In re Lightsquared Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 November 2013 |
| Citation | 504 B.R. 321 |
| Parties | In re LightSquared Inc., et al., Debtors. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, By: David M. Friedman, Esq., Jed I. Bergman, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, HGW U.S. Holding Company LP, Blue Line DZM Corp., and Harbinger Capital Partners SP, Inc.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, By: Rachel C. Strickland, Esq., James C. Dugan, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants Charles W. Ergen, SP Special Opportunities, LLC, and Special Opportunities Holdings LLC.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, By: Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esq., Brian T. Frawley, Esq., Brian D. Glueckstein, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants DISH Network Corporation, EchoStar Corporation and L–Band Acquisition, LLC.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, By: Charles E. Bachman, Esq., Peter M. Friedman, Esq., Alexander Elliot Slater, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants Sound Point Capital Management, L.P. and Stephen Ketchum.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, NY 10005, By: Matthew S. Barr, Esq., Alan J. Stone, Esq., Karen Gartenberg, Esq., Attorneys for Intervenor Debtors.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, One Bryant Park, New York, NY 10036, By: Philip C. Dublin, Esq., Michael S. Stamer, Esq., Attorneys for Intervenors U.S. Bank National Association and MAST Capital Management, LLC.
White & Case LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, By: Thomas E Lauria, Esq., Glenn M. Kurtz, Esq., Attorneys for Intervenor Ad Hoc Secured Group of LightSquared LP Lenders.
Before the Court are the motions (the “Motions to Dismiss”) 2 of defendants Charles W. Ergen (“Mr. ”), SP Special Opportunities, LLC (“SPSO”), Special Opportunities Holdings LLC (“SO Holdings,” and, collectively with Mr. Ergen and SPSO, the “Ergen Defendants”), EchoStar Corporation (“EchoStar”), DISH Network Corporation (“DISH”), L–Band Acquisition, LLC (“LBAC,” and, collectively with EchoStar and DISH, the “DISH Defendants”), Sound Point Capital Management, L.P. (“Sound Point Capital”), and Stephen Ketchum (“Mr. Ketchum,” and, together with Sound Point Capital, the “Sound Point Capital Defendants”) 3 seeking to dismiss the amended complaint (the ) 4 of Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, HGW U.S. Holding Company LP, Blue Line DZM Corp., and Harbinger Capital Partners SP, Inc. (collectively, “Harbinger”).
As stated in the Amended Complaint, Harbinger “brings this action against Ergen and entities he controls, including DISH, EchoStar, LBAC, SPSO, and SO Holdings, to seek redress for Defendants' fraud and other tortious conduct aimed at misappropriating Harbinger's control over and investment in LightSquared, and destroying Harbinger's contractual rights and business opportunities relating to that investment.” Am. Compl. ¶ 1. More specifically, Harbinger alleges that DISH and EchoStar, acting through Mr. Ergen as their executive chairman, and with the assistance of Sound Point Capital and Mr. Ketchum in forming SPSO, engaged in subterfuge and fraudulently purchased certain secured debt obligations of LightSquared LP (the “Loan Debt”) issued under the Credit Agreement (as defined below), in order to gain control of LightSquared Inc. and its debtor subsidiaries (“LightSquared” or the “Debtors”) and derail Harbinger's (i) control over and equity interest in the Debtors and their assets, (ii) plans for the reorganization of the Debtors, and (iii) attempts to gain exit financing for such reorganization. In addition, Harbinger alleges that Mr. Ergen and DISH/EchoStar, through LBAC, made a low-ball, bad-faith offer to purchase the Debtors' wireless spectrum at a discount in order to confuse and deter other potential purchasers from making a reasonable bid for such assets. Harbinger asserts that the “Defendants' fraudulent scheme has materially harmed Harbinger's contractual rights and opportunities as LightSquared's controlling shareholder, and will improperly provide Ergen and his entities with an unfair advantage as a bidder for the spectrum assets....” Id.
By their three separate Motions to Dismiss, each group of Defendants asserts, among other things, that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”), made applicable herein by Rule 7012 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “BankruptcyRules”), and should be dismissed. More specifically, the Defendants argue that SPSO, the entity that purchased $1,013,082,326.30 in Loan Debt 5 and, as of July 26, 2013, held $824,323,097.83 in Loan Debt,6 was permitted to do so under the applicable provisions of the Credit Agreement because SPSO is not a “Disqualified Company” as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor is it a subsidiary of a Disqualified Company. The Ergen Defendants and the DISH Defendants (collectively, the “Ergen/DISH Defendants”) further assert that they owed no duty to Harbinger, which, they maintain, precludes the assertion of any fraud claim. In the absence of a claim for fraud, the Defendants argue that Harbinger has failed to state a claim in each of the other causes of action in the Amended Complaint. Defendants further argue that Harbinger lacks “standing” or the right to assert the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint, as Harbinger lacks a protectable right or interest that could serve as a basis for the claims. Finally, Defendants argue that any such claims belong exclusively to the Debtors. The DISH Defendants also argue that Harbinger has failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required by Rule 9(b) () with respect to its fraud claim, and that the Amended Complaint is replete with impermissible “group pleading,” characterized by broad allegations against groups of Defendants without particularized assertions of the specific allegations being made against each of the Defendants.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Dismiss are granted as follows: (i) with respect to Count One, the Motion of the Ergen Defendants to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted, and Count One is dismissed with prejudice; (ii) with respect to Counts Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven, the Motion of the Ergen Defendants to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted; (iii) with respect to Counts Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven, the Motion of the DISH Defendants to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted; (iv) with respect to Counts Three, Six, and Seven, the Motion of the Sound Point Capital Defendants to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted; and (v) with respect to Count Eight, the Motion of the Ergen Defendants to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted, and Count Eight is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of any party-in-interest, including Harbinger, to seek disallowance of SPSO's claim under section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code on grounds not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Brown
... ... rests on different parties at different times." In re Allegheny Intern., Inc. , 954 F.2d 167, 173 (3d Cir. 1992). Initially, the claimant must allege facts sufficient to support the claim. In that regard, "a claim that ... exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available outside of the bankruptcy context is available in bankruptcy."); see also In re LightSquared Inc. , 504 B.R. 321, 336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (the "language could not be plainer if a claimant would be estopped under non-bankruptcy law from ... ...
-
Irving H. Picard, Tr. for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC)
... ... , in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). The court may also consider documents that the plaintiff ... In Harbinger Capital Partners LLC v. Ergen ( In re LightSquared ), 504 B.R. 321, 336, 339 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2013), Judge Chapman engaged in a thorough analysis of the question and concluded that a Bankruptcy Court ... ...
- Lightsquared LP v. SP Special Opportunities LLC (In re Lightsquared Inc.)
-
In re Latam Airlines Grp. S.A.
... ... Peuco. [ 16 ] On April 21, 2017, LATAM Finance lent ... USD 12, 000, 000 to TAM Capital I Inc. ("TAM ... Capital"). Ex. 50 (USD 12, 000, 000 Loan Agreement). On ... August 28, 2017, LATAM Finance lent USD 57, 016, 524.45 to ... bankruptcy court "cannot disallow an otherwise valid ... claim based on general principles of equity"); In re ... Lightsquared Inc. , 504 B.R. 321, 339 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y ... 2013) ("[T]his Court holds that the Bankruptcy Code, ... pursuant to section 510(c) or ... ...