Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Endless Lawsuits Part 24 [Update]

Update: The Advocate also has an article on yesterday's court hearing. (It's not available from the news page so I missed it until I sat down with the physical paper and a cup of coffee.) It's a good bit more informative than the Advertiser's brief. In this instance the clearer understanding of events only leads to a bit more confusion. As far as I can tell the judge isn't fond of the fact that all either side care about is the issuance of the fiber bonds and are mostly ignoring the faux question of whether or not LUS is overcharging its owners that gives the class action lawyers their thin opening to challenge the bonds. Apparently the judge has stepped around the cases set up by both LCG and the class action suit lawyers and structured the proceedings to his own vision of what should happen next. --And what will happen next is more delay than people one either side believed would be possible based on the laws involved. Puzzeling...and frustrating.

Here, from the Advertiser article, is what you need to know:
In 2004, when the project first was proposed, city officials predicted LUS could offer all three services for lower rates than its competitors charged at the time. The project has yet to get off the ground. Competitors, including BellSouth and Cox Communications, have battled the city's plans in the state Legislature, before the Louisiana Public Service Commission and in court.
The story, such as it is, is that Judge Rubin has told the LPUA--the governing body of LUS--to get on about the process of hearing the complaint.

This is all about trying to stop or drive up the cost of the sale of the bonds that will support the fiber build. --That bond sale is has NO logical connection to putative complaint. My guess is that this lawsuit, which began as a way to smear LUS during the fiber fight, has degenerated (if that is possible) into a pure extortion game. Eastin, Naquin and the bevy of lawyers probably want to get paid off for going away. That's not uncommon in class action lawsuits.

No comments: