The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling (http://xrl.us/bnb52b)...
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling (http://xrl.us/bnb52b) that Halo Wireless should not escape the more than 20 suits filed in 13 jurisdictions by Texas and Missouri telephone companies, TDS Communications Corp., and several AT&T…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
companies throughout the last year despite filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last August (http://xrl.us/bnb5wq). The court said the small wireless carrier should not “avoid the potential consequences of a business model it freely chose and pursued.” The local telephone companies objected to Halo’s actions beginning in May 2011 in various complaints filed in state PUCs that question the nature of the services Halo offered. The bankruptcy court ruled last fall that the telephone companies should be allowed to proceed with their litigation but noted that “state adjudicative bodies could not issue any ruling or order to liquidate the amount of any claim against Halo, and that the bodies could not take any action that affects the debtor-creditor relationship between Halo and any creditor or potential creditor.” Halo appealed the ruling, as the other companies contended that Halo engaged “in an arbitrage scheme and that the debtor owes them fees under applicable law and regulations.” Halo has insisted that “because the PUC actions were brought by private parties, they should be subject to the automatic stay.” AT&T has said no difference exists between cases brought by private parties and those brought by PUCs. The court also granted two motions -- one submitted by Halo to strike a brief the Missouri Public Service Commission, not included in the case against Halo yet alleging similar complaints as the other companies, attempted to include -- and another by AT&T requesting the court “take judicial notice of federal court and state commission proceedings and orders that have been referenced and/or discussed in the parties’ briefing in this appeal.” The circuit court granted the second motion with the caveat that AT&T’s input was “not especially helpful” in deciding the case.