Attorney: Voom Was 'Betrayed'
By: admin 2012-09-29 07:27:00
![]()
Voom HD finally got its day in court Friday, claiming that the now defunct programmer was betrayed by its former partner EchoStar when the satellite giant severed their relationship in 2008.
Voom sued EchoStar (now Dish Network) in 2008, shortly after the programmer canceled a 15 year carriage agreement , claiming that Voom had failed to meet spending requirements for the channels.
Voom has countered that it exceeded those requirements.
In opening arguments Friday, both sides showed that the case is basically one of semantics. Attorneys for each company spent a good portion of their opening statements talking about the definition of service -- Voom believes it entails it's entire business, while EchoStar claimed it meant only the programming it provided to the satellite giant.
That definition is key because of language that states Voom was required to spend $100 million per year on the service during the first five years of the agreement.
Read the rest at http://www.multichannel.com/news-article/attorney-voom-was-betrayed/139536
That wasn't a betrayal. It was just poor business, in general. It has nothing to do with this particular court case, though.I think the real betrayal was Voom's abject failure to sell their channels elsewhere. Profits from 3rd parties would have offset the sweetheart deal Dish made with Voom.
GaryPen said:That wasn't a betrayal. It was just poor business, in general. It has nothing to do with this particular court case, though.
What I mean is Dish needs the Audit that is in there favor to be in as evidence else they have no way to prove Voom was short the $100 million.
In court evidence is all that counts, Charlie can say what ever, but with out proof it does not mean much.
Dish can claim all they want but with out evidence the Jury can not see that they were under $100 million.
One Audit shows they spent over a $100 million. An other one shows well under $100 million, it all depends on who did the audit.
If the ruling goes the wrong way Dish may re think and reach a deal now. It is normal to have rulings like this during all 3 weeks, this is when companies decide to reach a deal or not. This is normal "poker playing".
My prediction now is Dish pays $500 million plus signs an AMC 5 year contract with free On demand and a Voom best of pack for $4 ($3 paid to Voom) a month which includes Monsters HD (2-3 channels similar to an Epix package)
more
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/10/01/voom-judge-to-see-if-dish-audit-counts-as-evidence/
how do you see voom channels coming back? don't get me wrong, that would be awesome.
Scott Greczkowski said:McDonalds fries are a lot better though.![]()
Politics, religion, sports, it all causes no anger to the level that your previous statement did. In the words of the immortal Daffy Duck, "This is war." Seriously, Burger King's are better, as are their chicken sandwiches, hash browns at breakfast, whoppers, and chicken tenders. Now go to Hungry Jack's (there isn't Burger King in Australia, it's called Hungry Jack's) and try the Aussie Burger. That beats the Whopper.
I don't see that anywhere. The Judge ruled Dish must actually provide documents that they claimed were privileged however for the Judge to decide if they are admissible.
Well, last week the Appellate Court affirmed the sanctions (spoliation) against EchoStar. I think we'll see a settlement in the near future on this issue...probably in the tune of 700M+. Anyway, I've attached the ruling (you can read through the entire 26-pages if you wish) and highlighted a few items that I though were most relevant:
"During October 2007, EchoStar conducted an audit of Voom's 2006 investment in the service. On October 26, 2007 EchoStar's own audit concluded, in an email sent to Crawford, that "Everything at VOOM looks fine...these guys are clean...very organized, forthcoming, and from an accounting perspective run a good shop."
"On January 30, 2008, EchoStar formally "terminated the Agreement effective February 1, 2008." Voom commenced this action the next day. EchoStar did not implement a litigation hold until after Voom filed suit. Yet this purported "hold" did not suspect EchoStar's automatic deletion of e-mails. Thus, any e-mails sent and any e-mails deleted by an employee were automatically and permanently purged after seven days. It was not until June 1, 2008 - four months after the commencement of the lawsuit, and nearly one year after EchoStar was on notice of anticipated litigation - that EchoStar suspected the automatic deletion of relevant e-mails."
"We agree with the motion court that an adverse inference was warranted because EchoStar's spoliation of electronic evidence was the result of gross negligence at the very least, and now affirm."
"In any event, the record shows that the destroyed evidence was relevant. The "snapshot" e-mails reviewed by the motion court "demonstrated EchoStar's intention to declare various breaches by Voom" as an excuse for terminating the agreement. These e-mails - a handful only fortuitously recovered, and highly relevant - certainly permitted the inference that the unrecoverable e-mails, of which the snapshots were but a representative sampling, would have also be relevant." Moreover, the missing evidence prejudiced VOOM...EchoStar's internal communications undoubedly concerned issues about what it understood the contract to mean, a contract that the motion court has now found to be ambiguous."
"In sum, the motion court's spoliation sanction was appropriate and proportionate."
"To the extent that EchoStar was actually negotiating in good faith, which the evidence suggest is doubtful, that does not vitiate the duty to preserve evidence."
"Accordingly, the motion court properly determined that EchoStar should have reasonably anticipated litigation as early as June 2007 and certainily no later than February 1, 2008, the date the complaint was filed; that EchoStar was grossly negligent in failing to implement a litigation hold until after litigation had already commended; that EchoStar did not implement an appropriate litigation hold until June 2008, approximately four months after litigation had commenced; that such failures entitled the finder of fact to presume the relevancy of the destroyed electronic data; and that an adverse inference charge was an apppropriate spoliation sanction in light of the above."
"We have considered EchoStar's remaining contentions and find them unavailing."
"Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 9, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion to impose sanctions againt defendant from the spoliation of evidence and to bar defendant from calling nonparty Avram Tucker as an expert witness at trial and from introducing his expert report, should be affirmed, with costs."
Limited time offer