Charter, Cable Franchise Owner Don't Owe Each Other, Says Texas Court
Charter Communications' royalty payment obligations to Prewitt Management for its Texas municipal cable permits ended when Charter received state-issued certificates of franchise authority (SICFA) for each, but it ratified those permit agreements with Prewitt when it continued to make royalty…
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.
payments, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel for the Western District of Texas said last week. In a docket 1:16-CV-1268 findings of fact and conclusions of law, he said Charter's refusal as of January 2017 to make the next quarterly payments breached the ratified agreements, with whatever remained of the permits automatically reverting to Prewitt. Charter sued Prewit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Prewitt agreements were no longer enforceable since SICFAs replaced city permits in Texas, plus monetary damages for payments made to Prewitt between 2006 and 2016, after SICFAs replaced municipal permits. Prewitt countersued for breach of contract, arguing Charter ratified its royalty obligations by continuing to make quarterly payments even after Texas went to a state franchising system for cable systems. Yeakel said Charter doesn't owe Prewitt damages or continued royalties after October 21, 2016, when it made its last royalty payment and Prewitt doesn't owe Charter damages for the payments Charter made between 2006 and 2016. Charter didn't comment Tuesday.