Ironic... and sad. 8+ months, and the only people benefitting from all of this will be the lawyers and courts.
And the teams having a DTV/AT&T deal, without comcast carriage, puts them right back at square one in terms of widespread coverage issues. But, I guess at that point they could just sell their rights fees to Fox Sports.
Agreed - I think that's why the teams agreed to give up all the unpaid rights fees. They needed carriage more than they needed the one time payment. FSN seems to be their only alternative left if the Root Sports deal falls apart, and that gives them zero negotiating leverage.
This may be true, i.e., that Comcast wants out of the carriage agreement. This is even more ironic, b/c if they hadn't filed the involuntary bankruptcy, they could have easily gotten out of the carriage agreement. This is really a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
