SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 178.28-1.7%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ramsey Su who wrote (19903)3/4/2002 9:48:17 PM
From: dwight martin  Read Replies (1) of 196952
 
Anyone who wants to read the gov's position?

usdoj.gov

Seems not to be overwhelming. This seems to be the mainstay of the gov's argument:

"[The C]ourt of appeals concluded that the FCC’s decision to hold
petitioner to timely as well as full payment was an exercise
of the agency’s regulatory authority which was beyond the
authority of the bankruptcy court to modify. The court of
appeals explained that “the regulatory purpose for requiring
payment in full—the identification of the candidates having
the best prospects for prompt and efficient exploitation of
the spectrum—is quite obviously served in the same way by
requiring payment on time.” Id. at 16a. Because “[t]ime of
payment and amount of payment are alike functions of
value,” ibid. (citation omitted), “[t]here can be little doubt
that if full payment is a regulatory condition, so too is
timeliness,” ibid.
The court of appeals rejected the bankruptcy court’s reli-ance
on the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision, 11
U.S.C. 362(a). The court emphasized that the automatic stay
was by its terms inapplicable to actions to enforce a govern-mental
unit’s “police or regulatory power.” Pet. App. 22a
(citing 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)). It also
rejected, as “flatly incompatible with [its prior] mandate,”
ibid., the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the FCC was
simply seeking to “enforce its pecuniary interests,” id. at
67a."

I'd like to read Nextwave's.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News