Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Pucillo and Company had to know AT&T was sending out feelers regarding Straight Path, I doubt they sold out of Fibertower for 500 million
I doubt Pucillo and Company would give away their control of Fibertower on the cheap in 2017
Every Stock has a Cusip Number, Fibertower's was 31567R 10 0
Now if you held onto your shares until to the bitter end, there should be a digital record of that.
Getting paid would likely require submitting some sort of claim to a trustee, however that's just a guess on my part.
Because the reorganized Fibertower does not own the 692 licenses in the dispute, legally, the FCC can not just grab a cut of any transfer action to AT&T unless it includes the last FCC recognized owner of the 692 licenses in dispute, the Fibertower Debtor Estate.
In the Straight Path case, the major difference, is that Straight Path was still the FCC recognized owner of the licenses.
Any deal between the FCC and reorganized Fibertower may simply not be legal unless shareholders are involved. Given the simple truth that the last FCC recognized owner of the 692 licenses is the Fibertower Debtor Estate, not the the reorganized Fibertower.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/straight-path-why-is-everyone-so-obsessed-asks-moffett-nathanson-1494271008
Here is the link to the article, maybe the author would be interested in the details regarding Fibertower / and the Bankruptcy, FCC ETC ETC ETC
Why No Fibertower Mention ?????
As shares of wireless spectrum owner Straight Path Communications (STRP) soar today by 32%, Craig Moffett of boutique research house Moffett-Nathanson asks why there’s such a fuss about this company, with AT&T (T) willing to bid $1.25 billion for the company, and Verizon Communications (VZ) apparently willing to bid much more.
One reason, he observes, is they genuinely want to put to use so-called millimeter wave frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. These are very high frequencies that could conceivably carry a ton of data over short distances. The spectrum has been mentioned many times in the context of coming 5G wireless services, and AT&T and Verizon are up-front about their interest.
“It may not be an overstatement to suggest that millimeter wave may soon be the foundation of their entire strategy,” writes Moffett.
However, there’s another, bureaucratic reason. The Federal Communications Commission, notes Moffett, is planning to auction some more of this millimeter wave stuff. Straight Path already has a bunch of the frequencies that are supposed to be auctioned, in the 39-gigahertz band. The graphic at the top of this post shows a map of Straight Path's licenses throughout the U.S.
But to do so, the FCC needs to do something called a “swap,” or reassign frequencies because the bands of the spectrum in 39 gigahertz, including Straight Path’s, are too narrow and they need to be combined to achieve more usable bandwidth.
Moffett thinks AT&T and Verizon would both now like to have “leverage” with the FCC as it plans that effort, for some kind of payoff in the eventual auction:
In other words, he who owns Straight Path has all the leverage in working with the FCC to repackage the spectrum for an upcoming auction. And it goes without saying that should the auction be materially delayed, he who owns Straight Path essentially has all the usable 39 gigahertz licenses on the market. It’s important not to overstate this case, however. The FCC will have to approve a license transfer, as they would in any spectrum transaction, and it is quite possible that they would only do so on the condition that the buyer agree to a repackaging to make the rest of the 39 gigahertz band usable. Still, it is intriguing leverage for the owner of Straight Path.
Moffett offers one further thought, which is that given T-Mobile US’s (TMUS) holdings of millimeter wave licenses, it will “see their values soar,” meaning the value of the licenses.
Ex Parte Notice from T Mobile
Finally, we urged the Commission to ensure there is an adequate supply of
licensed millimeter wave (“mmW”) spectrum. In this regard, we recommended
that they make more licensed spectrum available as part of the Spectrum
Frontiers proceeding and that spectrum such as the terminated FiberTower
licenses should be returned to the FCC for re-auction.
You guys are arguing against yourself, what you want the FCC to say, is that the Debtor Estate is the owner of the 692 licenses, therefore shareholders are in line to be paid following the payments of the remaining debt to the secure and unsecured creditors
he Second Circuit, however, reversed and remanded. First and foremost, the Second Circuit concluded that the lower courts did indeed lack jurisdiction to decide the question of whether NextWave P.C. had satisfied the regulatory conditions placed by the FCC upon its retention of the licenses.
The court determined that the FCC's auction rules under §309(j) "have primarily a regulatory purpose: to ensure that spectrum licenses end up in the hands of those most likely to further congressionally defined objectives." Id. at 54. Further, the court held that by allowing NextWave P.C. to retain the licenses for a fraction of the bid price, the lower courts had impaired the FCC's method for selecting licensees and had effectively exercised the FCC's radio licensing function without any power whatsoever to do so. Id. at 55.
Lastly, the court found that the transfer date, for purposes of the fraudulent conveyance analysis, was the auction close date, based both on general auction law principles and on the FCC's interpretation of its own regulations, which interpretation had been issued during the pendency of the NextWave P.C. bankruptcy dispute. Id. at 58-59. Accordingly, the court determined, there was no constructive fraud since NextWave P.C. had received equivalent value for its debt obligation—the licenses valued at the $4.74 billion winning bid amount. Id. at 57.
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in:
I don't see Bankruptcy Court, therefore only the FCC has the authority to remove the shareholders from ownership of the 692 licenses
I posted an opinion, in which it has a foundation in regulatory oversight
The Bankruptcy Court has no authority to strip away the ownership of FCC Licenses........ Yes or NO
Simple, if the Fibertower / AT&T deal is for 1.2 billion, shareholders split 1.1 billion
Forget all the other stuff, the main aspect of this case is very simple, the Bankruptcy Court has no regulatory power to terminated wireless spectrum ownership, and their actions by approving the bankruptcy plan did just that. Case closed
Meant To Say
The Bankruptcy Court does not run the FCC, and unless you think differently, the court does N O T have the right to terminate the interest of shareholders in that property, the 692 licenses, until the dispute with the FCC has concluded
The Bankruptcy Court terminated the property rights of shareholders based on a monetary value given to the 692 licenses in dispute with the FCC. The Bankruptcy Court has no regulatory power to perform an action such as this.
Since the Reorganized Fibertower has not acquired the 692 licenses in a FCC approved transaction, the transfer application to place the 692 licenses with AT&T by the Reorganized Fibertower violates the property rights of the last FCC approved owner of the 692 licenses, the Fibertower Debtor's Estate.
The Bankruptcy Court does not run the FCC, and unless you think differently, the court does have the right to terminate the interest of shareholders in that property, the 692 licenses, until the dispute with the FCC has concluded
Simply Put, the Bankruptcy Court overreached by approving the bankruptcy plan in the manner in which they did.
The stay was put in place, in part, because the FCC could not justify an immediate need for them. So Judge Lynn felt it was in the best interest of the Fibertower Estate to hold them with the court until the last appeal was exhausted.
Protecting the Debtor's Estate is all that was done here, and had the FCC pushed the issue to the appeals court, the FCC could have gotten the stay lifted.
You did not answer the question ......... Who gave the Bankruptcy Court FCC
license termination ability ????
rfarmer, ask yourself this question, since the 692 licenses did not transfer to the reorganized Fibertower, who vested the bankruptcy court with the ability to terminate the right of shareholders to the 692 licenses.
The bankruptcy court is not an agent of the FCC
Somebody @ some point will realize, you attack the bankruptcy court, since only the FCC determines spectrum license ownership
Only the FCC has the vested power to approve license ownership, transfer, and termination ..... the bankruptcy court would seem to be engaging in FCC Policy by being a party to the denial of shareholder ownership of the disputed 692 licenses
Jurisdiction
Most significantly, it is worth noting that the question presented in NextWave did not raise, and the Court did not address, an issue of great importance to government entities in bankruptcy proceedings: the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to consider the legitimacy of agency action.
The Second Circuit's second opinion addressed the issue squarely, concluding that the "bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether the FCC's regulatory decision is a proper exercise of discretion, or to decide whether it is provident and in the public interest."
Rather, jurisdiction to review administrative action resides only in the courts invested with that power by the relevant organic statute (in this case, federal courts
The Supreme Court acknowledged this holding in a footnote, and
concluded that the D.C. Circuit, in its opinion, "recognized and seemingly approved" of the Second Circuit ruling. 125
The Supreme Court, by not ruling on the issue, therefore, let stand governing law-in the appeals courts that most frequently address administrative law and bankruptcy issues-that severely circumscribes bankruptcy court jurisdiction over issues that require review of agency action
Defining the Breach of Trust Claim
Rediscovering Texas cases that define breach of trust as a shareholder's cause of action against the corporation. Individual shareholder's remedy for violation of rights.
Cates used three descriptive terms to define breach of trust conduct: "injurious practices, abuse of power, and oppression"--the latter being conduct "clearly subversive of the rights of the minority, or of a shareholder." In describing the corporation's duties as trustee, Yeaman v. Galveston City Co. held that the corporation has a duty to each shareholder of "not attempting to impair his interests." Therefore, conduct which constitutes a breach of trust should be defined as follows: intentional use of the corporation's powers to cause injury to the interests of minority shareholder(s) or to benefit the majority to the relative disadvantage of the minority. This definition is consistent with the reasoning of the Court in Ritchie v. Rupe, in working through the statutory definition of “oppressive,” that the “common meaning and usage” of the term oppression involves “an unjust exercise of power that harms the rights or interests of persons subject to the actor’s authority and disserves the purpose for which the power is authorized.”
you could make that argument
Furthermore, AT&T is keenly aware that the reorganized Fibertower does not own the 692 licenses, they are only a bankruptcy court approve agent for the last FCC recognized owner of the 692 disputed licences, the Fibertower Debtor Estate.
As the Public Statement Clearly States FiberTower holds interests in 738 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses. The reorganized Fibertower does not own the property outright it's still in dispute. A transfer of the licenses to AT&T would be a sale of property that was last owned by 3 parties, secured creditors, unsecured creditors and shareholders.
The property rights of the shareholder are connected with the shareholder’s investment into the company “stock” constitutes an undivided partial ownership interest in the corporation, which the courts analogize to a trust fund made up of the assets, opportunities, and business operations of the corporate enterprise.
And since it is the FCC that determines license spectrum ownership, the bankruptcy court approved Fibertower reorganization plan can only pertain to property not in dispute, the court can not extinguish the property rights of shareholders when the property ownership remains in some form of litigation. The FCC agreed to the transfer of 46 licenses to the reorganized Fibertower, a legal transaction. The rest of the property remains part of the estate, protected by the bankruptcy court, and with last FCC recognized owner of record, the Fibertower Debtor Estate.
The reorganized Fibertower is attempting a magic act of property reassignment by using the bankruptcy court as their stage.
Long Story Short, I have to believe Art Samberg is well aware of what's going on.
As for us Shareholders, and this is a very important point, the FCC does not currently recognize the reorganized Fibertower as the owners of the 692 licenses. The last recognized owners of the 692 licenses by the
FCC was the company that declared bankruptcy. And while it would be within the power of the FCC to allow a transfer of the licenses to AT&T, it would seem to me, especially as a government agency, that the FCC would make sure the money involved in the transaction went to the company that they and only they recognize as the owners of the 692 licenses, prior to when the FCC decided to revoke the 692 licenses
The bankruptcy court certainly has the power to rule that the reorganized Fibertower can act as an agent for the return of the 692 licenses, but it is the FCC who approves any transfer of property
Is this not a Property Rights Case ????
easier to just e mail the clerk
We might want to find out who replaced Judge Lynn
The petition to deny may not be the right forum to direct the shareholder argument, however what it does do is get the shareholder story out in the open. The reorganized Fibertower are upset by the way they have been treated by the FCC, yet their behavior towards the shareholders is equally reprehensible, to which their wilful blindness should not be tolerated.
The reality of the situation regarding the actual value of the disputed licenses is simple, in a world where robots could eliminate 30 to 50 percent of the current jobs in this country, their strength will come from super high speed wireless platforms. So the true value of the disputed licenses is likely in the 3 to 5 billion dollar range today. Next year it could be 5 to 7 billion and perhaps as high as 10 billion.
Nobody gives a hoot about your questions, until the FCC makes a decision, which may not be a positive one for FIbertower / AT&T, folks know this inside baseball stuff is completely out of their hands.
Since Straight Path offers the same type of spectrum as Fibertower, and also has a deal with AT&T, sharing an opinion of what the actual value of Fibertower might be, offers a point of discussion in the event that the reorganized Fibertower does make a token offer to cancelled common shareholders
Interesting Seeking Alpha Comment regarding potential value of Straight Path
thebottomfeeder
you need to do a deep due diligence on the spectrum market and also understand where 39ghz fits in. I desperately tried to understand Kerrisdale's reason for shorting to challenge my confidence in my long position. Forget what you know of a stock value and look at STRP as purely holding a limited asset that will be crucial to enable the next wave of technology. Also remember since there is very little outstanding shares any bump in offer will shoot the stock way up. STRP owns a contiguous nationwide footprint that T, VZ and perhaps the likes of an
Amazon may highly covet. $1.6b or even $3b is nothing compared to the services that can be extracted out of it over many years. I enjoy the debate as I am holding long and will make a lot of money if the original offer holds or goes beyond. I do advise those who want to bet lower prices here to be careful as a bidding could take the share price way beyond what you think is possible (again remember low amount of outstanding shares).
One last thing - no one can read what the VZ CEO meant in his statement. He of course can only say so much. We may not see any news for weeks or beyond on this matter, so nothing can be concluded based on silence.
You could ask Art directly
https://twitter.com/artsamberg?lang=en
Nothing wrong with following the 5G Industry while we wait for the FCC
And the articles reinforce what shareholders understand most, the disputed
licenses have always had a much greater dollar value then has been stated
Also by posting a 5G update or two, it does seem to keep folks engaged, for
example, your reply, and as for shareholders getting cash @ the end of this
process, the uniqueness of this case does offer a range of possible
outcomes that may or may not benefit shareholders, only time will tell.
At NYU Tandon summit, a new world of 5G on display
Super-fast phones! Smarter robots! Autonomous cars! What exactly the future holds is unclear, said speakers at Thursday's summit, but stronger, quicker and more connected cellular infrastructure is on its way.
https://technical.ly/brooklyn/2017/04/21/nyu-tandon-summit-new-world-5g/
The industry, namely 3GPP, has a lot of work to do if it’s going to meet the December 2017 deadline to finalize the specifications for Non-Stand Alone (NSA) 5G New Radio (NR), but participants in a panel appearing at the Brooklyn 5G Summit seem to think it’s achievable.
AT&T is prioritizing the NSA version as opposed to the stand-alone (SA) version in part because “we’ve got a lot of LTE out there,” and there isn’t going to be widespread 5G coverage for a while, he said.
Plus, in the U.S., there hasn’t been new spectrum that has been allocated that the industry can use for 5G with the possible exception of 3.5 GHz. That CBRS band, however, has some rules that don’t make it terribly attractive for a base 5G layer. “The FCC is taking another look at some of those rules around the licensing structure, and that may change,” he said. “If that licensing structure changes, we may find that the 3.5 GHz band is a good band for us to be looking at,” and it goes from 3.55 to 3.7 GHz.
In general for millimeter wave spectrum, AT&T will be relying heavily on 39 GHz spectrum since Verizon pretty much snapped up a lot of the 28 GHz and AT&T is making some key acquisitions for 39 GHz, but it still will probably be doing some things at 28 GHz.
T Mobile pleading
A re-auction of the terminated FiberTower licenses is especially necessary in view of the announcement earlier this week that AT&T plans to buy Straight Path Communications (“Straight
Path”), one of the largest holders of high-band spectrum in the United States.2 Allowing AT&T to obtain FiberTower’s terminated licenses and the 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses currently held by
Straight Path would give AT&T far too much control over spectrum in the mmW bands. Such an outcome, in turn, would undermine the Commission’s well-established mobile spectrum holdings policies and threaten competition, innovation, and efficiency at a time when the deployment of 5G
depends on fostering and promoting those conditions.
Straight Path Communications (NYSEMKT:STRP) is up 3.6% after hours on a report that Verizon (NYSE:VZ) is considering topping AT&T's (NYSE:T) $1.25B bid for the small spectrum holder.
A Straight Path filing mentions a third party evaluating an offer who today sent a letter to the company about topping AT&T; Reuters reports that's Verizon.
Straight Path is holding prized millimeter-wave spectrum that will be key to 5G networking; both AT&T and Verizon have been conducting trials of the next-gen standard.