Its all about what is written in the contract which is solid evidence. Not what some CEO thinks the contract might say. The CEO is not a legal expert. The CEO can also change his mind after being advised by legal council which is privileged client attorney info not allowed in court.
Umm...you do realize that two courts have ruled the contract was ambiguous and that the court
must look at extrinsic evidence to determine what both parties knew, or were reasonably expected to know, about executing and operating under this contract. If I were you, I would go back and start reading Page 1 of this thread. We'll be here when you catch-up. I would also suggest that you read the following definition of the term extrinsic evidence.
"Extrinsic evidence is similar to extraneous evidence, which is not furnished by the document in and of itself but is derived from external sources. In contract law, Parol Evidence is extrinsic evidence since it is not within a contract but, rather, is oral and outside the instrument."
You also realize that it is common knowledge that the ONLY...yes, the ONLY dispute in this case is determining what the parties understood the spend requirement mean as it related to the 'service'. Dish says it involves programming only while Voom maintains it involved programming and customary overhead. To support their case, Voom has provided reams of evidence backing their position. These artifacts include the LLC Agreement, Annex A and B, the preliminary agreement, emails, meeting minutes, financials, cost account methods exchanged during the due diligence phase, etc., ad nauseum.
As for Dish...well, their CEO and VP of Programming were deposed and stated under oath it was their understanding the 100M per year spend requirement was on programming only. Flashforward through Dish deleting evidence, withholding evidence, altering audit reports, improperly asserting privilege on non-privileged (and vital evidence) documents...and now it is being reported that auditors found deleted emails in which the CEO and VP of Programming acknowledge the 100M spend requirement included programming AND overhead expenses. Anyway, that's the evidence I've seen Dish submit so far in this case.
Anyway, I challenge you to look at the facts. Earlier you predicted this case would cost Dish $400M. I find that figure to be outrageous considering Voom had already invested 300M in the 'service' (i.e., in the red) before Dish terminated the agreement because Voom would not kowtow to their demands and agree to be re-tiered out of existence - or at least lose 300M by their executing under the terms and conditions of the agreements. According to Voom, they were required to invest another $200M into VoomHD before this agreement would be profitable well into the 6th year of this 15-year partnership and distribution agreement.
Sorry, but I see Dish coming out of this with a lot less cash in the bank. We shall see.