Feb. 13, 2006 — Further details of Jeffrey Prosser's bankruptcy issues continued to unfold Monday as Innovative Communications Corporation issued a press release attacking the two entities that had filed involuntary bankruptcy papers against Prosser and ICC in Delaware on Friday and as Judge Curtis Gomez's opinion on the request of ICC's Vitelco for a temporary restraining order to fend off the bankruptcy became public.
ICC characterized Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P. 's attempt to force ICC and Prosser into bankruptcy as "predatory" calling "the legal ‛trick‛ of having this motion filed in a bankruptcy court in another jurisdiction" part of Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative‛s "efforts to avoid fully adjudicating the cases it is clearly losing in the Virgin Islands."
The release from ICC saying that the company was solvent seemed to belie unconfirmed reports, mentioned in an earlier story, that Prosser had voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. (See "Prosser Pushed toward Bankruptcy").
In a call to the Source Monday afternoon from Carol Rich, attorney for ICC with the law firm of Dudley, Clark and Chan, Rich was clear that ICC had no intention of filing for bankruptcy. "It hasn't happened and it isn't going to," Rich, who was calling from Holland Redfield's office, said.
Redfield is ICC vice president for public affairs.
The pending involuntary bankruptcy stems from the decision by two of Prosser‛s court-room adversaries to join forces against him and his companies. The two are RTFC, ICC‛s Virginia-based, long-term banker, and the Greenlight companies, a set of three New York hedge funds representing minority stockholders in ICC‛s predecessor company.
As a result of an October, 2005, agreement between the two, Greenlight moved a petition of involuntary bankruptcy against Prosser and ICC in the federal bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Del., on Friday. Delaware is the site of a state court decision awarding Greenlight an estimated $134 million in compensation for what the court regarded as underpayments to minority stockholders when Prosser took the company private in 1998.
That Chancery Court decision has been appealed by ICC to the Delaware State Supreme Court.
Rich said ICC has filed a motion to transfer the venue on the involuntary bankruptcy to the Virgin Islands, "where it belongs." She also said ICC will file a motion to dismiss the action
Monday's ICC statement of protest was issued by Redfield. He said, among other things, that "Innovative and all of its subsidiaries are financially sound and current on all loans to RTFC. Any suggestion of bankruptcy or insolvency created by filing this motion in such a court is malicious, misleading and a disservice to our employees and customers wherever we operate."
The question of where the RTFC-ICC litigation is to be litigated was one raised by RTFC recently. The non-profit bank had argued that Judge Gomez should recuse himself from ICC-related cases because of the key role RTFC said was played by Redfield, in his role as Republican National Committeeman for the Virgin Islands, in Gomez‛ appointment to the federal bench. (See "Gomez Recuses Himself from One ICC Case, but Not From Two Others").
The text of Gomez‛s ruling against the ICC request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction was made available at the district court office and on the Web site Monday morning but was dated Friday, Feb. 10.
In the 16-page memorandum opinion Gomez laid out the complex background for the request and stated his reasons for denying it. One element was the fact that while Vitelco had been specifically mentioned in an earlier set of papers, it had been dropped in later ones.
Vitelco's basis for requesting the TRO was the concern for the stability of the Virgin Islands only telephone company, they said.
But Gomez also noted that Vitelco is some corporate distance from the organization that is being sued in Delaware.
(As the judge wrote in a footnote, ICC-LLC (which is owned by Prosser) owns Emcom, which in turn owns ICC, which in turn owns Vitelco.)
The judge also indicated that he felt secure that the bankruptcy courts would bear in mind the powers and responsibilities of the V.I. Public Service Commission in any decision made about the parent company. In its filings for the TRO, Vitelco had said that the involuntary bankruptcy filing was inappropriate because no change in the ownership of the phone company could take place without the approval of the PSC.
In his opinion, Gomez wrote: "The Court is mindful of the role of Vitelco in the Virgin Islands community. In 1959, the Government of the Virgin Islands granted Vitelco a franchise to provide the people of the Virgin Islands "a modern and adequate system of domestic and world-wide telephone and related services."
But, the judge wrote, "Because there is insufficient indicia that the anticipated harm may materialize in the manner that Vitelco suggests or with any degree of certainty, the law requires an outcome other than that urged by Vitelco.