Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnG who wrote (8719)	3/18/2001 9:26:19 AM
From: JohnG	Respond to of 197227

NextWave Case - Part III by: pay_the_vig 03/17/01 04:55 pm EST Msg: 12088 of 12091 After the oral arguments, Mr. Olson told reporters that he thought his case had been well received by the court. “The judges of this court obviously did a lot of homework. . .They were very aware of what the issues are,” Mr. Olson said. But, he added, “I don’t draw any inferences from their questions. We’ll have to see how they decide.” Mr. Olson said he believed that the court would agree that it had jurisdiction over NextWave’s bankruptcy claims and would address the broader issues raised. Former FCC General Counsel Christopher J. Wright stressed that even if the D.C. Circuit judges disagreed with the Second Circuit panel on whether the agency had violated bankruptcy laws in the NextWave case, they are bound by the other court’s rulings. Mr. Wright said Mr. Olson had “painted himself into a corner” because, even if he convinced the D.C. Circuit that it had jurisdiction over the bankruptcy issues, the dischargeable debt issue would be problematic. Some wireless industry observers who have followed NextWave’s case closely say the FCC could be vulnerable on several points regarding the license cancellation. Frequently mentioned is the FCC’s treatment of another bankrupt C and F block licensee that failed to make installment payments—Wisconsin-based Airadigm Communications, Inc. Last year, Airadigm filed a petition asking the FCC to reinstate its canceled licenses, or at least waive the automatic cancellation rules. Meanwhile, Airadigm continues to operate, a fact that NextWave has noted in its court filings. In its brief with the D.C. Circuit in the NextWave case, the FCC said it still was considering Airadigm’s request. But it noted that the carrier serves 26,000 customers, including police and fire departments, hospitals, and residents in rural areas. The agency has noted that NextWave hadn’t started offering service when its licenses were canceled. NextWave says that fact shouldn’t make a difference in the way a licensee is treated. “I think a lot of people are clearly looking at Airadigm and how the Commission’s going to deal with Airadigm,” one industry official said. “The Commission, I think, is in a difficult situation.” While the FCC may attempt to draw a distinction between NextWave and Airadigm, “the rules are the rules,” that observer said. Some wireless industry players who supported the FCC’s cancellation of NextWave’s licenses—and have sought the spectrum that was reauctioned—say the agency must take a tough stand against Airadigm, or risk hurting the case against NextWave. Another regulatory matter that some people see as significant involves what they say are conflicting FCC statements about whether NextWave would lose its licenses while it was under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Meanwhile, financial analysts are keeping a close eye on the case. Blair Levin and Michael J. Balhoff, analysts for Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., said that Global Crossing Ltd. and its chairman, Gary Winnick, have options to invest $600 million in NextWave if it wins its case and gets its licenses back. Liberty Media Group has an option to invest $300 million, they said in a note to investors. “If two or more judges show clear sympathy for NextWave’s position, the market may start to incorporate increased value in the holdings of its publicly held investors,” Messrs. Levin and Balhoff said. —Paul Kirby Telecommunications Reports, March 19, 2001

To: JohnG who wrote (8719)	3/18/2001 11:57:23 AM
From: Kayaker	Respond to of 197227

Below is original post, followed by same post with formatting fixed. Took only a single keystroke to fix the formatting (then 2 "Enters" to separate the sections). bckayaker.tripod.com Apologies if already considered. Original Post ------------------------------------------------------- Nextwave NextWave Case - Part I - Appeals Court Panel Seems Sympathetic To NextWave’s Case on License Cancellation The fate of NextWave Telecom, Inc., now rests in the hands of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Those judges last week indicated they were sympathetic to the bankrupt carrier’s contention that the FCC reclaimed its “C” and “F” block PCS (personal communications service) licenses in violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. But their decision may come down to whether they agree with the FCC’s contention that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) already has rejected most of NextWave’s arguments. Even if the D.C. Circuit decides it has jurisdiction in the case, it should rule in the FCC’s favor because the agency did not violate bankruptcy law, the Commission’s attorney said last week during an oral argument before the panel. The Commission also disputed NextWave’s charges that the agency had violated principles of due process and fair notice in c - by: pay_the_vig NextWave Case - Part II - For example, section 525 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code prohibits a federal agency from revoking the license of a bankrupt company that has failed to pay a “dischargeable” debt. Judge Tatel called the language in section 525 “pretty plain,” and Judge Sentelle called the provision “absolute.” Mr. Armstrong suggested that NextWave’s debt was not dischargeable in the context of the FCC’s licensing scheme. Considering section 525 along with section 362 would lead one to the conclusion that section 525 doesn’t bar the FCC from canceling NextWave’s licenses, he said. The Second Circuit, he noted, reached such a conclusion. But the judges seemed skeptical of Mr. Armstrong’s arguments and said NextWave’s debts appeared dischargeable. “There’s no regulatory exception for section 525,” Judge Tatel said. Another section, 362, spells out the stay provisions of bankruptcy law. It prohibits the collection of any lien against a bankrupt debtor. Judge Tatel questioned whether a footnote in one of the - by: pay_the_vig ---------------------------------------------------------- Reposted with formatting fixed: Nextwave NextWave Case - Part I - Appeals Court Panel Seems Sympathetic To NextWave’s Case on License Cancellation The fate of NextWave Telecom, Inc., now rests in the hands of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Those judges last week indicated they were sympathetic to the bankrupt carrier’s contention that the FCC reclaimed its “C” and “F” block PCS (personal communications service) licenses in violation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. But their decision may come down to whether they agree with the FCC’s contention that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) already has rejected most of NextWave’s arguments. Even if the D.C. Circuit decides it has jurisdiction in the case, it should rule in the FCC’s favor because the agency did not violate bankruptcy law, the Commission’s attorney said last week during an oral argument before the panel. The Commission also disputed NextWave’s charges that the agency had violated principles of due process and fair notice in c - by: pay_the_vig NextWave Case - Part II - For example, section 525 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code prohibits a federal agency from revoking the license of a bankrupt company that has failed to pay a “dischargeable” debt. Judge Tatel called the language in section 525 “pretty plain,” and Judge Sentelle called the provision “absolute.” Mr. Armstrong suggested that NextWave’s debt was not dischargeable in the context of the FCC’s licensing scheme. Considering section 525 along with section 362 would lead one to the conclusion that section 525 doesn’t bar the FCC from canceling NextWave’s licenses, he said. The Second Circuit, he noted, reached such a conclusion. But the judges seemed skeptical of Mr. Armstrong’s arguments and said NextWave’s debts appeared dischargeable. “There’s no regulatory exception for section 525,” Judge Tatel said. Another section, 362, spells out the stay provisions of bankruptcy law. It prohibits the collection of any lien against a bankrupt debtor. Judge Tatel questioned whether a footnote in one of the - by: pay_the_vig