If that were the case, Comcast would have plead that in their involuntary petition...that would be a point in their favor that they would include. They didn't.
The loan is set up with quarterly interest payments. All payments had been made as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy. They are certainly a creditor; an insider creditor that's affiliated with one of the partners. But CSN isn't behind on making payments as of the day of the filing...in fact, the only thing Comcast could say about that debt was that they thought it might not be paid in the future. That there's risk of that. And all outside debt (debt belonging to creditors who are NOT affiliated with one of the partners) is being back-stopped by the Astros and Comcast. Not one outside creditor has joined the case as a petitioner seeking relief under the bankruptcy code. One did file a motion yesterday to make sure that, even though the bankruptcy was pending, that CSN would be able to pay them along the way as they continue to provide HD broadcast services to CSN remotely at sporting events. All of this in the midst of a partnership dispute which Comcast seeks to have resolved by having the Court appoint a trustee to make decisions for them and Comcast's plea to have the trustee put all of CSN's assets up for sale (including, presumably,the broadcasting rights of the Rockets and Astros) so they can buy it all away. As I've said...I will be surprised if this thing isn't dismissed. I said it smelled fishy when it was filed...after I read it, I thought it was a reach...after reading the Astros motion to dismiss, I think it's brought in bad faith, and I think it will be dismissed.
I thought this was purely a power play when this started, now I feel like it was just a move to stall.
My guess is this is going to force a resolution one way or the other. They can't keep going the way they're going, and all the parties know that.
Wthat is not what i mean. im just talking about agreements between the partners we just learned the astros could out vote the rockets that was speculation for the longest
That's in the partnership agreement between the partners. Comcast Lender is not a partner...it is an affiliate of a partner, however. I've read the pleadings, and I'm telling you...if there something in the note that triggered a default because there wasn't a carriage agreement, the attorneys for the Comcast creditors absolutely would have put that in the petition. It would be a huge feather in their cap to be able to say that loan is actually in default. They're not alleging that at all. They say only that it MIGHT be in default at some point in the future.
The loan is separate from the partnership and im sure it came with strigs attached. They are not even in agrement on collateral
Wait, what? The loan is TO the partnership. There has to be an agreement in a loan with respect to what is collateral, or else there is none at all.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>More indications of splintered relationship between Astros and Comcast <a href="http://t.co/q7CsdQUntp">http://t.co/q7CsdQUntp</a></p>— Ultimate Astros (@UltAstros) <a href="https://twitter.com/UltAstros/statuses/388808349686329344">October 11, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> The latest procedural developments in the involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving the Astros, Rockets, Comcast/NBC and their joint entity, Houston Regional Sports Network/Comcast SportsNet Houston, indicate what could be construed as the adversarial nature of the dispute. – U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur has denied a motion by Game Creek Video, which supplies production trucks for CSN Houston, to “demand advance payment for services under its contract, to refuse to provide services if advance payment is not made, to receive payments and apply them how they wish and to receive payments for prepetition services (services prior to the Sept. 27 filling).” Isgur wrote that the request by Game Creek, whose trucks are scheduled to be involved in several Rockets exhibition game broadcasts this month, “goes far beyond what the court would consider granting on an emergency basis.” The judge also made reference, notably, to a line in Game Creek’s request saying that the company was having problems “effectively communicating with the alleged debtor.” He ordered the company “to negotiate in good faith with Game Creek.” Game Creek officials have not returned phone calls seeking comment on the matter. – Meanwhile, attorney Thomas Clare of the Washington, D.C., firm Kirkland & Ellis, which is representing the Astros, filed a letter with Judge Isgur on Friday saying that attorneys have reached an impasse on two points regarding witness lists and deposition locations in advance of an Oct. 28 hearing. That hearing is set to hear the Astros’ motion to dismiss the case and a motion by four Comcast affiliates to name an interim trustee to oversee CSN Houston. Claire said in his letter that Comcast wants more leeway to add new witnesses than the Astros believe is proper. He also complains that the company wants to make five witnesses available for depositions in New York and not in Houston. “Given the compressed timeframe for discovery and the short three-business-day gap between the close of discovery and the hearing, all depositions should occur in Houston,” Claire wrote. Claire said attorneys for the Astros would be available for a hearing with Judge Isgur on the matter if the judge sees fit. Preliminary witness lists for the Oct. 28 hearing are due Sunday, and depositions begin Tuesday.
1. I don't know that an oral agreement does not constitute a debt as defined in the bankruptcy code. 2. Under 303, there is no distinction regarding affiliates of insiders. There may be case law, but I am not sure. 3. I have not seen the case law that was cited. Was it a Fifth Circuit case? Also, was the opinion dependent heavily upon the specific facts of that case?
thanks in advance for addressing. how much of what was said come into play in a dispute. I cant believe there isnt more on paper about what was expected of the station.
That wasn't the point. The partnership agreement between Comcast, Astros and Rockets says that if the partnership is going to create an obligation to pay one of the affiliates of the partners, then it has to be submitted to the other partners for approval. The Astros say that 2 of the debts were not approved...and were never even submitted for approval. So...at best...there would be only 2 creditors with bona fide, undisputed debt. With the other 2 debts...CSN's own aging payables report has different amounts due than the claimants are claiming is due. Defeating the "undisputed" part there. It sounds like of the 4 creditors who filed, not one has a claim that is both undisputed and bona fide. Oral agreements can certainly create obligations in Texas...no doubt about that. But they're not "bona fide and undisputed" if they had to be approved by the partners in order to be incurred...and they weren't. The distinction is with respect to what I posted above....it creates dispute and questions the validity of the debts, themselves, in this specific instance. I haven't read the case. It's cited in the Astros' Motion to Dismiss. It would have to be 5th Circuit, because it affirmed a Southern District bankruptcy case. I would think it would have to be dependent heavily on the facts of the case....and I would think, from what I know of the facts before the court in the pleadings, that this follows the exact track. Partnership dispute...so affiliates of one of the partners throw it all into bankruptcy in an effort to seize control that they wouldn't have otherwise under the partnership agreement they negotiated and ultimately agreed to. Bankruptcy Court dismissed it, and appellate court said it was valid grounds for dismissal. Of course, none of that even matters...court never has to consider it....if ultimately, the technical requirements of an involuntary bankruptcy haven't been met as the Astros allege with respect to the "bona fide/undisputed debt" issue.
Prior to 2005, that analysis wouldn't necessarily carry the day. It wasn't until BAPCPA amended 303(b)(1) that a dispute as to any part of the debt would create a bona ride dispute as to the entire debt. Whether the debt is bona ride will be a fact issue to be decided by the judge. That part of the hearing will be lengthy with testimony from several witnesses. That is probably the subject of the numerous depositions being scheduled.
If the partnership agreement requires that, in order to create a valid debt to an affiliate of a partner, you have to have written consent from the other partners...and there is no written consent...that's a "summary judgment" type of issue. The documents tell the story. The absence of a consent should kill the argument it's a bona fide debt.
I hear that, however, if it were really that cut and dry, it would make for a very short hearing. The fact that they are conducting discovery and having discovery disputes causes me to wonder whether it is that cut and dry. Of course, I haven't seen the partnership agreement. There is also the equitable issue of whether, if those affiliates provided services to CSN, should those services be for free. If not, and they haven't been paid, would it then constitute a debt?
