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: Michael Allard who wrote (19912)	3/5/2002 8:02:20 AM
From: saukriver	Respond to of 196654

The car lease is a good example. The only reason you do not get to keep the car in the event of a bankruptcy, is because the leasing company filed UCC forms protecting their asset in the event of a bankruptcy. Not exactly. If a car lease is a "true lease" (typically a residual value that is not of economic consequence), then the lessor truly owns the car, and the lease is not just a financing device. If the lease is a disguised financing device, the lender would need not need to file a UCC financing statement if the collateral is a car. It records its security interest on the certificate of title and perfects in that manner. With a car lease, the lessor/lender does not want to argue whether it is a true lease or not. (Most consumer car leases are true leases because the residual value is close to the then-expected market value.) So, they record their interest as the legal owner on the certificate of title. That puts them in a classic "heads, I win and tail, you lose" situation. (For consumer goods that are not certificated (as cars are), no UCC filing is necessary (presumably because the government filing offices would be clogged). Best example of that is the back of the Sears charge slip in which you grant Sears a security interest in the lawnmower, skil-saw, patio furniture, etc. No requirement under the UCC to file squat for consumer goods.) But, I need to get back on topic (or Ramsey will verbally smack me). Your point that the FCC could have and failed to both take and perfect a security interest to secure the obligations to it under the license agreements is a good one. This is another solid argument why the FCC's legal position appears next to me to be next to baseless.

To: Michael Allard who wrote (19912)	3/5/2002 10:46:11 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 196654

Proper Perfection of a security interest is, of course, important. However, the lease example is not really appropos, because it is clear that a lease is a property interest that the bankruptcy court must pass on. The lessor has to go to bankruptcy court to get the automatic stay lifted; the debtor decides whether to affirm or disaffirm the lease contract, etc. If the debtor disaffirms, the lessor can enforce its security interest and take back the property and make an unsecured, nonpriority claim for any amounts remaining due after sale of the property that is subject to the lease. The lessor may get the bankruptcy court's authorization to lift the stay and enforce the security interest, anyway, under a number of circumstances that are not really relevant to this discussion. If you look at the FCC position, it is that the licenses are NOT property, its regulations provide for automatic loss of the licenses and that the obligation of NextWave-FCC claims for debt are distinct from loss of the license. So, the FCC doesn't even follow your logic, because if it did, it would be clear that the Court of Appeals was correct. Instead, the FCC takes the position that the automatic stay does not apply to its regulatory decisions, the regulations provided for automatic termination of the license, and the bankruptcy was without jurisdiction to modify NextWave's obligation to timely pay or to stay payments.

To: Michael Allard who wrote (19912)	3/5/2002 11:41:09 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196654

Matt (based on the lack of access to capital caused by the FCC's delay in getting the licences transferred). You see, this is where the "Folklore Factor" comes into play! Everything is the evil FCC's fault. Did Nextwave lie on their applications. Sure they did! Were they qualified to even participate in the Auction. NO! Did they act in good faith? NO. But, to you guys. Nextwave is the poor little 'fat boy' that is being bullied by the FCC. This is why this is so comical.. ZERO objectivity being displayed by the Home Team. And to correct your "it was the FCC fault for delaying the conveyance of the Aurthorization's", so it was the FCC's fault!! Shortly after Antigone filed the petition to deny in June. The FCC approached Nextwave for a plan to reorganize their foreign ownership percentages. All they wanted was a plan. It took Nextwave 5 months to present their "plan" to the FCC. And you know what that plan was. We need another 9 months to reorganize our foreign ownership, which we promise to do. The FCC then conveyed Nextwaves authorities in 3 business days over the New Year Holiday. It took Nextwave 5 months to deliver a plan that asked for a 9 month extention, and the FCC conveyed the authorities in 3 business days over a legal holiday. Did they ever do what they promised. NO! Bad nasty FCC.. They withheld their licenses which caused a lack of access to capital!! LOL!! You guys are too much!! Time to throw another Nextwave Folklore log on the ole' campfire. And so it goes..... PCSTEL