Grande Presses for OK of $46.8M Supersedeas Bond Pending Appeal vs. Record Labels

The $46.8 million supersedeas bond procured by Grande Communications Networks “satisfies the criteria established by courts in this jurisdiction,” and accomplishes the goal of protecting the record labels’ rights pending appeal, said Grande’s reply Tuesday (docket 1:17-cv-00365) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin to the labels’ Aug. 22 opposition.

Grande’s Aug. 8 motion seeks court approval of the bond and a stay of execution of the court’s Jan. 30 copyright infringement judgment against Grande, pending the resolution of all appeals (see 2308090062). The labels' opposition called Grande's proposed bond "insufficient as a matter of law" (see 2308230001).

Nothing in the labels’ opposition rebuts what Grande lays out in its motion, that its proposed supersedeas bond meets court criteria and protects the labels' rights, said Grande’s reply. The terms of the bond “ensure that either Grande or its surety,” New York Fire Insurance Co., “will pay the judgment in the event Grande’s appeal is unsuccessful,” it said. The labels’ 11th-hour pursuit of post-judgment interest is “inappropriate,” and not a requirement, as the labels would have the court believe, it said. The amount of the bond is within the court’s discretion, and the court didn’t order that Grande’s supersedeas bond “must account for post-judgment interest,” it said.

The purpose of a supersedeas bond “is to protect the non-appealing party’s rights pending appeal, and that is exactly what Grande’s bond does,” said Grande’s reply. The labels’ complaints “seem calculated to make things difficult for Grande, rather than accomplishing any legitimate purpose,” it said.

The supersedeas bond provides that the surety will be liable for the $46.9 million bond amount if Grande’s appeal is dismissed and it doesn’t pay the judgment, or if the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the district court’s Jan. 30 judgment and Grande doesn’t pay it, said Grande’s reply. This shouldn’t be “controversial,” it said. In either scenario, the labels are ensured payment of the judgment by either Grande or its surety, it said.

The labels say Grande shouldn’t be given “the first right to payment of the judgment,” but there’s “no precedent for that demand,” and even the cases the labels cite don’t “require such a condition,” said Grande’s reply. There’s “nothing specific” about supersedeas bonds in copyright cases “that would require they all be the same,” and the labels “cite no authority suggesting otherwise,” it said.

The court should also reject the labels’ complaint that the supersedeas bond doesn’t account for post-judgment interest, said Grande’s reply. The labels didn’t previously request that post-judgment interest be included in the bond, and there’s “no requirement in this district that Grande must account for it,” it said. It’s “inappropriate” for the labels to now seek post-judgment interest,” it said. There was no request for post-judgment interest in any of the labels’ bond-related filings, nor did the court “require Grande to account for it,” it said.

In addition to the absence of any court order requiring Grande to secure a supersedeas bond that accounts for post-judgment interest, there’s also “no federal or local rule with such a requirement,” said Grande’s reply. Some courts in the 5th Circuit do require that post-judgment interest be included in any supersedeas bond, but the Western District of Texas isn’t one of them, it said.