[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-232728-105":59,"doc-detail-232728-en":135},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":128,"head_meta":130,"extra_data":132,"updated_unix":134},105,"en","philadelphia-television-network-inc-v-reading-broadcasting-inc-order-july-14-2005","Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. v. Reading Broadcasting, Inc. - Order - July 14, 2005","","Court order and findings of fact from a non-jury bench trial addressing a contractual dispute between Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (PTN) and Reading Broadcasting, Inc. (RBI). The court finds RBI liable for breach of the Time Brokerage Agreement, holding that the breach also constitutes breach of the Option Agreement. PTN is awarded damages including sums for improperly made payments, pro rata credits tied to broadcast ERP below 50 percent, and lost profits. The court declines specific performance, resolves additional alleged overpayments, denies several PTN claims, rejects PTN’s fraud claim, and schedules a hearing on pre-judgment interest.",{"@graph":69,"@context":127},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/philadelphia-television-network-inc-v-reading-broadcasting-inc-order-july-14-2005/232728/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/philadelphia-television-network-inc-v-reading-broadcasting-inc-order-july-14-2005/232728.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-10",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119,123],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What agreements were at issue in this case?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The court addressed the breach of the Time Brokerage Agreement (TBA) and the breach of the Option Agreement, treating the TBA breach as also constituting an Option Agreement breach.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What damages did the court award to PTN?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The court awarded PTN damages for payments made in violation of the TBA, a pro rata credit tied to broadcast time below 50% ERP, and lost profits, plus additional amounts related to certain overpayment and reimbursement items.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Did the court order specific performance or reinstatement of the TBA?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"No. The court declined specific performance, concluding that monetary damages could compensate PTN.",{"name":124,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":125},"What happened to PTN’s claim for fraud and deceit?",{"text":126,"@type":114},"The court entered judgment in favor of RBI and against PTN on PTN’s claim for fraud and deceit.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":129,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":131,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":133,"site_id":62},232728,1789073357,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":136},{"doc_id":133,"user_id":137,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":138,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":139,"file_id":140,"file_url":141,"file_type":142,"file_size":143,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":144,"language":145,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":146,"faqs":147,"seo_title":148,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":134,"read_time":149,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY  \nFIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA  \nCIVIL TRIAL DIVISION  \nPHILADELPHIA TELEVISION NETWORK, INC. : AUGUST TERM, 2001  \nPlaintiff, :  \n: No. 1663  \n:  \nv. :  \nREADING BROADCASTING, INC. :  \nDefendant. : (Commerce Program)  \nO R D E R  \nAND NOW, this 14th day of July 2005, upon consideration of the evidence presented at a bench trial, the respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and responses ofthe parties, the respective briefs and memoranda, all matters of record, and in accord with the Findings of Fact, Discussion and Conclusions of Law being filed contemporaneously with this Order, it is ORDERED that:  \n1. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (“PTN”), and against defendant, Reading Broadcasting, Inc. (“RBI”), on plaintiff’s claim of breach of the Time Brokerage Agreement (“TBA”) .  \n2. The breach of the TBA constituted a breach of the Option Agreement. Therefore, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, PTN, and against defendant, RBI, on PTN’s claim of breach of the Option Agreement.  \n3. The court awards PTN damages resulting from the breach ofthe TBA as follows:  \na) $25,000 .00 for payments made to RBI employees from a $500,000 .00 advance, in violation of the TBA,  \nb) $1,418,687 .00, representing apro rata credit for the periods of time that the court finds RBI broadcast at below 50 percent ERP, and  \nc) $6,938,224 .00 in lost profits.  \n4. On PTN’s claim for breach of the Option Agreement, the court Orders that each party chose an appraiser, and the two appraisers choose a neutral appraiser and that, among the three, a value of Station WTVE must be determined. Once the station has been assigned a value, PTN is awarded the value of their options minus the second anniversary payment of $296,984 .94.  \n5. The court declines to order specific performance- -that is, reinstatement of the TBA- -in that monetary damages can compensate PTN.  \n6. With regard to alleged overpayments made by PTN, the court awards  \nPTN:  \na) $1,171 .00 for the reimbursement of professional association dues, which amount was improperly billed to, and paid by PTN,  \nb) $80,238 .36 for payments made by PTN for the legal services of the Holland & Knight law firm rendered prior to the TBA,  \n7. The court denies: (a) PTN’s claim for alleged payroll overstatements and health insurance charges,(b) PTN’s claim for “non-reimbursable” expenses of Michael Parker, Frank McCracken, George Mattmiller and Tom Root,(c) PTN’s claim for  \ncharges related to a “non-reimbursable” car,(d) PTN’s claim for reimbursement of a $10,000.00 retainer for legal services,(e) PTN’s claim for $60,000.00 owed to Verizon, and (f) PTN’s claim for reimbursement of the $500,000 advance.  \n8. Judgment is entered in favor of RBI, and against PTN, on PTN’s claim for fraud and deceit.  \n9. A hearing will be scheduled to permit the parties to present evidence related to the issue of the propriety of pre-judgment interest.  \nBY THE COURT,  \nALBERT W. SHEPPARD, JR., J.  \nIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA  \nCIVIL TRIAL DIVISION  \nPHILADELPHIA TELEVISION NETWORK, INC. : AUGUST TERM, 2001  \nPlaintiff, :  \n: No. 1663  \n:  \nv. :  \nREADING BROADCASTING, INC. :  \nDefendant. : (Commerce Program)  \nFINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION  \nAND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW  \nSUR BENCH TRIAL  \nAlbert W. Sheppard, Jr., J.………………………………………………. July 14, 2005  \nThis case involves a contractual dispute between two broadcasting companies. The court conducted a non-jury trial from February 2 through February 6, 2004 and March 9 through March 23, 2004.1 Based on the findings offacts and conclusions of law set forth, the court finds in favor of plaintiff.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT  \nI.  The Parties  \n1. Plaintiff Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (“PTN”) is a Pennsylvania corporation, which owns and operates Channel 7. Channel 7 is a low powered station that","cbCaiqDTth1yn0KL","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqDTth1yn0KL","pdf",206742,84,"English","# Findings of Fact, Discussion and Conclusions of Law\n## Non-jury bench trial overview\n## Findings of Fact\n### The Parties\n### The Station\n### Trial background","[{\"question\":\"What agreements were at issue in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The court addressed the breach of the Time Brokerage Agreement (TBA) and the breach of the Option Agreement, treating the TBA breach as also constituting an Option Agreement breach.\"},{\"question\":\"What damages did the court award to PTN?\",\"answer\":\"The court awarded PTN damages for payments made in violation of the TBA, a pro rata credit tied to broadcast time below 50% ERP, and lost profits, plus additional amounts related to certain overpayment and reimbursement items.\"},{\"question\":\"Did the court order specific performance or reinstatement of the TBA?\",\"answer\":\"No. The court declined specific performance, concluding that monetary damages could compensate PTN.\"},{\"question\":\"What happened to PTN’s claim for fraud and deceit?\",\"answer\":\"The court entered judgment in favor of RBI and against PTN on PTN’s claim for fraud and deceit.\"}]","Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. v. Reading Broadcasting, Inc. - Order - July 14, 2005 | PDF",212]