ICO Global seeks a rehearing of an appeals court’s decision...

jury in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County awarded ICO $603 million after ICO accused Boeing of concealment and misrepresentation, Pendrell noted in a news release Tuesday. If granted a rehearing, ICO requests a new panel of justices after two justices recused themselves during the appeals process. Boeing had no comment. The California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, opinion last month (http://xrl.us/bm59nc) said that while evidence shows a conflict concerning whether the Delta III satellite was truly flight-ready as of May 5, 2000, a May 16, 2000, ICO memo also shows that ICO believed at the time that it was not flight-ready by that date. ICO doesn’t point to any evidence that anyone at Boeing concealed facts that would have strengthened ICO’s claim of termination, “or made misrepresentations that cast doubt on the validity of ICO’s claim, thereby adversely affecting ICO’s negotiation with Boeing Launch and causing ICO to accept less than a full refund,” Associate Justice Laurence Rubin said. The court reversed the order because evidence showed “that ICO waived its claim for breach of the satellite contract.” There was “insufficient evidence that Boeing Satellite’s alleged misrepresentations and concealments caused ICO’s alleged damages under the launch contract,” Rubin said. He also pointed to ICO’s agreement under an amendment, which held the company liable to pay Boeing $419.6 million to complete 10 satellites under an extended delivery schedule. In its petition, ICO rejected the court’s conclusion that it waived its breach claim by signing Amendment 25 (http://xrl.us/bm59ob). The original jury’s determination was supported in the satellite contract’s anti-waiver provision and “evidence demonstrating that BSSI acted inconsistently with a belief that a waiver had occurred,” the petition said. ICO also argues that its rights to due process were violated when Associate Justice Elizabeth Grimes, who was required to recuse herself, “participated in the court’s decision-making for up to 13 months through all the pre-oral argument preparation ... and near finalization of the opinion.” She was replaced by Presiding Justice Tricia Bigelow, who also recused herself. Bigelow was replaced “with another Justice just days before re-argument,” ICO said: This process did not “comport with due process under federal or state law.” The mobile satellite company is seeking a new panel of justices to hear the case “given ICO’s substantial concerns that opinions may have been influenced by justices who were later compelled to recuse themselves,” ICO said.