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: Maurice Winn who wrote (11973)	6/24/2001 2:02:01 PM
From: grinder965	Respond to of 197016

mq, Well I respect you're right to disagree - especially since I'm no expert on US constitutional law. Fact is I'd be surprised if the FCC even ask the Supreme Court to take this one on let alone agree to do so. I'm sure I don't need to remind you how things turned out last time we disagreed re: who the big winners of the China infra buildout would be......but nobody is perfect not even Q <LOL>

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11973)	6/24/2001 4:27:19 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 197016

Insightful as usual, Maurice. Unfortunately (or fortunately, actually), I think you are incorrect. There are no legal issues of any great significance involved a la Bush vs. Gore, Watergate, abortion, criminal procedure, etc. The issue involved in the NextWave case was not novel. A lowly Bankruptcy Court in Kansas got it right in the exact same factual context as NextWave. The FCC was told there that it could not do to a small Kansas company exactly what it did to NextWave in a case entitled In re Kansas Personal Communications Services, LTD.. The Bankruptcy Court in that case made the following interesting comment concerning the NextWave case, in which the FCC's actions had been upheld by the Second Circuit: "Although the NextWave decisions are the only reported decisions on point, [FN27] there is a legion of cases that involve actions by regulatory agencies that revoke, withdraw, or limit a debtor's rights or use of property, or assess fines and penalties, based on the debtor's failure to comply with certain laws or regulations. In none of these cases, though, did the regulatory agency take action against the debtor or property of the estate, solely because the debtor was delinquent, or in default on payments due under a note to the regulatory agency. The Bankruptcy Court's decision was not appealed. The District of Columbia Circuit now has indicated that the Second Circuit was wrong. Because the Kansas Bankruptcy Court correctly noted that the FCC's action in the Kansas case was an action to protect its pecuniary interest, not to effect it public policy, the FCC had the same status as any creditor of a bankrupt. Similarly, the FCC was protecting its pocketbook, not acting to effectuate some greater public policy other than "you've got to pay to play", in the NextWave case. In many aspects, it was acting like any other lender which has sold property pursuant to a security agreement. This status as a quasi-creditor, without more, is clearly not enough to dislodge the usual procedures of bankruptcy law. I don't think the "more" exists. The Supreme Court is unlikely to touch this case with a ten foot pole. No juicy legal issues.