Round 3 of the KOCE-TV court proceedings was scheduled for today.
Coast Community College District is looking to uphold the sale of KOCE-TV to KOCE-TV Foundation, while Daystar is looking to gain control of the station by virtue of their cash bid which they say should have been the winning bid.
There are several scenarios in which I could see the courts ruling in favor of the District today:
<ul>[*]The court may agree with the District's argument that the phrase in the state Education Code "may sell for cash" is permissive, meaning that it is an option for the District to sell an asset for cash, but not mandatory. In the previous hearing, the panel of judges ruled that "may sell for cash" would be redundant if it didn't require a cash sale. I could see this as the most likely reason for a ruling in the District's favor.
[*]The court may agree with the District's argument that the sale was sanctioned by the FCC and that reversing it would create undue hardship. The FCC did approve the application to assign the license to KOCE-TV Foundation on 9/9/2004. (FCC file no. BALET-20040412AAQ.) The District has already spent most of the $8M down payment from the Foundation and would have to repay it if the sale were reversed. Of course they would have the $25.1M cash from Daystar with which to repay it.
[*]The court may rule that KOCE-TV is a community asset and should remain in the community. It's a popular sentiment, and has been voiced by KOCE-TV Foundation president Mel Rogers among others, but AFAIK, it has not been brought as a legal argument. I don't believe that it could stand as a ruling, since if it were the case, then the District should have never been allowed to sell the station in the first place.
[*]The court may agree with the District that Daystar was not a responsible bidder. Daystar bid under the entity, Community Television Educators of Orange County, which is their standard practice, but the entity was not yet in existence at the time of bidding. This is the flimsiest argument that the District has brought IMO.[/list]
Regardless of the outcome, I expect the losing side to appeal. In fact, I expect this to continue to be appealed until either an appellate court refuses to hear the case, or until it's argued before the Supreme Court of the US, if that's possible.
My own opinion is that because the state Education Code specifically states "may sell for cash" instead of just "may sell", its intent was that the sale was meant to be a cash sale, and that the highest responsible bidder is the one who had the highest cash bid, which was Daystar. Although KOCE-TV Foundation's $32M bid was higher than Daystar's $25.1M bid, the Foundation's bid was only $8M cash, with the balance to be paid on credit. Daystar's bid was an all-cash bid.
Since I have been openly accused of shilling for Daystar, I add these disclaimers:<ul>[*]The opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone.[*]I do not represent Daystar in any way, shape or form.[*]I have never contributed time or money to Daystar[*]I have no intention of contributing to Daystar in the future.[*]I have no business dealings with Daystar.[/list]
Coast Community College District is looking to uphold the sale of KOCE-TV to KOCE-TV Foundation, while Daystar is looking to gain control of the station by virtue of their cash bid which they say should have been the winning bid.
There are several scenarios in which I could see the courts ruling in favor of the District today:
<ul>[*]The court may agree with the District's argument that the phrase in the state Education Code "may sell for cash" is permissive, meaning that it is an option for the District to sell an asset for cash, but not mandatory. In the previous hearing, the panel of judges ruled that "may sell for cash" would be redundant if it didn't require a cash sale. I could see this as the most likely reason for a ruling in the District's favor.
[*]The court may agree with the District's argument that the sale was sanctioned by the FCC and that reversing it would create undue hardship. The FCC did approve the application to assign the license to KOCE-TV Foundation on 9/9/2004. (FCC file no. BALET-20040412AAQ.) The District has already spent most of the $8M down payment from the Foundation and would have to repay it if the sale were reversed. Of course they would have the $25.1M cash from Daystar with which to repay it.
[*]The court may rule that KOCE-TV is a community asset and should remain in the community. It's a popular sentiment, and has been voiced by KOCE-TV Foundation president Mel Rogers among others, but AFAIK, it has not been brought as a legal argument. I don't believe that it could stand as a ruling, since if it were the case, then the District should have never been allowed to sell the station in the first place.
[*]The court may agree with the District that Daystar was not a responsible bidder. Daystar bid under the entity, Community Television Educators of Orange County, which is their standard practice, but the entity was not yet in existence at the time of bidding. This is the flimsiest argument that the District has brought IMO.[/list]
Regardless of the outcome, I expect the losing side to appeal. In fact, I expect this to continue to be appealed until either an appellate court refuses to hear the case, or until it's argued before the Supreme Court of the US, if that's possible.
My own opinion is that because the state Education Code specifically states "may sell for cash" instead of just "may sell", its intent was that the sale was meant to be a cash sale, and that the highest responsible bidder is the one who had the highest cash bid, which was Daystar. Although KOCE-TV Foundation's $32M bid was higher than Daystar's $25.1M bid, the Foundation's bid was only $8M cash, with the balance to be paid on credit. Daystar's bid was an all-cash bid.
Since I have been openly accused of shilling for Daystar, I add these disclaimers:<ul>[*]The opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone.[*]I do not represent Daystar in any way, shape or form.[*]I have never contributed time or money to Daystar[*]I have no intention of contributing to Daystar in the future.[*]I have no business dealings with Daystar.[/list]