Attachment LETTER

LETTER

LETTER submitted by OMD,FCC

LETTER

2009-10-01

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20060511-00057 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2006051100057_747341

                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                                        Washington, D. C. 20554
                                             OCT 1    2008
OFFICE OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR


     BY FACSIMILE TO (425) 376—8636 AND BY EXPEDITED DELIVERY SERVICE

     Mr. Bruce S. Echigoshima
     Western Region Surety Claims
     Post Office Box 34670
     Seattle, WA 98124

                                         Re: Principal: ATCONTACT Communications, LLC
                                         Bond Number: 6321647

     Dear Mr. Echigoshima:

            Thank you for your letter (Letter) dated September 3, 2009," on behalf of Safeco
     Insurance Company of America (Safeco) acknowledging our demand" (Demand) for payment of
     the amount due on the above referenced bond (Bond). In accordance with paragraph 3 of the
     Bond,* our Demand, which included a copy of the relevant Order," notified Safeco that the
     Commission issued a Notice of Default of the satellite authorization issued to ATCONTACT
     Communications, LLC (ATCONTACT).© We have complied with all conditions precedent, and
     we believe that under the ordinary meaning of the terms of the Bond (taking into account
     subsequent riders to the maximum penal sum), Safeco is obligated to pay three million dollars
     ($3,000,000) no later than October 5, 2009, which is "thirty (30) business days of [the] Notice of
     Default." Safeco‘s Letter, however, requests the Commission "either withdraw its claim or stay
     any demand until all administrative and/or judicial remedies have been exhausted by

     ‘ Letter to Mark Stephens, Federal Communications, Satellite Division, International Bureau (sic), 455 Twelfth
     Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 (September 3, 2009) (Safeco Letter). We note that Mark Stephens is the
     Commission‘s Chief Financial Officer, and not assigned to the Satellite Division of the International Bureau.
     * We understand that on September 22, 2008, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. finalized its acquisition of Safeco, but
     such acquisition does not alter our contact with Safeco.
    _3 Among other things, see Letter to Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco Plaza, 1001 4"" Avenue, Seattle,
     WA 98184 (August 26, 2009). Unless we are advised otherwise, this and future correspondence from us will be to
     your stated return address.
     * Paragraph 3 provides in relevant part:

              In the event of a Notice of Default (i.e., an order or public notice revoking Principal‘s
             authorization) issued by the FCC to the Principal and the Surety regarding the performance of the
             milestones specified above during the terms of this bond, the Surety shall be liable only up to the
             current outstanding maximum penal sum amount after giving effect to applicable milestone
             reductions.

     * ATCONTACT Communications, LLC, Order, DA 09—1850, (IB, rel. August 21, 2009) (A4uthorization
     Revocation).
     ° contactMEO Communications, LLC, Order and Authorization, DA—06—864, 21 FCC Red 4035 (Int‘l Bur. 2006)
     (ATCONTACT Authorization). In June 2006, the licensee notified the Commission that it changed its name from
     contactMEO Communications, LLC to ATCONTACT Communications, LLC. Letter to Marlene H. Dortch,
     Secretary FCC, from James M. Talens, Counsel to ATCONTACT Communications, LLC (June 5, 2006).


[ATCONTACT].”7 In regard to that request, Safeco states it had "not yet had an opportunity to
hear from [its] principal directly[,] and [Safeco is] unaware if there are any valid defenses to [the
Commission‘s] claim against the bond."" Furthermore, Safeco stated an impression that
ATCONTACT was "evaluating its options," including "1) pay the amount of the claim; 2) move
for reconsideration of the administrative ruling or 3) file an appeal in District Court." We note,
ATCONTACT filed a Petition for Reconsideration and a Motion for Stay, but the filings do not
alter Safeco‘s obligation."

         Safeco‘s obligations under the terms of the Bond are clear, and time is of the essence, i.e.,
the payment date is October 5, 2009. The Bond iterates ATCONTACT‘s five milestones,"" only
two of which ATCONTACT met. Indeed, as is evident from the Authorization Revocation,
ATCONTACT failed to meet its burden of proof to satisfy its third milestone to "[blegin the
physical construction of the first satellite by October 15, 2008," hence the authorization is null
and void. Moreover, ATCONTACT stated it "no longer intended to proceed with its NGSO
satellites and two of its GSO satellites.""‘ Finally, we note that ATCONTACT‘s authorization
contained a fourth milestone, to "[cJomplete construction and launch the first satellite by October
15, 2009.""" Hence, we expected Safeco to provide either payment of the amount due or a
detailed explanation why Safeco believes it is permitted to defer a timely payment in compliance
with its contractual obligation. We now specifically request that Safeco respond whether it has
further reviewed the tentative position expressed in the Letter, and that Safeco provide us with a
detailed discussion of its current position on the matter.

       In summary, Safeco has not to date provided a persuasive argument why payment to the
United States should be deferred. Moreover, if such reason does exist, it has not been presented
by Safeco or ATCONTACT. Because we invite Safeco to provide us with the results of its
discussion with ATCONTACT, and we seek Safeco‘s reasoned explanation why it believes
payment should be deferred, we will not act in further response to the Bond terms, or otherwise
exercise any right thereto without first providing Safeco a courtesy notification of our intent and
a period of ten (10) calendar days to comply. Should there be a decision on ATCONTACT‘s




" Safeco Letter, [ 2.
8 1d., 43.
° Under 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), the Authorization Revocation was effective and binding upon its release.
 Rond, [ #1; see also 47 C.F.R. § 25.164; A4TCONTACT Authorization, { 68; and Authorization Revocation, " 3.
" Authorization Revocation,   5.
° ATCONTACT Authorization, [ 68.


Petition for Reconsideration and Motion for Stay in the interim, we will notify Safeco of the
outcome. Any deferment in this regard is not and should not be construed as a waiver of any
right of enforcement of the terms of the Bond.

                                             Sincerely,
                                          Q/—’»‘\




                                               ark Stephens
                                             Chief Financial Officer

Copies to:

James M. Talens
Counsel for ATCONTACT Communications, LLC
6017 Woodley Road
McLean, VA 22101

contactMEO Communications, LLC
Attention: David Drucker, Manger
2539 North Highway 67
Sedalia, CO 80135

Pantelis Michalopoulos
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036—1795



Document Created: 2019-04-09 05:00:35
Document Modified: 2019-04-09 05:00:35

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC