InvestorsHub Logo

condoe3

04/29/17 11:04 AM

#2192 RE: wirelessman77 #2191

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.

condoe3

04/29/17 11:10 AM

#2193 RE: wirelessman77 #2191

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