The South Carolina Ports Authority handled 413,818 20-foot units (TEUs) from July through September, an increase of 3.3 percent over the same quarter last year, the port said Oct. 15. During the period 458 ships called on SCPA facilities, which represents a 4.8 percent increase over planned levels. SCPA currently has seven post-Panamax ship calls per week, it said.
A group of major broadcasters, in a cert petition filed Friday, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to not grant a preliminary injunction against Aereo. The Supreme Court’s intervention is “urgently needed,” said the filing. “This Court has had little tolerance for business models built on the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others. And this Court has repeatedly recognized the important public interest in protecting the viability of over-the-air broadcast television.” Broadcaster attempts to get the court to hear their case against streaming TV service Aereo aren’t likely to succeed while their cases in other jurisdictions are still in progress, said Stifel Nicolaus and Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant in separate emails. “Given the seeming non-ripeness of the current court rulings (which are all preliminary injunctions, not post-trial rulings), it may not be easy for broadcasters to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case,” said Gallant. Aereo’s case in the 2nd Circuit (CD April 2 p8) is still proceeding on the merits in U.S. District Court in New York, and Aereo and its competitor FilmOn X are still embroiled in ongoing court cases in California(CD Aug 29 p5), Utah (CD Oct 9 p21), Washington, D.C.(CD Sept 9 p18), and Massachusetts (CD July 17 p6). In Massachusetts, a federal judge Thursday also denied a preliminary injunction sought against Aereo by Hearst. “Broadcasters will have to overcome general Supreme Court reluctance to address cases at the preliminary injunction phase,” said Stifel Nicolaus. Both analyses agreed that the prospects for high court review could change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against FilmOn in its preliminary injunction appeal there, creating a circuit split. “It would be the Second Circuit (Aereo is legal) vs. Ninth Circuit (Aereo is illegal),” said Gallant. “And resolving Circuit splits is a leading reason why the Court agrees to devote its scarce resources to any given case."
A group of major broadcasters, in a cert petition filed Friday, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to not grant a preliminary injunction against Aereo. The Supreme Court’s intervention is “urgently needed,” said the filing. “This Court has had little tolerance for business models built on the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others. And this Court has repeatedly recognized the important public interest in protecting the viability of over-the-air broadcast television.” Broadcaster attempts to get the court to hear their case against streaming TV service Aereo aren’t likely to succeed while their cases in other jurisdictions are still in progress, said Stifel Nicolaus and Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant in separate emails. “Given the seeming non-ripeness of the current court rulings (which are all preliminary injunctions, not post-trial rulings), it may not be easy for broadcasters to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case,” said Gallant. Aereo’s case in the 2nd Circuit is still proceeding on the merits in U.S. District Court in New York, and Aereo and its competitor FilmOn X are still embroiled in ongoing court cases in California (WID Aug 29 p7), Utah (WID Oct 9 p15), Washington, D.C. (WID Sept 9 p11), and Massachusetts (WID July 17 p5). In Massachusetts, a federal judge Thursday also denied a preliminary injunction sought against Aereo by Hearst. “Broadcasters will have to overcome general Supreme Court reluctance to address cases at the preliminary injunction phase,” said Stifel Nicolaus. Both analyses agreed that the prospects for high court review could change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against FilmOn in its preliminary injunction appeal there, creating a circuit split. “It would be the Second Circuit (Aereo is legal) vs. Ninth Circuit (Aereo is illegal),” said Gallant. “And resolving Circuit splits is a leading reason why the Court agrees to devote its scarce resources to any given case."
A group of major broadcasters, in a cert petition filed Friday, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a preliminary injunction against Aereo. The Supreme Court’s intervention is “urgently needed,” said the filing. “This Court has had little tolerance for business models built on the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others. And this Court has repeatedly recognized the important public interest in protecting the viability of over-the-air broadcast television.” Broadcaster attempts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against streaming TV service Aereo aren’t likely to succeed while their cases in other jurisdictions are still in progress, said Stifel Nicolaus and Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant in separate emails. “Given the seeming non-ripeness of the current court rulings (which are all preliminary injunctions, not post-trial rulings), it may not be easy for broadcasters to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case,” said Gallant. Aereo’s case in the 2nd Circuit is still proceeding on the merits in U.S. District Court in New York, and Aereo and its competitor FilmOn X are still embroiled in ongoing court cases in California, Utah, Washington and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, a federal judge Thursday also denied a preliminary injunction sought against Aereo by Hearst (CED Oct 11 p7). “Broadcasters will have to overcome general Supreme Court reluctance to address cases at the preliminary injunction phase,” said Stifel Nicolaus. Both analyses agreed that the prospects for high court review could change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against FilmOn in its preliminary injunction appeal there, creating a circuit split. “It would be the Second Circuit (Aereo is legal) vs. Ninth Circuit (Aereo is illegal),” said Gallant. “And resolving Circuit splits is a leading reason why the Court agrees to devote its scarce resources to any given case."
The Delaware Supreme Court overturned a lower court order that had halted Activision Blizzard’s $8.2 billion plan to reduce Vivendi’s stake in the game company from 61 percent to 12 percent, clearing the way for the deal to close, BMO Capital Markets analyst Edward Williams said Thursday. It was a unanimous decision by the court’s five justices, he said. Douglas Hayes filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court last month, saying he was an Activision shareholder and claiming breach of fiduciary duties in the planned stock sale (CED Sept 13 p10). Activision violated provisions of its certificate of incorporation by failing to submit the stock purchase agreement dated July 25 for stockholder approval, and board members breached their fiduciary duties by approving the deal, the plaintiff claimed. Delaware Chancery Court issued an order at a hearing last month that “precludes the consummation of the transactions unless” that order is “modified on appeal” or the deal is approved by an Activision Blizzard stockholder vote, Vivendi said then (CED Sept 20 p8). The Delaware Supreme Court lifted the preliminary injunction, “enabling the parties to move forward with the completion of the transactions,” Activision said Thursday in a news release. Activision expects to complete the transactions by Tuesday, it said.
A U.S. District Court decision in Boston denying a Hearst station a preliminary injunction against Aereo may not have much bearing for pending cases involving Aereo or FilmOn X, said media attorneys. WCVB-TV Boston alleged that Aereo infringed on its rights under the Copyright Act by retransmitting its programs over the Internet without compensating WCVB.
A Massachusetts district court decision denying a Hearst station a preliminary injunction against Aereo may not have much bearing for pending cases involving Aereo or FilmOn X, said media attorneys. WCVB-TV Boston alleged that Aereo infringed on its rights under the Copyright Act by retransmitting its programs over the Internet without compensating WCVB. This decision, issued in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, follows a similar initial ruling made in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York (CD April 2 p8). In another case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a nearly nationwide preliminary injunction against FilmOn X, another streaming TV retransmission service (CD Sept 9 p18). The varying decisions will probably result in an ultimate decision made in the Supreme Court, said the attorneys.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 dismissed a challenge from a domestic industry coalition to the Commerce Department’s new policy of interpreting the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China to exclude subassemblies from AD/CVD coverage. An October 2012 scope ruling had found that subassemblies can meet the scope’s exclusion for “finished goods kits,” even though they are components meant for incorporation in a larger finished good. The court dismissed the challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because the plaintiff, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), didn’t comment on Commerce’s new policy after it was announced in the preliminary results of the scope ruling.
Several Utah broadcasters and Fox are seeking a preliminary injunction against Internet streaming service Aereo that would bar it from transmitting copyrighted material in most of the U.S., according to filings in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. “Aereo’s conduct is copyright infringement and should be preliminarily enjoined,” said a motion filed by Community Television of Utah, KUTV and Fox. Aereo launched in Utah six weeks ago, and has been retransmitting broadcasts from Salt Lake City stations KSTU, KUTV and KMYU in St. George, said the filings. Aereo’s service undermines the broadcasters’ ability to conduct retransmission consent negotiations, said the filings. The broadcasters have asked the court to grant an injunction that would apply everywhere in the U.S. except for the jurisdiction of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, where Aereo won its challenge against a previous injunction earlier this year (CD April 2 ). Hearst is also seeking an injunction against Aereo in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts for its Boston service (CD July 17 p6). In addition to Salt Lake City and Boston, Aereo streams broadcast TV in New York, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas, said a release from Aereo. The injunction sought against Aereo in Utah is similar to one granted against competing service FilmOn X in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court in September (CD Sept 9 p18). FilmOn -- formerly called Aereokiller -- appealed that injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month, and is awaiting a decision on another appealed injunction in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California (CD Aug 29 p5). Aereo is also still in the midst of the case in U.S. District Court in New York that originally spawned the injunction that it successfully challenged in the 2nd Circuit. An Aereo spokeswoman said in an email that Fox had failed in its previous attempts to get an injunction in New York and the broadcaster is “simply not entitled to repeated do-overs on this matter.” Aereo will respond “to this latest attempt at a mulligan in due course,” said the spokeswoman. A New York magistrate judge ruled Monday that Aereo founder Chet Kanojia and Chief Technical Officer Joseph Lipowski will have to submit to an additional hour of deposition from plaintiffs ABC and WNET and will have to answer questions about Aereo’s patents. Aereo had asked Judge Henry Pitman to reconsider the ruling, citing attorney-client privilege and other arguments. However, Pitman denied the request for reconsideration. “It is beyond question that the attorney client privilege protects only communications with counsel, not the underlying facts that are communicated to counsel,” said Pitman.
Several Utah broadcasters and Fox are seeking a preliminary injunction against Internet streaming service Aereo that would bar it from transmitting copyrighted material in most of the U.S., according to filings in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. “Aereo’s conduct is copyright infringement and should be preliminarily enjoined,” said a motion filed by Community Television of Utah, KUTV and Fox. Aereo launched in Utah six weeks ago, and has been retransmitting broadcasts from Salt Lake City stations KSTU, KUTV and KMYU in St. George, said the filings. Aereo’s service undermines the broadcasters’ ability to conduct retransmission consent negotiations, said the filings. The broadcasters have asked the court to grant an injunction that would apply everywhere in the U.S. except for the jurisdiction of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, where Aereo won its challenge against a previous injunction earlier this year (WID April 2 p3). Hearst is also seeking an injunction against Aereo in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts for its Boston service (WID July 17 p5). In addition to Salt Lake City and Boston, Aereo streams broadcast TV in New York, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas, said a release from Aereo. The injunction sought against Aereo in Utah is similar to one granted against competing service FilmOn X in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court in September (WID Sept9 p11). FilmOn -- formerly called Aereokiller -- appealed that injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month, and is awaiting a decision on another appealed injunction in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California (WID Aug 19 p7). Aereo is also still in the midst of the case in U.S. District Court in New York that originally spawned the injunction that it successfully challenged in the 2nd Circuit. An Aereo spokeswoman said in an email that Fox had failed in its previous attempts to get an injunction in New York and the broadcaster is “simply not entitled to repeated do-overs on this matter.” Aereo will respond “to this latest attempt at a mulligan in due course,” said the spokeswoman. A New York magistrate judge ruled Monday that Aereo founder Chet Kanojia and Chief Technical Officer Joseph Lipowski will have to submit to an additional hour of deposition from plaintiffs ABC and WNET and will have to answer questions about Aereo’s patents. Aereo had asked Judge Henry Pitman to reconsider the ruling, citing attorney-client privilege and other arguments. However, Pitman denied the request for reconsideration. “It is beyond question that the attorney client privilege protects only communications with counsel, not the underlying facts that are communicated to counsel,” said Pitman.