Two Texas Public Utility Commission proceedings still actively target Halo...

against Halo on this count (CD Aug 2 p8). Halo’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy “Trustee is unlikely to supply a brief, however, and this means the Petitioners will likely be the only ‘party’ to provide briefing,” said Matthew Henry, former counsel to Halo, in a Thursday briefing (http://xrl.us/bn386z). His firm no longer represents Halo, but he argued that there have been “several significant misstatements and misrepresentations” in Texas and that Halo deserves “fuller commentary.” The two Texas proceedings are redundant as well as off the mark, he said. He clarified several points he believed were distorted and said the proceeding, on a former interconnection agreement, “must be dismissed” without any relief granted because the PUC lacks jurisdiction and there are no longer any agreements. Several petitioners want “a ruling as to whether access is due on Halo’s traffic to perfect their claims as to the amounts Halo owes them,” as they said Thursday in that same proceeding (http://xrl.us/bn387f). In a second complaint proceeding, many of the same companies have continued to stall on account of the first proceeding and asked Wednesday to delay a status report deadline from Nov. 28 to Jan. 9. Judgment on the first proceeding “may substantially resolve the issues pending in this matter” and they want to wait until that’s done, they said (http://xrl.us/bn387m). Henry, however, insists any “finding of liability for intercarrier compensation payments” must be found in that complaint proceeding and not the one on the defunct agreement.