SES, Intelsat Agree on District Court Jurisdiction in C-Band Clearing Suit
Intelsat and SES agree that the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court's Sept. 14 decision in Kiviti v. Bhatt doesn't come into play with SES' ongoing litigation against Intelsat regarding proceeds from their clearing of the C band, and the U.S.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Bankruptcy Court's decision in Intelsat's favor in litigation brought by SES was final and thus could be appealed. That per a pair of docket 3:22-cv-668 position statements Monday filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court ordered Intelsat and SES last month to file briefs on whether the Kiviti decision affects whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision in SES/Intelsat was appealable and whether the District Court's subsequent reversal and remand of that decision was within Article III jurisdictional constraints. It also asked for statements of position on attorneys fees. SES said that in Kiviti, the bankruptcy court's decision was not final, unlike the U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision in the Intelsat suit. SES said that while Intelsat's overall bankruptcy case was not closed until SES and Intelsat stipulated that it was, the SES appeal of the Bankruptcy Court decision could have gone forward regardless of the state of Intelsat's bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Court had the option of certifying its order disallowing SES’ relocation payment claims for immediate appeal if the order were considered interlocutory, SES said. It said the District Court's power over the appeal ended when it remanded the case back to U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the time to seek further review expired. Intelsat said the procedural closing of certain underlying bankruptcy cases was for administrative purposes and not related to the finality of the Bankruptcy Court’s order. It said the parties’ agreement to administratively reopen those underlying bankruptcy cases in the event of a remand also was procedural. Those procedural acts are different from what happened in Kiviti, where the parties agreed to conditional dismissal of unresolved substantive counts to create finality for appellate purposes, it said. Both satellite operators said there were no attorneys' fees issues for the District Court of Bankruptcy Court to decide.