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: Ramsey Su who wrote (19903)	3/4/2002 9:48:17 PM
From: dwight martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196915

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.