Written EX PARTE Presentation (June 27, 2000)

0006-EX-TU-2000 Text Documents

COMSAT Corporation

2000-07-27ELS_40195

                           Dow, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, »ruc
                                                ATTORNEYS          AT   LAW


Raymonn G. BENDER Jr.                            wasHINGTON, D.C.                                      ONE RAVINIA DRIVE . SUITE 1600
  DIRECT DIAL 2027762758                                                                               ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30346—2108
     rbender@dlalaw.co m   1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W. — SUITE 800 — WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036—6802   TELEPHONE 770—901—8800
                                    TELEPHONE 202—776—2000 + FACSIMILE 202—776.—2222                   FACSIMILE 770.901—8874




                                                     June 27, 2000




  Magalie Roman Salas, Esquire
  Secretary
  Federal Communications Commission
  The Portals
  445 12th Street, S.W.
  Washington, D.C. 20554

                  Re:      WRITTEN EX PARTE PRESENTATION
                           Transfer of Control of COMSAT Corporation
                           and its Subsidiaries: File Nos. 0005—EX—TC—2000;
                           0006—EX—TC—2000; 0007—EX—TC—2000; 0008—EX—TC—2000

  Dear Ms. Salas:

          On May 30, 2000, the Litigation Recovery Trust ("LRT") filed with the Commission a
  "Petition for Protective Orders" in connection with the pending applications of COMSAT
  Government Systems, LLC ("CGS—LLC"), a wholly—owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin
  Corporation ("Lockheed Martin"), and COMSAT Corporation ("COMSAT") for a transfer of
  control of COMSAT. For reasons discussed below, CGS—LLC and Lockheed Martin urge the
  Commission to dismiss the LRT Petition as procedurally defective. More importantly, LRT has
  raised no substantive issue appropriate for FCC consideration in the context of the pending
  transfer applications.

         First, the LRT Petition is procedurally defective because it was not filed by the pleading
  deadline established by the Commission for this proceeding. Specifically, interested parties were
  required to file petitions or comments concerning the transfer applications on or before May 4,
  2000.‘ The LRT Petition, which shows an FCC date—stamp of May 30, 2000, was filed nearly a
  month after the May 4 deadline, without a prior request for extension of time and without any
  explanation as to why the filing deadline could not be met. Moreover, while the transfer
  applications involve a "permit—but—disclose" proceeding under the Commission‘s ex parte rules,

  ‘ See FCC Public Notice, Report No. SAT—00040, released April 4, 2000; see also Section
  25.154 (a)(2) of the Commission‘s rules, which provides that "[pletitions to deny, petitions for
  other forms of relief, and other objections or comments must ... be filed within thirty (30) days
  after the date of public notice announcing the acceptance for filing of the application..." 47 CFR
  § 25.154 (a)(2).


Magalie Roman Salas, Esquire
June 27, 2000
Page 2

the LRT Petition failed to comply with basic procedural requirements applicable to such ex parte
filings." For these reasons, the LRT Petition is procedurally flawed and should be dismissed as
an unauthorized and impermissible filing.

        Second, while LRT fully supports grant of the transfer applications, it requests the
adoption of certain "protective orders" and other relief. In effect, the LRT Petition is nothing
more than a compilation of past and pending FCC proceedings brought by LRT and its associates
against COMSAT, together with a request that the FCC address those matters in connection with
the transfer applications. However, LRT‘s past allegations have no nexus to the Lockheed
Martin/COMSAT applications or to the public interest factors supporting their grant. In fact,
most of LRT‘s allegations previously have been found by the Commission to be meritless."
To the extent any matters described in the LRT Petition remain pending before the Commission,
either on reconsideration or otherwise, the Commission should address such issues in other
proceedings.* Indeed, the FCC‘s general practice is not to burden merger or transfer applications
with unrelated claims, but rather to address such matters in other, more appropriate proceedings."
Accordingly, the LRT Petition should be dismissed without further consideration, and LRT
should not be permitted to delay FCC action on the pending transfer applications.

         Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission‘s rules, an original and seven copies of
this letter are being filed with the Secretary for association with the above—referenced
application.




 See Section 1.1206 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.
‘ See In re COMSAT Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Red 2714 (1998).
Many of these claims also have become moot with passage of the ORBIT Act and the sale of
certain COMSAT businesses.
* It is well settled that the Commission may defer specific matters that come before it to a
proceeding better suited to consider the issue. See In re Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al,
Memorandum, Order and Authorization,. 14 FCC Red 15816, 15840 (1999). Indeed, the courts
have afforded the FCC broad discretion to choose how best to address particular issues that
confront it. See generally MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F.2d4 30, 42 n.14 (D.C.
Cir. 1990) ("FCC acted well within its discretion" when deferring an issue to a proceeding better
suited to consider the issue).
° See e.g., Craig O. McCaw, Transferor, and American Telephone and Telegraph Company,
Transferee, For Consent to the Transfer of Control of McCaw Cellular Communications Inc. and
its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Red 5836, 5920 (1994), affd SBC
Communications, Inc. et al., v. FCC, 56 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Contel Corporation,
Transferor, and GTE Corporation, Transferee, For Consent to Transfer of Control of
Authorizations held by Contel Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Red 1003,
1005 (1991).


Magalie Roman Salas, Esquire
June 27, 2000
Page 3


       Should any question arise with regard to this matter, kindly communicate with the
undersigned.




                                            C.+
                                            Very truly yours,




                                            Raymond G. Bender, Jr.
                                            Counsel for COMSAT Government Systems, LLC
                                              and Lockheed Martin Corporatio

RGB/db
co:      James Ball, Esquire
         Sasha Field, Esquire
         James Burtle, Esquire



Document Created: 2001-07-26 21:05:42
Document Modified: 2001-07-26 21:05:42

© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC