Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (6015)	1/24/2007 1:20:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8420

Here is just a couple from the last few days. Read the judge's opinion. She made it clear it was not a ruling on the merit of the RIAA's case, and only on whether there is a sufficient case to warrant a trial. I think you meant "here are". Apparently, at least Bloomberg agrees with my interpretation: U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts in New York today turned aside XM's request to dismiss the lawsuit, which accuses XM of copyright infringement and seeks undetermined monetary damages. She disagreed with XM's argument that the service is akin to a traditional cassette player that consumers use to tape radio programs and is thus immune from liability. ``By broadcasting and storing this copyrighted music'' that consumers can later download, ``XM is both a broadcaster and a distributor, but it is only paying to be a broadcaster,'' the judge ruled. The judge didn't rule on the merits of the case and said only that the record labels, including Warner Music Group's Atlantic and Elektra units, had alleged enough facts for the case to go forward. Batts ordered XM to file an answer to the lawsuit within 30 days. Now, who is apt to be right? PCSTEL, or Bloomberg? ANYONE can FILE for protection, but receiving it requires a showing of viability. If you aren't liquidating under Chapter 11, no bankruptcy court is going to accept a plan that doesn't present a path to profitability. A DIP who cannot show that the business is viable will not be given protection, and will merely be left to liquidate or to work out a settlement on his own with creditors. I've worked with probably a half dozen different bankruptcy attorneys on numerable Chapter 11s, and in every instance viability of the reorganized firm has been essential. I don't know [or care] what your experience has been, but it should be intuitively obvious to even an idiot that the court isn't going to fend off creditors for a business that has no chance of becoming profitable. They'll just say, "Liquidate it", as they should.