• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Audacy Bankruptcy Goes To FCC

TheBigA said:
According to the article:
Click to expand...
But from that link:
If Preemptive Offerees do not deliver a completed and executed Election Notice and Subscription Agreement by December 27, 2024, they will be deemed to have automatically irrevocably and unconditionally waived any and all rights to exercise their Preemptive Right. If Preemptive Offerees do not elect to exercise their Preemptive Right, their ownership interest in the Company will be diluted as a result of the Issuance.
Click to expand...
So if they don’t buy the stock, the shares they already own are going to be diluted.
 
radiofan2023 said:
So if they don’t buy the stock, the shares they already own are going to be diluted.
Click to expand...

Correct. They're trying to raise more cash. Right now, the investment company controlled by George Soros is the largest owner. They're opening things up to see if anyone wants to challenge his stake, or if he wants to buy even more. This is an article from February when he bought $415 million in debt.


There are no outside stockholders because they took the company private. Going private meant that Soros funds would not be diluted. This new offering means they could. Manoj Bhargava’s Bridge Media Networks is a minority owner. Under this offering, he could increase his stake. Although probably not by enough to exceed the Soros share.
 
I can’t wait to see people’s reactions if the Soros fund doubles down and buys enough to keep their current shares from being diluted.
 
Audacy is seeking to close it's one final case in its bankruptcy process:

radioink.com

Audacy Files to Close Final Remaining Chapter 11 Case - Radio Ink

Audacy has filed a motion with the US Bankruptcy Court to officially close its last remaining Chapter 11 case.
radioink.com radioink.com

One mistake in the reporting: the story claims the FCC granted a "temporary waiver" in it's ownership rules. That's not true. Audacy sold a station in order to comply with FCC ownership rules. The RadioInk story claims the Soros fund exceeded the 25% rule, and that's also not true. There is no rule about how much of a company an American citizen or company can own. Also, the Audacy application didn't grant the Soros fund ownership in the company. But the FCC didn't grant any waivers in the process.
 
TheBigA said:
Audacy is seeking to close it's one final case in its bankruptcy process:

radioink.com

Audacy Files to Close Final Remaining Chapter 11 Case - Radio Ink

Audacy has filed a motion with the US Bankruptcy Court to officially close its last remaining Chapter 11 case.
radioink.com radioink.com

One mistake in the reporting: the story claims the FCC granted a "temporary waiver" in it's ownership rules. That's not true. Audacy sold a station in order to comply with FCC ownership rules. The RadioInk story claims the Soros fund exceeded the 25% rule, and that's also not true. There is no rule about how much of a company an American citizen or company can own. Also, the Audacy application didn't grant the Soros fund ownership in the company. But the FCC didn't grant any waivers in the process.
Click to expand...
Hope someone contacts the Radio Ink online editor to correct the article:
[email protected]
 
radiofan2023 said:
Hope someone contacts the Radio Ink online editor to correct the article:
Click to expand...

I posted a comment on the website. Usually that's enough. They monitor comments.

There were no waivers, temporary or otherwise. The FCC approved a bankruptcy plan. That's all they did. The company has applied for a foreign ownership waiver, which is a separate process. That waiver hasn't been granted yet.
 
Here is the same story reported by Inside Radio. Nowhere in it does it say the FCC granted a temporary waiver. Because there was none.

www.insideradio.com

Nearly 12 Months After Filing Chapter 11, Audacy Says It’s Ready To Exit Bankruptcy.

Audacy filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition on Jan. 7 with a prepackaged plan with its debtholders. Depending on how quickly a Texas court acts, it may close out the
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

The issue in the Bozell petition will be what constitutes the public interest. One could easily say operating some of the industry's most reputable news stations would be in the public interest. But in this case, it will likely become a lot more subjective. Carr wants to compare this to the Standard Media merger with Tegna. The difference here is that Audacy isn't merging with anybody.
 
The problem is always that the issue Carr has with these companies is that they are supposedly "biased" against his side of politics, but when the opposing side discussed more regulation of media, it was always framed as that side wanting to persecute or stifle conservative voices. So which is it? Remember when "localism requirements" were supposedly the back-door route for Obama to turn us all into dope smoking socialists? Now Carr's concerned about local news. The SAME thing Dems were talking about with those proposals.

So transparently hypocritical. And regarding social media the "free market" party seems to have a lot of people who suddenly want to regulate capitalism. Fact is, Elon can ban whoever he wants from the bot-infested slime festival formerly known as Twitter, Zuckerberg can give money to whatever non-profit voting rights group he cares to. Fredericks, Cats, and whoever else can spend as much as they have building conservative talk stations and if Soros' team wants to turn every Audacy talker into Air America 2.0, as long as they don't break any other laws or broadcast obscenity, they're entitled under the 1st Amendment to do it. This is something a lot of "constitutionalists" (looking at you, Ted Cruz) willfully create misunderstanding and confusion about. But even most non-lawyers understand it.

If "democracy dies" it won't just be in darkness, it will be in "denseness" of mind.
 
Andy Travis said:
The problem is always that the issue Carr has with these companies is that they are supposedly "biased" against his side of politics, but when the opposing side discussed more regulation of media, it was always framed as that side wanting to persecute or stifle conservative voices. So which is it? Remember when "localism requirements" were supposedly the back-door route for Obama to turn us all into dope smoking socialists? Now Carr's concerned about local news. The SAME thing Dems were talking about with those proposals.

So transparently hypocritical. And regarding social media the "free market" party seems to have a lot of people who suddenly want to regulate capitalism. Fact is, Elon can ban whoever he wants from the bot-infested slime festival formerly known as Twitter, Zuckerberg can give money to whatever non-profit voting rights group he cares to. Fredericks, Cats, and whoever else can spend as much as they have building conservative talk stations and if Soros' team wants to turn every Audacy talker into Air America 2.0, as long as they don't break any other laws or broadcast obscenity, they're entitled under the 1st Amendment to do it. This is something a lot of "constitutionalists" (looking at you, Ted Cruz) willfully create misunderstanding and confusion about. But even most non-lawyers understand it.

If "democracy dies" it won't just be in darkness, it will be in "denseness" of mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they're hypocrites. The fact is that when Carr, Musk, and others of their ilk talk about "free speech", they really seem to just mean free speech for people that agree with them.
 
"Any shareholder that didn’t take part would have seen their ownership interest in the company diluted as a result of the issuance of additional shares, which is likely a factor in why the company was unable to generate the needed support to move forward."
I knew it
 
TexasTom said:
Yeah, they're hypocrites. The fact is that when Carr, Musk, and others of their ilk talk about "free speech", they really seem to just mean free speech for people that agree with them.
Click to expand...
And that's any different from what we've seen over the past four years HOW, exactly?
 
FreddyE1977 said:
And that's any different from what we've seen over the past four years HOW, exactly?
Click to expand...

Here's what Carr is saying:

“For too long in this government, particularly over the last couple of years, your last name dictated how the government treated you. If your last name was Soros, the Commission bent over backward and gave you a special, unprecedented commission-level shortcut by 200 radio stations,” Carr said. “Everybody now is going to get a fair shake going forward.”
Click to expand...

If everyone gets a fair shake, why are they singling out the Audacy bankruptcy over all the other ones? They are doing exactly what they're complaining about, which is holding up an application because of someone's last name.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom