DIRECTV Files Complaint with FCC Questioning Control of Tribune Broadcasting Company During Bankrupt

Status
Please reply by conversation.

Scott Greczkowski

Welcome HOME!
Original poster
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Cutting Edge
Sep 7, 2003
103,234
27,884
Newington, CT
DIRECTV Files Complaint with FCC Questioning Control of Tribune Broadcasting Company During Bankruptcy

Tribune Management Agrees in Principle to Retransmission Consent Compensation only to be Overruled by Hedge Fund and Investment Bank Creditors

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- With more than 5 million DIRECTV customers losing access to Tribune Broadcasting Co.'s 23 local stations in 19 cities since midnight Saturday, DIRECTV today filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission seeking an immediate intervention and expedited ruling against Tribune for failing to negotiate in good faith and bringing into question whether broadcast licenses have been prematurely, and inappropriately, transferred to bankruptcy creditors.

In another case of runaway Wall Street greed, some of America's wealthiest hedge funds and investment banks, including Oaktree Partners, Angelo Gordon, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citibank, forced Tribune's senior management to renege on an agreement that would have kept DIRECTV customers connected to their local programming. Their actions represent a brazen attempt to extract yet another bailout on the backs of innocent viewers.

The complaint specifies Tribune's most senior executives represented themselves as possessing authority to negotiate a retransmission consent agreement and, in fact, achieved such an agreement in principle with DIRECTV on March 29. However, late the following day, Tribune executives rescinded the agreement, acknowledging bankrupt Tribune's hedge fund and investment bank creditors overruled senior management, exercising authority over Tribune's broadcast licenses and operations the FCC has yet to grant.

The full complaint can be found at DIRECTV Promise To You - DIRECTV's Customer Promise.

"Two days prior to expiration of the existing carriage arrangement, the parties reached an agreement in principle for continued carriage," the complaint reads. "The following day, however, Tribune reneged on that agreement. Tribune later confirmed that its management had been overruled by the hedge fund and investment bank creditors.

"DIRECTV negotiated with Tribune for months, only learning on the very eve of expiration that it had never been dealing with anyone who had the authority required under the [FCC] rules. Indeed, DIRECTV still does not know with whom it should be speaking — Tribune's CEO or its associated hedge funds and investment banks," the complaint continues.

After entering bankruptcy in December 2008, Tribune sought FCC approval to transfer its broadcast licenses to a new entity that will eventually emerge in Tribune's reorganization. Three of Tribune's largest creditors—JP Morgan Chase Bank; Angelo, Gordon & Co. and Oaktree Partners — will control 30 percent of the voting and equity interests, Tribune explained. But the FCC has yet to rule on those transfers. That means those same hedge funds and investment banks currently lack authority over Tribune broadcast operations.

The result is millions of everyday viewers are forced to suffer with the mess Tribune made of its operations leading into bankruptcy, and to make matters worse, now allowing America's wealthiest hedge funds and investment banks to take advantage of innocent viewers.
 
What a mess! The poor subscribers are the ones that ultimately lose. I wonder how long this could last.
 
Cheers for DirecTV for doing the right thing. But to tell you the truth, the consumers are the victims of so-called common retransmission-consent disputes. I'm glad that none of my stations (in Greenville/Spartanburg, SC) are owned by Tribune, but I still miss watching reruns of Matlock and In The Heat of The Night reruns on WGN America :( But I'm glad that none of the stations in Atlanta, GA DMA have the same situation (except for E* having the ongoing dispute with WPCH 17). If WATL 36 was still owned by Tribune, everything would break loose. One of my Senators introduced a bill at The Senate (Sen. Jim DeMint R-SC) that would abolished 20 year old retransmission-consent regme introduced by ex-Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) in the 1992 Cable Act. I'm proud of what DeMint is doing. I've called his office in Washington, DC to express my views on this issue, and I've mentioned I'm proud of what he doing to do with the issue. End of story. :)
 
ckhalil18 said:
So it was Hedge fund managers that voided the new agreement? Typical BS from Wall street.

Why? Creditors are trying to get back as much money as possible. Tribune, though, should have disclosed this before making a verbal deal.
 
Cheers for DirecTV for doing the right thing.
How is negotiating with the wrong parties "the right thing" for DIRECTV customers? It seems like DIRECTV wasted their time and they're taking it out on everyone they can think of.

No swift and equitable resolution can come from getting a government agency involved; especially one that is on their own hot seat as the FCC appears to be.
 
A quick check of the FCC database shows all of the Tribune station's FCC Licenses that I checked to be in the names of Debtors in Possession. This may preclude Tribune from legally doing anything regulated by the FCC as the bankruptcy court would be required as the defacto "Debtor in Possession" to make those decisions. This may really get interesting.
 
So the hedgefund or whoever decides to not allow this to happen because they won't get as much money in the deal, yet they arn't going to get any by denying Directv to retransmit the signal? WTF?

My mother always told me that "a dime is worth more than a quarter that you don't have"! Pure GREED from the hedgefund. i hate that the consumer is the ultimate loser here but i hope Directv really sticks it to them.
 
How is negotiating with the wrong parties "the right thing" for DIRECTV customers? It seems like DIRECTV wasted their time and they're taking it out on everyone they can think of.

No swift and equitable resolution can come from getting a government agency involved; especially one that is on their own hot seat as the FCC appears to be.

As Reagan said to Carter, there you go again! How should Directv done the negotiations? Should they have said to Tribune, "so do you have the authority to negotiate this deal?" Of course not! You are simply stirring the pot again with your FUD.
 
How is negotiating with the wrong parties "the right thing" for DIRECTV customers? It seems like DIRECTV wasted their time and they're taking it out on everyone they can think of.

No swift and equitable resolution can come from getting a government agency involved; especially one that is on their own hot seat as the FCC appears to be.

Once again, you chime in and MISSED the point entirely.

Please re-read the article without your "I hate D* " ideas.

D* was negotiating with who they were told to negotiate with, you don't go into these things picking and choosing who to deal with.

Tribune should have been up front with D* from the start about not being able to make the call, this probably could have been avoided had they been upfront from the beginning.
 
^ Jimbo,

At least the resident naysayer is predictable
jhwyuu.jpg
 
Reading the whole complaint, this is the 1st time I've seen evidence of one side playing hardball and it's clearly obvious it's coming from Tribune's side (whether it's the hedge fund managers or Tribune's management.) I hope the FCC sides with D* on this because if it doesn't, then well, I guess the FCC is useless then.:(:mad:
 
How should Directv done the negotiations?
First off (and going forward), as videonez did above, they need to find out exactly with whom they need to be negotiating. Failing that, they were barking up the wrong tree.

Surely it will be exceedingly difficult, but just as surely, they'll get nowhere until they negotiate with those authorized to do so.

This isn't FUD pilgrim, this is how it appears to have gone down (according to the DIRECTV press release signed by Darris Gringeri and Robert Mercer). It is interesting that they haven't accused the Tribune people of fraud yet (as some have in this thread).
 
I have a feeling that the stations owned by tribune broadcasting is going to be down for a long time because it looks like the FCC or Bankuptcy Court or possibly both is going to have to get involed in this fiasco. It looks like people that want to view their locals is going to have to get an DIRECTV AM21 off air tunner adapter for their box, or just a TV antenna for the TV and bypass the DIRECTV Box, or switch to a provider that is currently not in dispute with Tribune Broadcasting. The court system usualy takes their sweet time and espacily when you have big banks that can afford real expensive attorneys to delay the case for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Oh boy! Another corporate p*ssing match where everyone wins except the consumer!

I still like the blurb about this on the homepage..
"The FCC has filed a complaint with the FCC over the ongoing Tribune dispute"
 
Oh boy! Another corporate p*ssing match where everyone wins except the consumer!

I still like the blurb about this on the homepage..
"The FCC has filed a complaint with the FCC over the ongoing Tribune dispute"

You are right about that.
 
First off (and going forward), as videonez did above, they need to find out exactly with whom they need to be negotiating. Failing that, they were barking up the wrong tree.

Surely it will be exceedingly difficult, but just as surely, they'll get nowhere until they negotiate with those authorized to do so.

This isn't FUD pilgrim, this is how it appears to have gone down (according to the DIRECTV press release signed by Darris Gringeri and Robert Mercer). It is interesting that they haven't accused the Tribune people of fraud yet (as some have in this thread).

You have once again missed the point. If Tribune didn't have the authority to negotiate, they should have known that and said so. Since they apparently didn't, why should Directv have assumed something different? Never mind, I'm sure you have an answer at the ready.
 
First off (and going forward), as videonez did above, they need to find out exactly with whom they need to be negotiating. Failing that, they were barking up the wrong tree.

Surely it will be exceedingly difficult, but just as surely, they'll get nowhere until they negotiate with those authorized to do so.

This isn't FUD pilgrim, this is how it appears to have gone down (according to the DIRECTV press release signed by Darris Gringeri and Robert Mercer). It is interesting that they haven't accused the Tribune people of fraud yet (as some have in this thread).

Do you HONESTLY think D* just went in and started negotiations , figuring the girl in accounting would work ?
Ya gotta give them some credit here, you go into negotiations with the right people to start with.
Tribune clearly KNEW that they were able to fall back on the others if they didn't like the outcome and they did.

THAT is called NOT Negotiating FAIRLY , when you bring unqualified people to the table.
 
D* was negotiating with who they were told to negotiate with, you don't go into these things picking and choosing who to deal with.
Who told DIRECTV who to negotiate with?

Tribune has been in Chapter 11 for more than three years now so everyone should know the drill.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

DIRECTV reaches deal with Tribune (Or maybe not!)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)